[Senate Hearing 110-1045]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1045
REDUCING GOVERNMENT BUILDING OPERATIONAL COSTS THROUGH INNOVATION AND
EFFICIENCY: LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 28, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-924 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 28, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 4
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.... 23
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 26
Carper, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..... 28
WITNESSES
Winstead, David, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S.
General Services Administration................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Callahan, Kateri, president, Alliance to Save Energy............. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 40
Townshend, Melanie, project executive, Gilbane Building Company,
on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America..... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 47
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Charts:
Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center: photovoltaic roof panels. 14
San Francisco Federal Building: natural ventilation scheme... 15
NOAA green roof.............................................. 16
Letter from James L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on
Environmental Quality.......................................... 18
Fact Sheet, Green Globes, Green Building Assessment and Rating
System; LEED Green Building Rating System, Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design....................................... 46
REDUCING GOVERNMENT BUILDING OPERATIONAL COSTS THROUGH INNOVATION AND
EFFICIENCY: LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Alexander, Carper, Inhofe,
Klobuchar, and Sanders.
Senator Boxer. The committee will come to order.
I am very pleased to be here and to welcome our guests.
They can take their seats at the table: David Winstead,
Commissioner of the Public Buildings Services, GSA; Kateri
Callahan, president, Alliance to Save Energy on the second
panel; and Melanie Townshend, project executive, Gilbane
Building.
So just Panel 1, David, and then whoever you brought with
you if you want to.
This is going to be a very painless and quick hearing
because there is such broad agreement on the committee about
the bill we are going to talk about. We are very pleased that
the White House has been very supportive of our efforts. We
have worked with them very, very closely, Senator Inhofe and I.
I particularly would like to mention, and we really did
save paper by doing this. OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Mr. Connaughton, who we worked with very
closely, and Marty Hall, who I think the Ranking Member knows
really well. I just wanted to mention the work that we all did
together. I am going to put my statement in the record, so as
to save time. I just want to stress a few things.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. We have the capability to save a lot of
money for taxpayers if we put in energy efficient lighting and
energy efficient technologies. Since this committee does have
the authority over the GSA and government buildings, it seemed
to us that this was a way to go. We should be a model of energy
efficiency.
The way we did this bill, I am very pleased that we have
cut through a lot of bureaucracy, because we say to GSA, in
every single building, every single GSA building, and I will
tell you how many buildings we have, and I will have to find
that in here. It will take me a second. OK, here it is, 1,550
buildings are owned by the GSA, and 7,000 buildings are leased.
When this bill becomes law, each building will have a manager,
so that we will have one person in every building responsible.
It is not an add-on person. We are assigning it to someone who
is there, and they will be responsible. In essence, the buck
will stop with that individual.
The bill requires that we have GSA quickly review available
highly efficient lighting technologies, replace the old
inefficient lighting with highly efficient lighting as quickly
as they can. Within 5 years, they have to finish the test and
the bill requires that every improvement we make have a payback
period of no more than 5 years, and after that, the taxpayers
really start to see savings.
The bill also requires GSA to complete a broader plan to
achieve a 20 percent reduction in operating costs in the
buildings, and they have to do that within 5 years using energy
efficient technologies and practices.
Finally, and I think very importantly, our bill creates a
$20 million per year EPA demonstration grant program to help
local governments make their buildings 40 percent more
efficient.
Now, here is what I want to tell the committee. It seems
like this is a small bill, but it does have a broad impact
because there are over 19,000 municipalities in the United
States and over 3,000 counties. We know many of them have many,
many buildings. But let's just say for purposes of debate is we
don't know the exact number, and maybe, Commissioner, you will
be able to find us a number because I know you are interested
in this.
If every entity, city and county, just had two buildings,
that would be over 44,000 buildings. So you have 44,000
buildings there and you have thousands of buildings run by the
GSA, let's say 9,000. You are really talking about a lot of
buildings. The communities that receive the grant could install
insulation in addition to making the lighting improvements. If
it turns out that shade trees will cut down the air
conditioning bills, they can use the money for that, and so on.
The last point I want to make is that buildings contribute
38 percent to the emission of greenhouse gases. So that is
important, and that is mentioned by the Administration, that
that is a real spinoff effect of what we are doing. So I think
we have shown that Senator Inhofe and I, and Senator Alexander
has been extremely helpful on this, Senator Lautenberg as well.
As a matter of fact, we have is it nine cosponsors? Nine
cosponsors of this bill, so we are really proving that we can
work in a bipartisan way. I look at this bill as a confidence-
building measure for this committee. I am very pleased that
Senator Inhofe and I have been able to reach agreement on this.
These things are not as easy as they seem, and we were able to
work together on this.
So we are ready to have a hearing on this bill, and then
tomorrow, we are going to mark up this bill, and we are going
to mark up WRDA. For that, I want to give a special thanks in
advance to Senator Inhofe, Senator Isakson, Senator Baucus,
Senator Alexander, as well as others who really helped us.
So thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Senator Inhofe, if you would like to make an
opening statement, we would love to hear from you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chair. [Remarks off mic.]
I recall back when we were both serving in the House. I was
the Ranking Member on the subcommittee that dealt with GSA for,
I guess, 6 of the 8 years that I was there. One of the things
that I always wanted to be sure is that we didn't impose upon
the private sector, on the contractors some of the things that
would end up being a mandate, that would not be to their
benefit.
So I think the fact that we have on our panel today Ms.
Townshend who is going to be testifying that it isn't a problem
now, but I wouldn't want this to be a predicate to something we
do in the future that is not in this bill that would perhaps be
a hardship on the private sector. I don't see that that is
happening.
So I look forward to going ahead and getting this done, and
with this great relationship that we have that we agree so much
more than people realize.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing to
discuss ways to increase efficiency in building operations.
Innovation and efficiency have been cornerstones of American
industry and society, from post-Revolution industrialization, to Henry
Ford's assembly line, to the post-World War II boom, right up through
today's continued economic growth. Using less to do more has long been
a principle that has helped the United States become the most
prosperous Nation the world has ever seen. And along with developing
new domestic sources of energy and ensuring a diverse energy supply,
increasing efficiency is an important part of enhancing our overall
energy security.
Recent years have seen great strides in the area of energy
efficiency. Out of 105 recommendations in President Bush's 2001
National Energy Policy, more than half specifically address efforts to
improve energy efficiency and to improve the performance and lower the
cost of alternative forms of energy. Additionally, the President
recently signed Executive Order 13423, which directs Federal agencies
to implement sustainable practices for energy efficiency as well as
high-performance buildings, recycling, and renewables, among others.
In 2006, 20 Federal agencies and the White House Counsel on
Environmental Quality signed a Memorandum of Understanding titled
``Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings.''
In signing on to the Memorandum, these Agencies committed to optimizing
energy performance and conserving water in their buildings, as well as
enhancing indoor environmental quality and reducing the environmental
impact of building materials. The General Services Administration is
one of the signatories of that Memorandum--welcome, Commissioner
Winstead, and I look forward to your testimony.
And the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains numerous provisions
pertaining to energy efficiency. There are standards and incentives
that address private homes, commercial buildings, and Federal
facilities. There are tax credits available for homeowners and home-
builders who meet energy efficiency requirements, and deductions for
commercial buildings that meet a 50-percent energy reduction standard.
New Federal standards include a 30-percent reduction below ASHRAE
standards in energy use for new buildings, and new standards for 15
large appliances. According to the Senate Energy Committee, the energy
savings from the new efficiency standards put forward in the Energy
Policy Act will be equal to eighty (80) 600-megawatt power plants by
the year 2020.
Madam Chairman, I am glad that Democrats in leadership positions,
such as yourself, are ready to embrace this Administration's stance on
energy efficiency measures, and I am glad to cosponsor the ``Public
Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007'' with you, although I still have
some questions about how the program would work. However, in
considering legislation, we should always be cautious of any new
mandates we are creating. I welcome today Ms. Melanie Townshend, who is
testifying on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America.
In her testimony, Ms. Townsend will discuss concerns that I have heard
expressed by many others about favoring one green building standard
over others in legislation--what would essentially be brand endorsement
by law.
I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today. Thank
you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I always want to make you feel better.
Senator Inhofe. I feel pretty good anyway.
Senator Boxer. But I will make you feel even better because
you had a little bit of angst over where I might be headed, and
I want you to know that I served on the Board of Supervisors
and I believe that planning decisions reside with the local
people. I do think, though, that what we are doing here will
make people take a look and see that it makes sense to do this
for them, because they save money at the end of the day.
Senator Inhofe. I was Mayor of a major city for three
terms, four terms I guess, and we looked for things like this
coming out of Washington, with some skepticism. In this case, I
think it has passed the test.
Senator Boxer. Very good. I am very happy.
With that, Commissioner, please.
Mr. Winstead. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. I wanted to not bypass Senator Alexander,
who was so key to us in this.
I am so sorry. Senator, please?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you for the courtesy. I will be
short, but I would like to say two things. One is, I wanted to
thank you and Senator Inhofe for your leadership on this, and
not only on the substance of it, but in the way you have worked
on, including other members of the committee on both sides. I
thank you very much. It is the way I hope the committee can
work.
Second, it builds on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that we
passed. I was on that committee for the last 4 years, and we
found on that committee that we had some pretty big differences
on some issues, but a consensus emerged pretty quickly on the
value of conservation and efficiency. It was the easiest thing
to do and the first thing to do.
We Americans have big appetites, and so we sometimes want
to use all the energy that we can use. I know I have been
guilty of that, and we are a big wide open country. But I think
more and more we are seeing that nuclear powerplants are
expensive, gas plants are expensive and the gas is getting more
expensive. Carbon for coal recapture is still a technology we
have to work on. Energy independence is a problem. Giant wind
turbines are unsightly.
So the best option, when we can do it, is conservation and
efficiency. This is a wonderful way to do it, setting a good
example so that Mayors and Supervisors and Governors across the
Country can follow our example.
The John J. Duncan Building in Knoxville, TN has done an
aggressive lighting retrofit of the kind in this does. It is a
Federal building and they have great savings.
So I thank you for your leadership and allowing me to be a
part of it.
Senator Boxer. Thanks so much, Senator.
Commissioner.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. WINSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Winstead. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Senators, it is nice to be here today. I am
David Winstead, Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service. I
was appointed in October 2005. Prior to that, I was with a law
firm here in Washington that did a lot of real estate work, so
I have had many, many years background in real estate.
I am very proud to be here on behalf of GSA and
representing the Public Buildings Service, and talking to this
bill and its objectives. As you know, we have some 6,000
professionals around the Country in 11 regions dealing with our
real estate portfolio and managing our energy conservation,
energy efficiency programs.
I am pleased to discuss some of the activities. You have a
statement from me in the record that covers a lot of what we
have done, a lot of the issues that are moving forward on the
objectives of this bill. I am pleased about the activities that
we have done to date at GSA to reduce operating costs through
efficiency and innovation.
First, I obviously want to thank the committee and you for
the leadership of not only pushing this bill, but also the
accommodations in drafting it based upon our experience, both
with our building operations and our energy efficiency
initiatives.
Also the goals are achievable. I agree with the chairman of
the Council on Environmental Quality who has submitted a letter
in support of this proposed bill, so we are in concurrence. My
full statement supports this legislation.
Today, I would like to just do some brief introductory
remarks. I would like to focus in on our energy management
activities, addressing three basic areas. First starting with a
synopsis of things that we have done at GSA to date. Madam
Chair, we chatted about that a little bit before the hearing.
Then discuss some of the new directions that we are taking,
both in our building program, new buildings underway. We have
built over 50 new courthouses since 1992, as well as finish
with some suggestions as to how we would deal with this
legislation and implement it.
Your statement was accurate in terms of the consumption
buildings take. Some 40 percent of total energy used is
consumed by buildings around the United States, and about 70
percent of that consumption is in electricity. At GSA, we are
demonstrating energy reduction and cost savings through both
integrated design of our new buildings. We have a Design
Excellence Program that I know this committee is well aware of,
that currently has 15 courthouses in the pipeline and many
ports of entry. We are looking for energy reduction, cost
savings, and design implementation to save money and to have
more efficient lighting and heating and cooling systems.
What we have done to date is between 1985 and 2005, we
actually had reduced our energy consumption by 30 percent. In
2006, we achieved about a 4.7 percent reduction from a 2003
baseline, compared to the Energy Policy Act requirement of 2
percent. So we essentially are exceeding that benchmark of the
2005 Energy Policy Act by about 2.7 percent.
Since nearly 30 percent of the energy used in buildings is
for lighting and office equipment, we have targeted lighting
early on. Our goal of 10 percent reduction between 1985 and
2000 was largely achieved through lighting retrofits. Today, we
are welcoming a new generation of lighting systems and
controls.
I would mention that Kevin Kampshire is here today. He is
our Director of Research and our energy expert. If you have any
additional questions you might like on technology, I would be
happy to have him address that.
During the 1990s, as my statement mentioned, we basically
were changing from T8 bulbs to 2T8 bulbs, which essentially
used electronic ballast. This was a major initiative during
that period of time. For example, in the new Arraj Courthouse,
which we do have brochures for the committee today, and we do
develop these for all of our buildings, portraying their energy
efficiency and systems in place.
In that building, we actually incorporated energy and
lighting efficiency in designed structures. I actually toured
it not too long ago. Natural light is available through 75
percent of that courthouse, which is amazing when you are
walking through the corridors going to the courtrooms. We have
taken maximum use of the exposure of the light and the
positioning of the building. We are leaders in the purchase and
use of renewable power, with about 3.285 million BTUs in 2006.
In 2006 alone, 2.5 percent of our energy was attributable to
renewable power, versus the national average of about 2.3
percent. So then we exceeded by 2.2 percent the national
average.
This includes buildings, for example, the Binghamton
Federal Building in New York, which is the first Federal
facility powered 100 percent by renewable energy. This power
flows from a new wind turbine in Fenner, NY. We are under 100
percent wind-powered purchase for the National Park Service. As
you know, we service 50 to 60 agencies to provide electricity
for the Statue of Liberty. So the Statue of Liberty is now
powered by wind power.
In fiscal year 2006, we generated renewable energy from
solar and geothermal projects. We also funded photovoltaic
projects. For example, at the NARA facility for the archives in
Waltham, MA, we incorporated a photovoltaic panel on the roof.
I do have a copy of this. This is essentially the paneling that
we put on the roof of the building that is actually the surface
material for the building roof and incorporates the
photovoltaic panels, so no longer do you have those very
burdened, big panels, but it is actually incorporated into the
materials of the structure. There is a picture of that that I
think we have distributed to the committee.
In addition, we are funding a large photovoltaic PV system
at the Denver Federal Center, which is a very exciting project,
about 6.6 acres incorporated in that Energy Center. But the
Denver Federal Center is over 200 acres that we are
redeveloping for Federal tenants to use, and actually
incorporating transit. There is a new transit line going out to
Lakewood, CO that we are actually looking to build off
densities in the location of Federal workers in order to take
and foster new public transit.
Through the Denver Federal Center, we are saving about
$65,000 per year on electricity, while generating about
$340,000 in revenue through renewable energy credits. We are
both saving money as well as generating energy credits.
In our ongoing operations, we actively manage our energy
use through good management practices, including monthly
tracking of energy consumption, ongoing energy audits of our
buildings, as well as investments obviously authorized by this
committee and Congress through our new prospectuses. Our
operating costs are basically 5 percent less than similar
buildings. You will hear from some industry people today, but
we benchmark against BOMA operating costs and we are basically
5 percent below their operating costs.
We also pay 12 percent less for our utilities thanks to
GSA's energy experts that compete competitively natural gas and
electricity and green power. As I mentioned earlier, this is a
service to all our Federal agencies who wish to be included.
To talk about some of the new directions, the President
challenges all Federal agencies in his recent Executive Order
13423 to reduce energy consumption, increase the use of
renewable energy, and continue to find new technology. Our
initiatives have included new monitoring systems to help power
down computers when people forget to turn them off.
You have pictures of the new NOAA facility. I think it is
right here. This is this wonderful new structure in Suitland,
MD. Madam Chairman I invited earlier, and I would like to
extend it to all the committee to come out and view both this
facility and our new White Oak Campus for the FDA. This green
roof, which has been incorporated in the NOAA building in
Suitland, is not only saving us energy, but also is
aesthetically very, very pleasing in terms of a promenade where
employees of NOAA can actually walk out onto the paths, onto
the roof.
A new innovative building, as you might know, in San
Francisco will be dedicated this summer. It is designed to use
natural ventilation. The multi-stories office tower portion of
this relies on low humidity and moderate temperatures of the
San Francisco Bay Area, rather than mechanical air
conditioning. This rendering shows the San Francisco office
building that is largely completed. It will have a dedication
in the summer, as I mentioned.
Yes, Senator?
Senator Inhofe. Did I understand that you said this is
without refrigeration? Is this what you are talking about?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, it is. The tower portion of this
building is essentially naturally cooled by the air flows that
are coming from the San Francisco Bay Area, both by the
positioning of the building. There is a portion of the building
on the left side that for security reasons we had to have
enclosed, and that does have an HVAC system. But the large part
that you are viewing here is essentially cooled by natural air
flow.
Senator Inhofe. How many stories is that?
Mr. Winstead. Sorry, sir?
Senator Inhofe. How tall?
Mr. Winstead. I think it is eight stories, Senator.
Also, and I mentioned the FDA campus. We have a combined
heating and power system at the FDA campus which we are now
relocating from leased facilities in another part of Montgomery
County. It uses heat from electricity production to both heat
water, as well as the building air conditioning system.
I think GSA and the Federal Government needs to continue to
be a leader in all this, and by continuing to demonstrate and
test these new technologies, we can select strategies for a
wide variety of buildings in our inventory. But some of the
best opportunities we think for improving energy efficiency lie
in building modernization. As you know, out of our 1,500-odd
buildings, a lot of them are in the 1970s and 1980s and do
require enormous renovation. We devote $1 billion a year more
into renovation than capital programs.
We have actually realized a 60 percent drop in energy
consumption, for example, following the modernization of the
Bennett Federal Building in Jacksonville, FL. In Knoxville, TN,
the John J. Duncan Federal Building in Knoxville attained an
energy STAR rating of 94 and qualified for LEED certification,
which is a certification for energy efficiency. We saved
approximately 1.7 billion BTU in fiscal year 2005, and saved
about 400,000 gallons of water every year as a result of this
energy efficient technology.
To move on to some conclusions and suggestions, I would
mention----
Senator Boxer. I am going to have to ask you to summarize.
Mr. Winstead. Yes, ma'am.
Basically, just to conclude, we very much appreciate your
support and the authorization that we get about $30 million a
year for energy retrofitting because of our modernization
program. For our capital programs, you will be seeing in the
prospectuses coming to this committee what is intended in the
building systems for new courthouses, ports of entry and others
that we are building. With regard to renewable energy, we do
have a suggestion in terms of basically lengthening the time
that we have for current the current statute of limitations
from 10 years to 20 years, that we think will create more
economics in renewable energy, and allow us to purchase more of
that.
Madam Chair, that will conclude my remarks. I appreciate
this opportunity. I hope some of these projects--it is an 18-
story building, Senator, the San Francisco building, 18
stories--and we hope that these brochures that we will submit
with our testimony are helpful. We do have the NOAA facility
which talks about the energy systems there. We do have the
Arraj Building brochure that I mentioned, and also a state of
our portfolio that overviews all of our 1,500 buildings around
the Country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winstead follows:]
Statement of David L. Winstead, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service,
U.S. General Services Administration
Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Minority Member Inhofe and
Members of the Committee. My name is David Winstead and I am the
Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service in the U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA). Thank you for inviting me here today to
discuss GSA's activities to reduce Government building operating costs
through efficiency and innovation. Today, I will concentrate my remarks
on the areas that affect energy consumption. I will start with a
synopsis of things we have done, discuss the new work we are
undertaking, and finish with a couple of ideas that may aid this
Committee, or others, in addressing this important issue. But first, I
must thank the Committee and staff for the consideration and
accommodation in drafting proposed legislation about lighting and
energy conservation. We believe that working together, the bill as it
now stands is achievable and provides GSA an opportunity--which we
welcome--to demonstrate practical ways that the government can improve
operations, save energy, and improve the work environment. I also
understand that the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality has
submitted a letter to the Committee; I have read the draft of that
letter and concur with the support it expresses for this proposed bill.
We recognize that buildings in this country consume about 40 percent of
the total energy used in the United States and as much as 70 percent of
the electricity. GSA has an opportunity--and a responsibility--to lead
by example and to demonstrate how we can reduce energy consumption by
intelligently integrating energy efficiency in building design and
still create places where people can work effectively.
past energy conservation efforts
GSA has always made significant investments in energy saving
solutions. In fact, between 1985 and 2005, GSA achieved a 30 percent
reduction in energy consumption. Our utility costs are consistently
lower than those in the private sector. In 2006, GSA reduced the
overall energy consumption of its Federal inventory by 4.7 percent
compared to 2003 in response to the goals set in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. We achieved this reduction by direct investment in energy and
water conservation opportunities coupled with the concerted efforts of
our property managers working together with our tenants.
Lighting
Nearly 30 percent of the energy used in buildings is for lighting
and office equipment. During the early 1990s, GSA extensively
retrofitted existing building lighting systems--this was the ``low
hanging fruit''--by changing from T-12 lamps with magnetic ballasts to
T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts, coupled with motion sensors and new
combinations of reflectors and prismatic lenses. In fact, GSA met its
early energy reduction goals of 10 percent between 1985 and 2000
primarily through these retrofits. Since then, GSA has moved towards a
combination of alternative and direct financing of a new generation of
integrated lighting controls. While these are initially more costly and
more technologically challenging, they provide greater energy savings
in the long run. Interestingly, many projects were done in conjunction
with GSA's Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) chiller replacement initiative. As
we replaced old chillers that used ozone-depleting CFCs, we sought to
reduce the size of the new chillers by reducing the heat created by the
older, less efficient lighting systems.
It is interesting to note that today there is nearly 400 times as
much artificial lighting in buildings than there was a century ago--and
research is showing that the standards of even ten (10) years ago put
more light than we need in offices.
As we move toward the future, GSA is incorporating numerous
lighting initiatives in our workplaces that take advantage of
sophisticated strategies, such as daylight harvesting, and commercial
products that differentiate between task specific and ambient lighting
requirements.
The Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse in Denver is an excellent
example of how a variety of sustainable design strategies can work
together for energy and lighting efficiency. The public corridors of
the building are oriented to the southeast to maximize solar exposure.
Oversized windows provide visitors with a connection to the outdoors
and magnificent views of downtown Denver. High efficiency triple-glazed
windows minimize the need for heating and cooling. Internal light
shelves bounce daylight onto light-colored surfaces so that it is then
reflected deep into the interior. Even the light-colored limestone
floors contribute to the daylighting. Fluted glass panels bring
diffused daylight into the interior courtrooms and other spaces.
Overall, natural light is available throughout 75 percent of the
building.
Our regional offices in Atlanta and San Francisco are piloting
several types of advanced energy efficient lighting systems for
offices:
(1) ``Intelligent Lighting'' using light ballasts that can be
individually controlled by each person's computer, and are tied into
advanced controls that monitor activity
(2) Task-Ambient Lighting for Low Ceilings
(3) Fixture retrofit that provides individual light control and
that does not require re-wiring
By demonstrating and testing these new technologies, GSA gathers
the information necessary to select the strategy appropriate for the
different building conditions in its diverse inventory. For instance,
intelligent lighting is initially more expensive and more complex, but
offers an unprecedented energy savings, while task/ambient lighting for
low ceilings provides an energy effective solution for a lower budget
and is simpler to install and maintain.
Major challenges to future improvements in lighting efficiency are
the old suspended ceilings. At this point, newer, high efficiency
fixtures do not fit in old suspended ceilings. In the meantime, we are
working with our customers to find ways to reduce our energy
consumption. This can be as simple as remembering to turn off the
lights!
Renewable Energy
GSA is one of the nation-wide leaders in the purchase and use of
renewable power. We also consider opportunities for solar and other
renewable energy in our building design and retrofit programs. In 2006,
4.5 percent of our electricity was generated from renewable power or
bought through renewable energy certificates, compared with the
national average of 2.3 percent. And, as the cost for electricity and
natural gas has increased, we have found more opportunities to buy
renewable power at competitive prices.
Over the last 4 years, GSA has purchased a total of 949,984 Mega
Watt Hours (MWH) of energy from renewable sources through competitive
power contracts and through the use of green power programs offered by
local distribution companies.
The Binghamton Federal Building in New York State is the
first Federal facility in the Nation powered by 100 percent renewable
energy. The power flows from a new wind turbine installed at the Fenner
Wind Farm in the town of Fenner, New York. This project not only
demonstrated GSA's commitment to energy independence and environmental
stewardship but also helped to spur economic growth of a new industry
in a small community economy.
GSA awarded a contract to supply the National Park
Service's Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island with electricity generated
from 100 percent wind resources. The 3-year contract will supply
approximately 28 million kilowatt hours of renewable energy to the two
landmark sites. The Statue of Liberty is not only a beacon of freedom
to the rest of the world, but also a welcome sign of the future in
renewable energy.
In Fiscal Year 2006, GSA received an estimated 3,285 Million
British Thermal Units (MMBtu) in energy from self-generated renewable
projects. We estimate that:
543.7 Megawatt Hours (MWH) of the total came from GSA's 12
Solar Photovoltaic installations,
600 million btus came from GSA's two solar thermal
projects, and
830 million btus came from the one completed geothermal
project.
In Fiscal Year 2006, GSA funded two new photovoltaic (PV) systems:
The first is a 40 kilowatt array at the Trenton Courthouse Annex. The
2nd is a 300 kilowatt Building-Integrated PV system at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) facility in Waltham,
Massachusetts (near Boston). The NARA facility demonstrates a
completely integrated roof and solar system--the solar panels are the
roof. The flexible, flat panel photovoltaic array is heat-welded into
the roofing material and qualifies as a ``Cool Roof'' under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's EnergyStar program. The project is
estimated to save approximately $204,000 and 5,550 million btus
annually.
Just this year, we funded a project at the Denver Federal Center
(DFC) that will provide one megawatt solar photovoltaic facility on 6.5
acres. The array will save $65,000 per year in electrical charges while
generating $340,000 per year in revenue through the sale of renewable
energy credits. The energy obtained from the solar park will be fed
directly into the electrical grid and used at the DFC.
on-going operations
GSA actively manages its buildings. We currently operate our
buildings at costs 5 percent below private sector comparable buildings,
and for utilities we pay 12 percent less. Some of this lower cost is
directly attributable to the investments the Congress authorized and
GSA executed in energy conservation projects over the past 15 years.
Competitive Energy Procurements.--GSA's energy experts develop
procurement strategies for natural gas, electricity and green power to
achieve the best competitive price, taking into account the facility's
organizational goals--which may include budget stability, energy
reliability and security. We provide this service to all Federal
agencies--it is part of our mission.
Public Utilities.--To negotiate the best rates, GSA awards large
public utility area wide contracts for electricity, natural gas, steam,
chilled water, and water and sewage services that are regulated by
public utility commissions, utility cooperatives or municipal utility
companies. In many cases, these contracts allow for demand side
management services, which include alternative financing for energy
projects. In addition, GSA provides leadership in developing
contracting vehicles, allowing end-users to meet multiple Federal
energy requirements in both public law and executive orders.
Energy Tracking.--We track energy consumption monthly at every GSA
facility. Our system provides the status of energy trends as they
relate to past or future building actions.
Energy Audits.--GSA continuously conducts energy audits and retro-
commissioning studies of its inventory to identify life-cycle cost
effective energy conservation measures. Approximately 10 percent of our
space inventory is audited in any given year.
New Directions
GSA is piloting a new chiller efficiency monitoring and analysis
tool in 14 buildings with 34 plant chillers of varying sizes. If
successful this operational tool will:
Serve as a specific indicator of problems in chiller plant
equipment and operations.
Improve the efficiency and extend the life of existing
chillers and related equipment.
Provide optimal cost effective and efficient remedial
action to repair, replace, and enhance chiller plant operations
Provide energy savings, lower carbon emissions
Reduce future capital expenses
Reduce equipment down time resulting in reliable service
to customers
We are working with one of our large customers to integrate power
controls into their IT operations--establishing a monitoring system
that will reduce the electricity consumed by computers when people
forget to power down as they leave--no work gets lost, but substantial
electricity is saved. And speaking of computers, our customers can help
us dramatically reduce the energy they consume by replacing old TV-like
monitors with flat screens. Flat screen (LCD) monitors use only one-
third the amount of electricity as the old TV monitors, are better for
the worker--less eye strain--and produce less heat that we have to
dissipate with air conditioning.
future
The President has challenged all Federal agencies in his recent
Executive Order 13423 to reduce our energy consumption, to increase the
use of renewable energy and continue to find new technologies. We will
continue to use existing energy reduction measures, but we are also
researching new technologies that can help us reduce energy consumption
and reduce overall costs to the Government.
Currently, GSA is increasing its participation in load curtailment
and demand management programs sanctioned by utility companies and/or
system grid operators to further refine its lighting use. As energy use
generally peaks in the late afternoon for a short period of time, we
try to quickly reduce the major consumer of electricity in our
buildings: lights. We are looking at sophisticated lighting systems
that reduce illumination levels significantly enough to reduce total
building demand and still leave enough light for building occupants to
perform their work. In addition, GSA is strategically issuing
competitive electricity contracts in deregulated markets with contract
language that optimizes our demand limiting capability, thus resulting
in lower rates.
As I speak, we are changing our design guidance to reflect the new
legislative and Executive Order requirements. I should point out, even
without these revisions, our current version sets high standards for
lighting efficiency. This does not, however, diminish the need for
major improvements. For example, our latest standard--not published
yet--is to design for interior lighting at or below 0.9 watts per
square foot. In the 1970s, a typical installation would have been as
much as seven times as high, typically between 4 and 7 watts per square
foot.
Newer, more efficient lighting systems not only allow us to reduce
energy used for lighting, it also reduces the amount of heat produced
by the lights themselves. In turn, this will reduce the air
conditioning needed to cool a building, reduce the size of the
mechanical system and result in even greater energy savings. Although a
simple concept to understand, this approach demands an integrated,
whole building approach using recognized sustainable design principles.
To help us measure how well we are achieving an integrated, whole
building approach, GSA uses the LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) rating system in the design of New Construction
and Major Alteration projects.
GSA has incorporated the sustainable design practice of Green
(planted) roofs in some of our projects. These roofs range from small
tray systems to entire garden roofs. In Suitland, Maryland, we have
built one of the largest green roofs in the country, covering 170,000
square feet--nearly four acres. Green roofs reduce energy costs by
insulating the building and they also serve to reduce the ``heat
island'' effect that is produced by large buildings in urban areas.
Green roofs are also beneficial because they capture rainwater, which
serves to reduce water runoff into our sewer drains and in this area,
into the Chesapeake Bay.
In San Francisco, GSA is constructing a remarkable new Federal
building that minimizes its energy consumption by taking advantage of
favorable local conditions. This building is designed to self-ventilate
its occupants through a rather simple movement of airflow not from air
handling and cooling coils units but natural ventilation. That is a
great example of avoiding energy use. In the tower, there is no air
conditioning. The design of this building takes advantage of, and is
very sensitive, to the low humidity and moderate temperatures of the
Bay area. Simply put, its design is a good fit with its location.
The Energy Policy Act directs us to install advanced metering. We
will be doing that over the next few years, dependent on funding. We
started installing advanced meters in the Washington, DC and New York
areas even before the law required us to do so. In the long run,
advanced meters will save money by allowing us to manage power
consumption more strategically. For example, GSA was able to contribute
to the electrical management in the Washington area last summer by
``shedding load'' sometimes allowing buildings to get a little warmer
and more humid in the late afternoon--and thus, we helped avert major
brown-outs in this area. Perhaps more importantly, advanced metering
will help us buy power at better prices, because we will know our use
patterns in a way we just do not today.
Combined heat and power (CHP) systems can also be a source of both
energy security and savings. The Food and Drug Administration Office in
White Oak, Md. is a great case study. Using an energy savings
performance contract (ESPC) to install a 5.8 megawatt CHP facility as
part of the first phase of the campus build-out, we saved more than 37
million kilowatt-hours, $1.4 million in energy costs and $2.1 million
in annual operation and maintenance costs (FY 2003 data). The plant
provides reliable, uninterrupted on-site electric generation capability
for three facilities on campus--a laboratory, office building and
multi-use facility. Heat is recovered from the generating process to
produce hot water for building use and in the absorption process to
produce chilled water for air conditioning. The thermal efficiency of
the plant is increased by 30 percent while significantly reducing
pollution emissions. Furthermore, we plan to expand this system to
support 100 percent power generation for the entire campus once the
campus is complete. This will reduce the 25 megawatt load that the
local utility would otherwise have to accommodate.
funding
Some of the best opportunities for dramatic energy conservation are
in building modernizations. This requires capital but we can realize
significant pay-back. A couple of examples:
U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy and Water Management Award
recognized GSA's work on the Charles E. Bennett Federal Building in
Jacksonville, Fla., for its holistic redesign effort. Post-renovation
building energy consumption dropped more than 60 percent. Usage was
reduced by 23,781 thousand million btus, which is enough energy to
power 208 homes for one year.
The John J. Duncan Federal Building in Knoxville, Tenn.,
successfully attained an Energy Star rating of 94 and qualified for
LEED certification. Through the execution of a comprehensive building
re-commissioning and installation of a new building control system,
along with lighting upgrades and motion sensors, this resulted in
savings of approximately 1.7 billion btus in FY 2005, exceeding FY 2005
energy reduction goals by 33 percent. The restrooms were also
retrofitted with water-saving equipment, and new secondary meters were
placed on water supplies to reduce water sewage and runoff charges,
saving 400,000 gallons of water on a yearly basis.
In GAO's testimony in 2003, they noted that the backlog of repair
and alteration needs in GSA-controlled Federal buildings had a direct
impact on the energy efficiency of the buildings, including aging and
inefficient plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
systems
In recent years, GSA has been requesting--and Congress has been
appropriating--about $30 million annually for energy retrofit
projects--in addition to what is included in building modernization and
new construction project budgets or funded by Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs). We anticipate that the higher
conservation goals will increase that amount, and welcome the
opportunity to discuss that matter in the course of future years'
budget submissions.
It might be helpful if there were some flexibility in capital
projects (the ones for which we submit prospectuses) for GSA to
incorporate energy savings technology that was not included in the
design at the time the prospectus was submitted.
We also understand that for some renewable energy, wind power in
particular, if the Government were able to purchase power for a longer
period than the current statutory limit of ten (10) years, it might be
possible to both obtain very good prices for the Government, and
provide the financial security that would spur the development of new
sources of renewable power.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to talk about GSA's leadership role
in this area. I look forward to working with the Committee on this
matter of vital interest to our country.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. It was excellent
testimony.
Senator Inhofe was asking about the San Francisco building.
It is fascinating, but I wanted to share with him what Mark
Twain once said, ``The coldest winter I ever experienced was
the summer in San Francisco.'' Because it does get chilly
there, and we do have the advantage/disadvantage of having
these amazing cool-downs that Mother Nature has provided. That
is why it makes so much sense, and you can't have a one-size-
fits-all, obviously, because weather patterns differ.
But one of my biggest gripes I have had, and it had nothing
to do with, because when I was younger, I frankly wasn't
thinking about energy efficiency, was that you go into a
building where you really didn't want the air conditioning. You
wanted to just open a window. You couldn't open a window. Even
at that point in my life, I said, this can't be healthy; we
just keep breathing in this air, when we could just open a
window, and there was no window to open.
Simple things like that are going to make a big difference.
As you say, siting buildings where they get the benefit of the
sun. Just simple things are going to make a big difference.
I am very happy with your testimony. I think you just
showed us that you are very aware of this. I have a few
questions, but I wanted to, before I start them, and it will
take about 4 minutes for my questions, ask unanimous consent to
place in the record the letter from James Connaughton of the
CEQ, Council on Environmental Quality, where he says he
expresses his appreciation to this committee for working with
them and exchanging ideas on this bipartisan legislation.
Also on the fact that the legislation will present an
excellent opportunity to accelerate the GSA Lighting Retrofit
Program, because at the rate we were going, colleagues, you
know, this could have gone on for 9 or 10 years before it was
done. Now we are frontloading the Executive order of the
President, pushing it forward. As Mr. Connaughton said, the
bill also provides for an acceleration of the overall energy
efficiency goals in the Executive order. Then he goes on to say
he is pleased the bill recognizes the benefits of local
governments taking steps to improve their efficiency.
So I will put this letter in the record.
[The referenced document follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. I consider this a real milestone that we
were able to develop this with the Administration, and all of
us working together.
A couple of questions. I wanted to ask you, Commissioner,
because I was the one who was very strong on having an
individual in each GSA building that is responsible for this.
Do you feel that is a good workable way to go?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, as you know, that requirement or
suggestion in the bill has been reviewed by our people, and we
are comfortable with that. We do have full-time property
managers that are constantly managing the operation units in
the building, monitoring the energy. So I think it is
sustainable to have that focus that is directed by the
legislation.
Senator Boxer. Right. You can just name whoever you think
is the right person, and just make sure that they are
responsible, because one of the things that I have learned
after all these years is what went wrong--it is this guy. You
know? We just want to have that person that is responsible.
You mentioned it would be helpful, and I don't think that
this issue--does this issue reside with us, the contract length
of time? It resides with the Energy Committee?
Mr. Winstead. It resides with Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Senator Boxer. OK. I just wanted to mention, colleagues,
that Mr. Winstead pointed out that flexibility in purchasing
renewable energy over longer periods of time would be
beneficial to GSA. So the current statutory limit of 10-year
contracts, if that was increased, I understand you feel it
would give you more flexibility and would help you purchase
more renewable energy. Is that correct?
Mr. Winstead. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Boxer. OK. So Senator Inhofe, are you still on the
Energy Committee?
Senator Inhofe. No.
Senator Boxer. OK. Is anybody else on the Energy Committee?
OK.
Well, why don't we talk about this because they are being
hampered. They want to buy renewable energy in longer term
contracts, but the law says now the most they can go out is 10
years. So Senator Sanders, if we could work together on that,
it would be just great.
Mr. Winstead, you mentioned GSA has retrofitted many
building lighting systems. What portion of GSA buildings still
need to be retrofitted?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, basically between 2000 and 2003,
managed five projects with energy consumption savings of about
18 percent, so we do have a huge number that still are in the
inventory. The GAO report in 2003 looked at basically 44
buildings and calculated that we needed another $20 million per
building to really get them totally modernized, to incorporate
both lighting as well as the HVAC in efficient systems updates.
I will tell the committee that it is a constant challenge.
I know that Senator Inhofe spent some time in the real estate
industry. We are managing a huge portfolio that has a state of
it that does require a lot of reinvestment. We are very focused
on both the lighting efficiencies, the ceiling issues, as well
as the task-oriented lighting and intelligent systems that we
will be putting into the prospectuses for modernization
projects. This isn't something that we are viewing as a non-
core function. We are actually incorporating these new
technologies in the prospectuses for these building
modernization programs.
Senator Boxer. All I am interested in is knowing how much
more we have to do.
Mr. Winstead. I think it is probably, with some of these
older buildings, we are looking at as much as $10 million to
$15 million.
Senator Boxer. Per building to really get it up.
Mr. Winstead. Yes. We can actually get you a breakdown.
Senator Boxer. That is what I was going to ask you.
Mr. Winstead. I would be happy to do that.
Senator Boxer. If you wouldn't mind sending Senator Inhofe
and I a letter, as well as the rest of the committee.
Mr. Winstead. Sure.
Senator Boxer. Just tell us straightforward what is the
need, then we will take a look at it and see if we can help. I
think the important think is also to tell us the payback period
for these improvements, because frankly if we make an
investment and the taxpayers are made whole in 5 or 6 or even 7
years, especially in the GSA-owned buildings. In the leased
buildings, with long-term leases, it makes sense. With shorter
term leases, obviously we don't want to spend taxpayer money as
a gift to some private person. We want to make sure the
taxpayers receive the benefit.
Last question.
Mr. Winstead. Sure.
Senator Boxer. Our second panelist, Ms. Callahan, notes in
her written testimony that GSA still includes inefficient and
outdated equipment such as incandescent lights, old ballast
technology, and old computer systems on its procurement
schedules, despite legislative mandates to the contrary.
Now, I don't know if she is right or wrong on the point,
but could you tell me today you are prepared to respond to
that, whether or not your procurement schedule has been updated
to reflect legislation that passed here in the Energy bill and
so on?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, that is under the Federal supply
schedules, on the FAS side of the ledger. I do believe it is
fair to say that in terms of our new construction, in terms of
our modernization, we are focusing on this technology. I will
provide to the committee what the issues are on the FAS side
that have been highlighted by industry.
Senator Boxer. I think it would be excellent because if we
are still purchasing the old--you know, one of the great things
about our ability to change things is the power of the purse.
If we use our funding wisely and we create the demand for these
products, I think that is the way to go, rather than buy the
old technologies and at the end of the day, we will probably be
getting rid of them soon enough.
So if you could get back to me on both of those, how much
you need per building, just an honest assessment, and also if
you could look over that schedule and see if you agree with Ms.
Callahan on that, and what you are going to do about it. OK?
Mr. Winstead. I will do so.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, I don't have any questions.
I think you asked the right questions. I did read the longest
section, section 2, some six or seven pages, and I would just
want your assurances that the timeline for implementing these
things that are found in that section is going to be workable.
Mr. Winstead. Senator, I appreciate that. Obviously, it is
a challenge. It is much quicker than the Executive order was
dictating, but we have reviewed it and we do think we can
manage with that time schedule. As this moves forward and this
legislation gets passed, we would be happy to obviously keep
the committee informed about how we are doing. But we have
reviewed it in terms of the requirements, 6 months, the 9
months side of it, and we are comfortable with it. This
committee and the staff has been very engaged and we have been
wrestling around, can we do this.
Senator Inhofe. If you find that you are wrong, you can let
us know.
Mr. Winstead. I am sorry, Senator. What?
Senator Inhofe. I said if you find that you are wrong, you
can let us know.
Mr. Winstead. Absolutely, absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Senator Boxer. But if you find that it is working, let us
know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Winstead. Yes. We have also started collecting data on
this, so that we are sort of moving in that direction.
Thanks, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thanks.
We are going to do the early bird rule, so Senator
Alexander, and then we will go to Senator Sanders and Senator
Klobuchar.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
I only have one question, which is a little different
because I said earlier what I thought about the importance of
this legislation and how much I appreciate the approach you are
taking.
I want to ask you a question about aesthetics. Technology
is a great advantage for us as we try to deal with energy. It
might help us figure out carbon recapture. You have just
described a way that we may through intensive lighting retrofit
save huge amounts of electricity and set an example for others.
But one of the problems with technology is it sometimes
disturbs or destroys the great American outdoors, the American
landscape.
For example, we all like to use our cell phones and
Blackberries, but we have had 200,000 cell towers to up in the
last few years. In Tennessee at least, I think they must enter
a contest to see who can pick out the ugliest one and biggest
one, and put it in the most scenic place.
Solar panels, and I have discussed this with the solar
panel industry. I am the sponsor of the tax credit for more
solar power. But originally, they were developed without any
aesthetics in mind. I actually think it is a limit on the
ability of solar power to expand because people don't want ugly
things on their roofs, just like they want their front yard to
look good.
There is a place for wind power in our country, but when
you said, you know, the Statue of Liberty was operating on wind
power, I had a first thought that you have all these big super-
sized wind turbines right around the Statue of Liberty, which
is not the case.
So I wonder if, as part of your mission with these 1,500
buildings, you might help the rest of the country understand
how to use renewable energy like solar, wind and other things,
in aesthetically pleasing ways, because I think that is
actually one of the major limits on its ability to be accepted,
and that you can provide a real service on that, as well as
keep our Country looking good. We sing about America the
Beautiful, and whenever we start to put oil rigs on the
seashores, the Chairman puts up pretty pictures of the
seashores. I agree with that.
So I would like to find ways to have an aesthetically
pleasing as possible with this new technology that we are
developing. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, your point is well taken. The
original technology for solar panels, a lot of them were on the
sides of buildings.
Senator Alexander. They were functional.
Mr. Winstead. Yes, but this, for example, is the one I
mentioned. This is essentially the roofing for the buildings.
We are incorporating the panels in the roofing, which is no
different than you would see with just a rubber roof.
The issue of wind power is obviously, you are correct,
there are no wind turbines around the Statue of Liberty
currently, but that power is coming from wind-generated
turbines. I would hate to take back to my community in Chevy
Chase the concept of putting wind turbines to generate local
power. There are aesthetic issues.
What I will commit to is to make sure that our reflection
of both the solar use and what we are doing, and they are well
portrayed in these brochures, but I think what you are asking
is could we develop some more public type communication that
would demonstrate----
Senator Alexander. For example, even to give awards for
designers and buildings that not only improve efficiency, but
do it in the most aesthetically pleasing way because that will
speed the acceptance of conservation and efficiency.
Mr. Winstead. Yes, we will do that. I will continue. We do
in fact have this week some design awards for our buildings. It
is a design awards ceremony occurring on Thursday. Some of
those buildings have incorporated and will be receiving awards.
We will look to see how we can communicate that more
aggressively, and therefore provide leadership and
encouragement of aesthetic solutions to these technologies.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator Sanders, please?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
If we are serious about addressing the crisis in global
warming, it seems to me that the Federal Government has to be a
leader in moving us toward energy efficiency and sustainable
energy. It seems to me that we are moving much, much too
slowly, but it is reassuring to hear that we are making some
progress.
Commissioner, if I could ask you just a few brief
questions. In Australia now they are talking about phasing out
incandescent light bulbs and moving to compact florescents. Are
we making bold changes in lighting in our government buildings?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, we are. As I mentioned before,
starting way back in 1990, we were moving from----
Senator Sanders. What does bold mean?
Mr. Winstead. We are basically replacing all the old
fixtures with the new electronic ballast lighting, and looking
at dropping basically the lighting and reflective ceilings.
Senator Sanders. I don't have a lot of time.
So the assumption is that in a few years' time, we will be
rid of incandescent light bulbs in most government buildings?
Mr. Winstead. We are working on that strategy.
Senator Sanders. ``Working on it'' gets me nervous. In a
few years, will we have accomplished that goal? What is
``working''?
Senator Boxer. Senator, with this bill.
Senator Sanders. We are going to do it.
Senator Boxer. That is right.
Senator Sanders. OK.
Senator Boxer. They support the bill.
Senator Sanders. You showed a poster----
Senator Boxer. Senator Sanders, I am giving you an
additional 2 minutes, really, because you didn't make an
opening statement, so just be calm and we will get you all the
time you need.
Senator Sanders. All right.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Solar panels, you had a building over
there on which you had solar panels. What percentage of the
electricity for that building is in fact being generated by the
panels?
Mr. Winstead. Ten percent, Senator.
Senator Sanders. Ten percent.
Mr. Winstead. Ten percent. That, I believe, this is the
NARA facility and this is essentially the materials that are on
that roof.
Senator Sanders. OK.
Is there a plan now to be installing solar paneling in
buildings all over the country that we own?
Mr. Winstead. In a wide variety. You see it here on a
facility used for storage. We are incorporating it in
courthouses. We are looking at ports of entry because a lot of
the ports of entry on the borders are in areas that are very
remote, where this technology will augment the energy supply.
Senator Sanders. Will that be standard operating procedure
for new buildings as well?
Mr. Winstead. Yes.
Senator Sanders. OK.
Mr. Winstead. Under our design guidelines, we do have these
incorporated to look at in terms of incorporating these
technologies in the new buildings.
Senator Sanders. What about solar hot water heating
systems? Are we installing solar hot water heating systems on
Federal buildings?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, we are. We have 12 of them right
now, and I can get you a list of those.
Senator Sanders. The 12 of them is not a whole lot, given
the number of buildings that we have. In other words, the point
that I am trying to make is that, and I think the Chairwoman
shares my feeling about this, if we, (a) believe that we are in
a crisis situation; and (b) if we believe that the Federal
Government should be leading, and we have got to be very
aggressive in going forward, and we want our buildings to be
models not only in terms of saving taxpayers' money and doing
the right thing for the environment, but showing the rest of
America what can happen when we are using our brains in terms
of sustainable energy and energy efficiency.
So if you telling me that 12 buildings have solar hot water
systems, that is not all that impressive, frankly. Do you have
plans to be a little bit more aggressive on that?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, solar, because of that 10 percent
example here, solar is not always the most economic system, but
we will get back to you and the committee a list of all the new
proposed pipeline buildings in terms of new construction, and a
list of those that we are in fact proposing to have solar
elements in it.
Senator Sanders. One of the problems with ``economic,'' is
it has to do with how much of that system is being produced and
purchased. It would seem to me that if the Federal Government
were involved in purchasing the product, it would probably
drive prices down.
Mr. Winstead. You are absolutely correct. Our purchase
power with these technologies does create economies for others
to adopt them, and that is part of why I think this committee
and we need to take the leadership to do this.
Senator Sanders. The other issue, Madam Chair, that I think
we should look at, as we talk about new products, we might want
to encourage American producers to produce those products. To
the best of my knowledge, and I may be wrong on this, it is
quite hard to buy compact florescents manufactured in the
United States. I would hope that in some ways, the Federal
Government by saying we are going to purchase a huge amount of
light bulbs or solar paneling systems, that our preference
would be that they be manufactured in America so that once
again we can reestablish our position on those technologies and
create jobs in this country.
Mr. Winstead. Senator, that is a good point. I think we
have supplied this to the committee, but we actually have an
example of our 18 LEED buildings so far, and to your point, in
this breakpoint, it actually shows of each of these buildings'
systems, what are generated by energy savings, water, and also
local materials. We actually evaluate what we are buying in the
local market, to your point, making sure that our purchase
power is going as much as we can to buy technologies served
within that region or in that marketplace. I can get you a copy
of this that shows the percentage of each of these LEED
buildings that has local materials purchased and the percent of
local materials.
Senator Sanders. OK, at some point I would appreciate the
opportunity to chat with you. Maybe you could come by the
office.
Mr. Winstead. Sure. I would be happy to. I will follow up.
Senator Sanders. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Winstead. Thank you.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator Sanders, thank you. I just wanted
you to know that I agree with everything you said. I don't know
whether you were here at the time, but we are going to get back
from the good Commissioner a list of the buildings that they
really need to retrofit. It is going to cost them in some cases
$10 million to $20 million per building. They are going to get
us that information, because we are going to have to help them
get the funding they need to do this.
Also, they are going to take a look at their procurement
lists and make sure that they don't have these old technologies
on the procurement list because the power of the purse, as you
say, is key.
I will share with Senator Sanders, I wanted to buy a bulb
for every member of the committee, the new kind of bulbs, and I
was so excited and it was going to be a surprise I was going to
give them. Every one of them was made in China. I was
distressed about that fact.
If we do this kind of, and we always use the word
``Manhattan Project,'' but it is a good image, on our Federal
buildings here, it will now pay for people to really invest in
America to do this, I think.
Senator Klobuchar, then Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. Both Senator
Sanders and I are excited about replacing those bulbs right up
there. They are kind of bright.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Anyway, thank you so much, Commissioner,
for being with us today, and thank you for your focus on this
important issue and your understanding that not only will this
be good for our Country in terms of being more energy
efficient, but it also leads to the possibility that we will
actually save money, which I think there always seems to be
people are trying to make a poll between what is good for the
environment is going to be bad for the economy. But as you
pointed out, when we cost this out, we can actually save money.
I was actually surprised to learn that energy consumption,
which I didn't know in the government buildings, private
businesses, homes, accounts for almost two-thirds of U.S.
emissions of carbon dioxide, and that is why this is so
critical. When I have gotten around our State, I know that
people are just yearning to be part of the solution to this.
Certainly, they can do it in their own towns, but it would be
very good if the Federal Government leads the way, as has been
pointed out today.
My questions are just more coming from a northern State, if
you could talk a little bit about solar panels and if they
could be adjusted for more cloudy areas, and if you can get
that same kind of energy efficiency.
Mr. Winstead. Senator, obviously the climate issues in
terms of the amount of daylight and also the temperature is a
factor, and it does impact. This one, for example, is in
Massachusetts, and to the Senator's question, only 10 percent
is generated by those solar panels. If that were in Florida,
you would get a higher percentage, obviously. So it does have
an impact.
We obviously wouldn't invest in this technology if it
didn't, as Senator Boxer said, have a payback that is rational
from our perspective in managing these properties. We go
through an extremely thorough analysis of all our building
inventory. We do an analysis in terms of when that capital
investment is going to payback in terms of operating savings.
We actually have a benchmark of 6 percent return, what we call
a hurdle rate. All the buildings need to perform to that 6
percent. If they are not, we do not invest in them, and dispose
of them. We look at consolidation of Federal agencies.
So we are actually not only looking for the payback in
employing these technologies, but where the building is not
cost-effective for the Federal Government, we are excising or
disposing of it in negotiated or public sale. Recently, I will
mention just as an example, we had an old warehouse up in
Baltimore County that was used by Martin Marietta to build the
B-52 engines and aircraft. We went to public auction last year,
with the county's support, which for economic development
really wanted to see this moved. It was appraised for $28
million, and we got $38 million for it.
All that money comes back into the Federal building fund to
buy new systems for the renovation, some of these solar systems
and HVAC technology. So we were able to take that $40 million
and to put it back into our existing inventory. So it helps us,
again, to advance some of the objectives of this bill.
Senator Klobuchar. Then you also talked up a New York
building and how proud we are to have this 100 percent
renewable energy efficient building, that is using solar and
wind. Is that right in that building?
Mr. Winstead. The Binghamton? That is wind.
Senator Klobuchar. Wind?
Mr. Winstead. Wind.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. One of the issues we have had with
wind, we have a lot of wind in our State, and we have been
harnessing that with some good standards in place with State
law. What we have seen is the transmission line issue in terms
of carrying the across the Country and bringing our wind across
the Country. I assume that this is a wind turbine that is right
near the facility? Or how did you get it in?
Mr. Winstead. It is new. It is in Fenner, NY. I think it is
new, so it obviously is very efficient and built into the grid
capacity. So I think we are getting it very cost effectively.
Senator Klobuchar. Are there other technologies beside wind
and solar that you are looking at?
Mr. Winstead. We do have one or two geothermals. We have a
bunch of daylight-harvesting technologies looking at how we
employ shelving on the interior and exterior to reflect
lighting. We are looking at light-reflective colors, ceiling
surfaces, LEED lighting for fixture. So there are bunch of
them. I have a list of about 25 technologies beyond the ones we
have talked about that we look to to try to address both the
building renovation, as well as making sure it is cost-
effective in terms of investment.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Winstead. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Senator Carper? Welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Madam Chairman, it is good to be here.
Thanks very, very much.
Madam Chairman, to you and to my colleague, Senator
Klobuchar, we don't have many school districts in my State. In
fact, we only have 19, if you can believe that, but we only
have three counties. But down in the southwestern part of our
State, we have a town called Seaford. Seaford is famous because
it was the place where the first nylon plant was built in the
country, in the world, actually.
They have six schools in the Seaford School District, and
the Seaford School District has decided they want to be able to
put more money into their classrooms, with smaller class size,
more focus on early childhood education, more after school
programs. They decided that one of the ways they would come up
with the money, aside from raising taxes, was to use less
energy.
What they have done is attacked this challenge with a
vengeance. They worked through the Energy STAR Program. They
have over the last several years actually air-conditioned all
of their schools. Even after air-conditioning all the schools,
they now use less electricity than they used before.
They have done things like changing all the ballast in
their lights, the kind of bulbs they use in their lights. They
have changed out the windows, not just for better insulation,
but also when the spring sun or the summer sun or the autumn
sun is on those windows, it is not heating up the schools any
more. They have boilers that can generate the heat for their
building either if natural gas is cheaper, they use natural
gas. If fuel oil is cheaper, they use that. They have done all
kinds of things.
One million dollars is not a lot of money, but in the
Seaford School District, it is a lot of money. What we do in
Delaware is we hold them out to other school districts as an
example of what a school district who wants to get behind an
idea like this can do, and the good that it does for the
children that are educated in the school.
What they do in the Seaford School District is they get to
keep the money that they save. The State doesn't take it back.
In my State, the State pays for about 75 percent of the cost of
education, and maybe 15 percent or 20 percent by local school
taxes. Only 5 percent or 10 percent is by the Feds. But when
Seaford School District saves money, they keep the money. There
is a great incentive for them to find the savings.
Which is a long way to get me to this question. I want to
ask you to think about how we can incentivize, instead of just
mandating to agencies that you have to reduce energy
consumption, which I think we try to do by Executive order and
we are trying to figure out how we can complement that through
the law. How do we incentivize them to do this, other than the
fact that we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; we
want to clean up our air; we want to combat climate change. How
do we incentivize them?
I chair a Federal Financial Management Subcommittee. I lead
that subcommittee along with Senator Coburn. One of the things
that we focus on is surplus properties. You talked about
selling one in Baltimore County. We are trying to figure out
how do we incentivize agencies to sell, hopefully at a good
price like the example you cited, surplus properties. How do we
incent them to do that? I think over at the VA, when they sell
or move a surplus property that they don't need, I think they
get to keep part of the proceeds. That is an incentive for
them, and they use that money to help provide service to
veterans.
How do we incentivize, aside from laws or aside from
Executive orders? How do we incentivize agencies to do the
right thing in terms of energy and conservation?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, a couple of things. I do know that
OMB is working with this committee to define those incentives.
From our perspective at GSA Public Buildings Service, we
essentially project the rent for a 2-year period, so that all
of our tenant agencies, be it the Federal courts, judiciary
system, the third branch, or whether it is the IRS or the new
FBI field offices we are building, anything we save in terms of
operating costs reduce that rent cost to them. So they are, in
fact, incentivized by our actions in taking LEEDs and all these
technologies we have been talking about.
It is money that they save for their mission purpose of
that Agency. It is containing the escalations in that rent. To
your point about Seaford, you mentioned that those revenues
came back to the schools to go to education or facility
purposes. As you know, when we are making these savings as a
result of this technology, be it lighting or solar or what have
you, all that money that is saved not paying for energy stays
in the Federal Building Fund, and we are able therefore to do
another renovation project. We are therefore able to fill a new
courthouse.
So we do have the same incentive. Fundamentally, the
Federal Building Fund is incentivized by the rents coming in,
the revenues we are achieving, and so any savings in energy
actually comes back to the Federal Building Fund and therefore
helps us to move to other needs, both for existing facilities
and new facilities.
Senator Carper. Do you think agencies and agency heads
around here are thinking about, we have to do this because we
want to return more money to the Federal Building Fund?
Mr. Winstead. They are always looking at containing their
costs. I had with some irony 2 months into the job, I saw the
Washington Post article that the Chief Justice was talking
about the rent bill that we provide them. He wanted a 50
percent relief from the rent bill. We have a lot of pressure
from all the agencies as a result of the budget constraints
and, what you all are approving, efforts to contain these
costs, to contain the rent, the shell rent, the operating
costs.
So it is really self-incentivized. They don't want to pay
anything more than they have to.
Senator Carper. OK. Madam Chair, my time has expired. Can I
ask one more quick question, if you don't mind?
Senator Boxer. Yes. Go ahead. Take another couple of
minutes.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
If you were in our shoes on this side of the table, what
would you do?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, again, I think that because of the
nature, we address some 60 agencies' needs, this legislation
and our programs that I have mentioned are really targeting new
energy technology, lighting and renovation schemes, that will
in fact save energy costs. As I started out, 70 percent of
consumption of energy goes to the building operations around
this country.
So I think that anything we can do under our budget
constraints, building by building and retrofitting, or new
buildings where we are incorporating these technologies in
design options, we are going to push that, communicate that and
make sure that not only our tenants understand it in terms of a
good high quality work environment at good cost to the
taxpayer, but that the technologies we are using we communicate
more broadly.
We have very close partnerships with BOMA.
Senator Carper. Excuse me. What would you do if you were in
our shoes?
Mr. Winstead. I would do exactly what you are doing. That
is, both with this legislation, Executive order; our focus, the
focus that you are directing me to undertake with our actions
to promote these technologies, to get energy savings, to
obviously reduce the issues of energy. I think you are on the
right track. I think the market, as you know, and you will hear
that from the other panelists, these technologies often are not
cost-effective until you get to a certain scale of deployment.
We are able, fortunately, to drive them more than many people
can.
The one thing that was not mentioned is that we have a huge
portion of our portfolio that is a leased portfolio, leased
space. What we are incorporating in our prospectuses and lease
actions clauses that will incentivize new buildings being built
by a landlord, not an owned building, to incorporate these
technologies as well. So not only are we managing it with our
owned inventory, but we are trying to incentivize actions in
our leased as well.
Senator Carper. All right. Madam Chair, a thought occurs to
me in this conversation. You and I, and a lot of our colleagues
are interested in reducing energy consumption by the vehicles
that we drive. I always think of three roles that the Federal
Government can play in that regard. One is basic R&D, whether
it is in fuel cells or plug-in hybrids, or flex-fuel vehicles,
battery technology, or that sort of thing. There is a major
role that in basic R&D technology.
A second role for the Federal Government is to use its
purchasing power on the civilian side and on the defense side
to commercialize these technologies, provide for economies of
scale.
The last one is to provide tax credits to incentivize
people to buy more energy-efficient vehicles.
We are trying to do some or all of those things right now.
One of the things in what Mr. Winstead said made me think about
it. A role that they can help play, GSA, and they can help in
No. 2, and that is using the Government's purchasing power to
commercialize promising new technologies. I don't know that we
have time to get into that today, but can I just ask you, at
least for the record, if we don't have time to do that today,
just to come back to us and talk about the role that GSA is
playing in helping us to commercialize promising new
technologies?
Mr. Winstead. I will be happy to.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I think that is a very good way to
go. I guess what I want to say to GSA is, how grateful I am
that you did do something really different. You joined with us
and you helped us craft this bill. This means a lot to us
because you are in a position to really lead the Nation. I hope
you realize that. Nobody knows where they are going to be when
certain things happen and certain challenges occur. You are in
a position at a time where we have to get energy independent.
We have to save the planet and all the other things. Buildings
are a very important piece of the puzzle.
Now, the Commissioner told us before you came that it would
help him if he was able to enter into longer term contracts for
renewable energy. Right now, he is limited to 10 years out.
That is not under our discretion here, but we are going to
talk. Senator Sanders is on the Energy Committee. We should
talk to our colleagues and give them that chance to do even
better.
Just along that line, and this will be the last question,
one of the things that Al Gore talked about when he talked
about the future, and he is very good about looking ahead. By
the way, I am not a really good futurist. I have enough trouble
just dealing day to day, but I listen to him. He is talking
about the electranet. He is talking about that as the
individual being able to figure out how to get off the grid.
Coincidentally, that very day I met with an inventor who is
being backed by venture capitalists in the Silicon Valley, who
has come up with this idea of creating a generator--and help me
out with this, Bettina or Eric or whoever, Michael, whoever was
with me at this meeting--this generator is going to be put in
your own home, and I guess it functions off solar, but I am not
exactly sure. It can function off anything, any renewable fuel,
and you take your home right off the grid. That they are
piloting this idea.
So going along with Senator Carper, how you could be a
laboratory without any risk to anybody, if you would be willing
to sit down with some of these people, not necessarily this
individual, but just to see whether there are ways. Imagine if
we could make our buildings, take them off the grid, or at
least have one example of a building where we took it off the
grid. Would you be willing to try out these new technologies,
assuming that there wasn't a cost to it that was any more than
what you are currently paying. Would you be willing to work
with us on those kind of things?
Mr. Winstead. Senator, we would be happy to. I would be
happy to meet with anybody that has a new technology. We do
have a border station in Alexandria Bay that apparently, and we
can get you more information, is using this kind of technology
of self-generation. We will provide the committee with that as
a LEED again.
Senator Boxer. Would you?
Mr. Winstead. If it works in these remote areas and is
cost-effective there, because there is no major grid, there
could be ways to expand it. So we would be happy to meet with
whoever contacted you.
Senator Boxer. That would be excellent. The whole idea, of
course, is to make these run off renewables. I just think that
we are so much on the edge here, and I think a lot of us here
know that with a little bit of enthusiasm, which I think you
are showing us today, we can actually move out.
I will just speak on behalf of the full committee, because
I feel everyone agrees that this is a good thing. I know that
Larry Craig is in an energy efficiency caucus, even, and he is
on our bill. So we have broad support for our bill. I know you
mentioned us going out and looking at some of the green
buildings, which I would really love to do, to look at a green
building in this area, bring the committee and the staff with
us, because we are going to take up a green buildings bill.
This bill today is looking back to how to retrofit, which are
serious issues for us. As you said, so serious that sometimes
you are going to sell a building off because you can't even fix
it.
So we will meet with you again, and we will take a tour of
one of your prize buildings here. We will talk about other ways
that we can make the Federal Government really on the cutting
edge. I mean, that is what we should be doing, and that is what
we used to do a long time ago when these issues were
bipartisan.
I get a sense, because of the cooperation we had on this
bill, that this is an area we have bipartisan support in, and
that makes me very, very happy. I will introduce you to this
fellow and have him give you his pitch. Sometimes in these
inventions, they will say, here, take it, use it, let us know
how it works. It would be worth having that type of feedback.
So we will get together soon again.
I just want to thank you so much for your testimony, and
most of all for your can-do spirit, because we don't have
enough of it in the Federal Government today, and when we do
see it, we appreciate it.
Mr. Winstead. Thanks, Senator. I really appreciate it. We
are doing great things and we continue to partner with this
committee on your legislation. I will look forward. Whenever
the tour of these facilities is appropriate, we will be happy
to get that underway.
Senator Boxer. Yes. We will do that soon. Thank you,
Commissioner.
Mr. Winstead. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you to the staff.
Now we will ask our second panel to come forward, Ms.
Callahan and Ms. Townshend. The first is from the Alliance to
Save Energy. The second is from the Associated General
Contractors of America.
We welcome both of you here. If you could put your
statements in the record, and see if you can summarize in 5 to
7 minutes, that would be great. We will put 5 minutes up, and
we will go over another 2 minutes, because we have votes coming
not too soon, but in the near future.
Ms. Callahan, of course, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF KATERI CALLAHAN, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE
ENERGY
Ms. Callahan. I am Kateri Callahan. I serve as the
president of the Alliance to Save Energy, which is a bipartisan
and nonprofit coalition of about 120 business leaders,
government leaders, consumer and environmental leaders. Our
mission is to promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a
healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and enhanced energy
security.
We are celebrating our 30th anniversary this year. We were
formed in 1977 by then-Senators Chuck Percy and Hubert
Humphrey. We are pleased that we continue to this day to enjoy
leadership from the Congress. Our current Chair is Senator Mark
Pryor, and you mentioned Senator Larry Craig is also one of our
Vice Chairs, along with Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins and Byron
Dorgan.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
talk to you about your new and exciting bill that you are
putting forward, and also to explore other opportunities to
advance energy efficiency in the Federal Government.
I think just as a start, just a threshold, you may be aware
of this, but the U.S. Federal Government is the single largest
energy consumer and energy waster in the world. In 2005, the
Federal Government represented fully 2 percent of the energy
used in the United States, and that was at a cost to taxpayers
of $14.5 billion. Out of that, fully $5 billion went into
buildings, to heating, cooling, lighting buildings. So it is an
area ripe for what you are doing here in this Congress.
I also wanted to mention that as we look at new legislation
that a lot has been done throughout the years. From 1985 to
2005, we managed to cut Federal energy consumption by 13
percent. What that has meant is we have been able to lower the
taxpayers' bill for energy by 25 percent. So we have had
dramatic savings, but notwithstanding that, as you have
identified, there is still much, much more that we have to do.
So how do we go about that? I want to talk just really
about three things. Senator Carper, to answer your questions, I
am going to tell you what I would do if I were sitting behind
the dais and looking out.
The first thing is that we have, as mentioned by Senator
Alexander, a body of targets and goals that are set in place
already through EPAct, through the new Executive order. These
requirements are intended to reduce the energy use by the
Federal Government. We look at that and say, taken together, it
is a pretty aggressive agenda. It represents a good target.
However, meeting it is very problematic and is going to require
your concerted attention and effort.
The first thing that we think needs to be done is to fully
implement what is already out there. The way that the Congress
can help with that is to do exactly what you are doing here
today. Careful oversight and making sure that folks understand
that this is a priority for you will help these Federal
officials understand that it should be a focus and priority
area for them, and that they are going to be held accountable
for making the targets that have been set.
The second important role is something that you mentioned,
Senator Boxer, and that is to make sure that we have adequate
funding to do this. To actually improve the Government energy
use is going to cost billions of dollars. Right now, the
appropriations are running between $100 million to $300 million
a year for efficiency improvements in buildings. That is simply
not enough.
Another area, besides direct appropriations, is to work
with the Federal agencies to ensure that we more fully use
innovative financing tools that are allowing Federal agencies
to make efficiency improvements with no up-front costs. These
are done through something called energy savings performance
contracts and utility energy savings contracts.
At their heyday, they were delivering about $500 million a
year in the efficiency upgrades, but the authorities lapsed in
2003. When that happened, there was a precipitous drop in their
use by agencies, and in 2005, we saw the level of investment
only at $175 million. So we need to be able to use those again.
Senator Boxer. Before you leave that, why did that lapse?
Ms. Callahan. Because the congressional authority ran out.
It was authorized for 10 years and the authority ran out in
2003. There was a temporary reestablishment of the authority
for a year, and then in 2005 it was reauthorized again.
Senator Boxer. What committee has jurisdiction over that?
Ms. Callahan. The Energy Committee, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK. Thank you. I will talk to Senator
Bingaman and Senator Domenici.
Ms. Callahan. Yes, I think they are very interested
actually. They are looking at it. It has been considered even
looking for a permanent reauthorization, which would help
tremendously. However, and I will stop here and just improvise
a little bit, there are other problems with it as well. It is
not just the authorities lapsing. It is the risk factor, either
perceived or real, of agencies in using this.
Right now, people aren't penalized for the energy waste in
their buildings and for doing nothing, but they are scrutinized
heavily for using this innovative and a bit difference
financing tool. So at the risk of making sure that everything
is done properly and that they are in no trouble, they would
rather do nothing than move forward on these.
So again, oversight, working with the agencies, will be
very important and we would like to work with you all on that.
Senator Boxer. I will buy you another 2 minutes.
Ms. Callahan. OK. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Because I interrupted you.
Ms. Callahan. Thank you.
The final area, and the critical role, is new legislation,
like you are considering today. The Alliance applauds you and
the Ranking Member particularly for doing this in a bipartisan
way and with the Administration. That is what we need is
everyone working together if we are going to maximize our
opportunities.
What we like about the bill is that it expands the scope.
It identifies new approaches. It makes people within the
agencies accountable. We think that that is very, very
important.
The other element that we very much like is the money that
is being put out by the Federal Government to encourage other
levels of government to do the same. We think there are great
leadership opportunities, as I know you do.
Perhaps the most important thing about the bill is
something that Senator Alexander brought up. From our
perspective, it complements what is already there and adds to
it. We think that it is very important as you move forward and
consider other ideas and ways to really beef up and take to the
next level what you are doing with the Federal Government, we
need consistency. We cannot turn funding away or attention away
from those activities that have already delivered us the 13
percent savings that we have achieved. We need to keep a focus
on those as we expand and go further.
The last thing I would say is that Federal energy
management, as important as it is, is just one of many things
that have to be done if we are going to tackle the social, the
economic, and the environmental problems associated with our
overuse of energy in this country.
So we think that what you are doing here in making the
Federal Government a leader is particularly important in making
them worldwide, but we would like to work with you all on other
things that can be done in that area to make sure that the
Federal Government really takes on the leadership mantle of
turning around the problem that we have with energy and making
it a solution so that we have a sustainable energy future.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Callahan follows:]
Statement of Kateri Callahan, President, Alliance to Save Energy
introduction
The Alliance to Save Energy is a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of
more than 120 business, government, environmental and consumer leaders.
The Alliance's mission is to promote energy efficiency worldwide to
achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy
security. The Alliance, founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and
Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor
as Chairman; Duke Energy CEO James E. Rogers as Co-Chairman; and
Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, and Byron Dorgan
along with Representatives Ralph Hall, Edward J. Markey, and Zach Wamp
as its Vice-Chairs. Attached to this testimony are lists of the
Alliance's Board of Directors and its Associate members.
The Alliance has promoted effective federal energy management for
many years. Our Federal Energy Productivity (FEP) Task Force will soon
be joined by a new Board committee dedicated to fostering dramatic
energy savings throughout the federal government. Thus the Alliance is
pleased to testify at a hearing on energy use in government buildings.
federal energy use and waste
The United States Federal Government is the single largest
consumer, and the single largest waster, of energy in the world. In
2005 the federal government overall used 1.6 quadrillion Btu of
``primary'' energy (including the fuel used to make the electricity it
consumed), or 1.6 percent of total energy use in the United States.
Taxpayers in this country paid $14.5 billion for that energy.
Almost half of that energy, and more than half of the cost, was for
vehicles and equipment, primarily for military planes, ships, and land
vehicles. The rest, 0.9 quadrillion Btu at a cost of $5.6 billion, was
for heating, cooling, and powering more than 500,000 federal buildings
around the country. Roughly 5 percent of the building energy use is at
General Services Administration buildings, of particular interest to
this committee.
Repeated efforts over the last two decades have resulted in
dramatic savings, but large cost-effective savings remain available.
Overall federal primary energy use decreased by 13 percent from 1985 to
2005, and the federal energy bill decreased by 25 percent in real
terms, an accomplishment made even more impressive and important given
the 27 percent jump in fuel prices in the United States in 2005.
Federal ``standard'' buildings reduced their primary energy intensity
(Btu per square foot of building space) by about 13 percent, while
``site'' energy (measured at the point of use, excluding electricity
system losses) declined by 30 percent (``Standard'' buildings are those
not exempted due to industrial uses or national security needs).
Congress and the president have set even more aggressive targets for
future savings that could yield well over $1 billion in energy cost
savings each year from buildings alone.
It is important to place this savings potential in context. The
federal government is the largest energy consumer, and it could play a
unique role as a market transformer through the early adoption of new
efficient technologies and practices. Unfortunately, addressing federal
energy use is but one of many congressional actions that are necessary
to solve the many critical energy issues facing our country. The
federal government accounts for just 2 percent of U.S. oil use and a
similar portion of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a small percentage
of the overall contribution of the United States to energy consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions, but is significant when you consider that
the U.S. accounts for one quarter of the total energy used and one
quarter of the total loadings of CO2 emitted by the world. A
number of federal policies and funding decisions, such as appliance
efficiency standards, tax incentives, and energy-efficiency research
and development must be undertaken--in addition to ending federal
energy waste--if we are to ensure Americans a sustainable energy
future.
Notwithstanding the need to do more, the federal government's own
potential is significant, the potential taxpayer savings are worth
pursuing, and it is valuable to establish the government as a
successful role model for state and local governments as well as the
private sector. There is extraordinary interest in Congress right now
in addressing federal energy use, from greening the Capitol buildings
to reducing the need for fuel supply convoys in Iraq. I will talk first
about implementing, overseeing, and funding the policies that are
already in place, and then about new initiatives to make the government
even more efficient.
meeting current federal requirements and targets
There already are a number of targets, standards, and requirements
intended to reduce energy use by federal agencies. Together they
already set a reasonably ambitious agenda for reducing energy use, at
least in standard federal buildings, but achieving that agenda remains
problematic. Among the more important of these are:
Agencies are required to install in federal buildings all
energy and water conservation measures with payback periods of less
than 10 years by 2005 (Energy Policy Act of 1992, Sec. 152). This has
not been fully accomplished.
All new federal buildings must be designed to achieve
energy use at least 30 percent below the national model building energy
codes (EPAct 2005, Sec. 109), if such improvements are cost-effective.
The Department of Energy (DOE) just issued interim final rules in
December 2006.
Agencies must purchase efficient Energy Star or FEMP-
designated products unless not available or not cost-effective (EPAct
2005, Sec. 104). DOE has not yet issued final regulations to implement
this provision.
All federal buildings should be metered for energy use by
2012, using advanced meters that record electricity use by time when
practicable (EPAct 2005, Sec. 103). DOE issued guidelines in 2006, but
limited the metering requirements to electricity use, excluding natural
gas, steam, and hot or chilled water. Most agencies have prepared
implementation plans.
Each agency is to reduce the energy use intensity of its
buildings by 3 percent per annum, or 30 percent by 2015 (Executive
Order 13423). Agencies mostly met earlier targets culminating in a 30
percent reduction between 1985 and 2005; however, total energy use
reductions have been smaller as energy-intensive facilities are
excluded from these targets and as the savings targets are interpreted
as applying to site energy and thus exclude losses from the growing use
of electricity.
Each agency is to reduce the water use intensity of its
buildings by 2 percent per year or 16 percent by 2015 (EO 13423). This
is the first water efficiency quantitative target for federal
buildings.
Each agency is to reduce the petroleum-based fuel use by
its vehicle fleet by 2 percent per year through 2015 (EO 13423).
The most important issue for reducing federal energy use is to
implement fully the policies that are already in place, like those
listed above, for federal building standards, procurement requirements,
savings targets, cost-effectiveness guidelines, and others. Energy use
and decision-making are dispersed among many people at dozens of
federal agencies. Agency leaders, of course, have many mission
responsibilities, financial constraints, legal requirements,
stakeholder demands, and impending crises that compete for attention.
Energy efficiency must be adopted as a primary goal and embodied in
action throughout the government if we are to meet the targets already
established.
For example, while procurement of energy-efficient products has
been required since a 1991 Executive Order and by law in EPAct 1992,
that requirement has never been fully implemented in the Byzantine
process of federal procurement. Product specifications in competitive
solicitations and negotiations for GSA schedules often do not include
the efficiency requirements. GSA product schedules still include
inefficient and outdated equipment, including inefficient air
conditioners, refrigerators, lighting, and other products.
The requirement in the new Executive Order 13423 that each agency
appoint a senior civilian officer to be in charge of implementing the
Order may help focus attention on energy efficiency. However,
government officials may be held responsible for an energy-efficiency
project gone awry, but no one is ever held responsible for wasted
energy or for inaction; the amount of project savings may be debated,
but no one ever measures the energy not saved by failing to make new
buildings ``green'' or replace old equipment with the best new
technologies.
We believe Congress's first duty and most important role in
improving federal energy management is effective and sustained
oversight. Through requiring regular reports as called for in the
legislation discussed below, questioning agency heads at hearings,
sending letters to agencies in committee jurisdictions, and/or
initiating Government Accountability Office studies, Congress can focus
the attention of key officials at all agencies on energy use, and
demand accountability for meeting energy savings and cost-effectiveness
targets.
funding for federal energy-efficiency measures
Energy-efficiency measures save taxpayers money in lower federal
energy bills, but usually require an up-front cost. The government
should look at total life-cycle cost, i.e., equipment/product purchase
price plus estimated costs of energy use over the life of the product,
not just first cost, when making decisions on new buildings, retrofits,
equipment and vehicle purchases, weapon design, and more. This life-
cycle-cost perspective is used for some large capital and military
systems procurements, but not all. And agencies trying to use this
approach face hard limits on the availability of appropriated funds to
pay the up-front costs for energy efficiency, and many competing
priorities.
Billions of dollars of investment will be needed to meet the
current energy targets and reap the associated energy savings. However,
in recent years annual appropriations for energy efficiency, water
conservation, and renewable energy projects in existing federal
buildings have ranged from only about $100 million to $300 million.
Funding for energy efficiency through appropriations must be increased.
If we do not provide more funding for energy-efficiency measures, not
only will we risk not meeting the energy targets, but also agencies
will spend even more money on energy bills. We must invest more to save
more.
Increased funding also is needed for DOE's Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP), the primary expert resource and coordinator
for energy managers throughout the federal agencies, and the office
responsible for rules, guidelines, and reports to implement the many
legal mandates. FEMP funding has been cut for years, despite increasing
responsibilities, and its technical resource base of expert contractors
has been greatly curtailed. More funding and more management attention
are needed to restore this vital program.
But if we focus only on increasing appropriations, while we wait we
will be letting money escape out the windows (and the poorly insulated
walls). That's why Congress has allowed private, third-party financing
so agencies can upgrade buildings with no up-front cost to the
government. Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) finance and help implement
energy-saving projects through Energy Savings Performance Contracts
(ESPCs). The contractor is paid out of the resulting stream of energy
bill savings. By law, the savings must be at least as great as the
contractor payments--if the savings are not realized, the contractor
does not get paid. Many electric and gas utilities also offer financing
for energy-efficiency projects through Utility Energy Service Contracts
(UESCs), as well as offering rebates and technical assistance to
federal agencies as part of their demand-side management (DSM)
programs. Similar to ESPCs, utility investments under UESCs are repaid
from the utility bill savings due to the projects.
ESPCs and UESCs used to provide more than $500 million per year for
energy-efficiency investments in federal buildings. But in September
2003 authority to enter into new ESPCs lapsed, and despite being re-
authorized by Congress in 2004 and 2005, the use of these innovative
and effective financing tools has not recovered to these levels. In
fiscal year 2005 ESPCs provided $97 million, and UESCs $76 million.
There are a number of barriers that have prevented ESPCs and UESCs
from reaching their full potential. Ultimately, successful use of such
instruments now requires a champion--a committed official who is
willing to ``stick his neck out''--to overcome bureaucratic
bottlenecks; lack of support; and the threat of audits and/or other
scrutiny. If the projects fall short of goals at all, they are
criticized. In contrast, appropriated projects receive comparatively
little oversight. And, as I said before, there is no systematic process
of oversight for facilities in which the improvements are never made
and that are allowed to simply go on wasting energy. In short,
government energy managers are neither financially nor professionally
rewarded for energy savings, nor is there much risk in failing to seize
energy-saving opportunities. Proper oversight of ESPC and UESC
contracts is needed, but there must also be recognition of the major
costs of inaction, with a focus on maximizing savings rather than on
requiring perfection in all activities.
new federal energy savings initiatives
Clearly, the greatest need right now is oversight and funding of
existing federal energy management policies and programs, many of which
have been initiated within the last 2 years and not yet fully
implemented. At the same time, new legislation to expand the scope of
federal energy management and to make the federal government a true
example of leadership in energy efficiency would certainly help to stop
energy waste and to set an example that will encourage savings by other
levels of government and the private sector. In addition, some
clarification of existing policies could be helpful. It is important
that any new initiatives not reduce attention and funding for existing
activities, but complement these activities. And, of course, in order
to be effective, Congress must also carefully oversee implementation of
any new bills it may enact.
The Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007 would be an
excellent start and would meet the criteria outlined above, i.e.,
expand the scope of the current policies; establish the federal
government as a successful model for others to emulate, and complement
rather than compete with existing funding and activities. The Alliance
to Save Energy Board, Associates and staff applaud Senators Boxer and
Inhofe for their bipartisan work to design a meaningful bill that could
expedite and expand energy savings by the federal and local
governments.
The bill proposes to ``front-load'' energy savings (i.e., require
most of the savings to occur in the first 5 years) from the 8-year
targets established in the new executive order for the small but
important segment of federal buildings managed by the GSA. It
facilitates the attainment of the proposed goals by identifying
approaches to achieving the necessary savings, including a manager for
each facility, an overall plan, and lighting standards and replacement
program. The bill also would authorize the Environmental Protection
Agency to implement a $120 million grants program to assist local
governments in achieving energy savings in their own buildings.
The Alliance believes that additional measures would greatly
enhance the potential of wringing out energy waste by the government.
For example, almost all of the current federal requirements and
programs address energy use in federally owned buildings, but most
exclude ``energy intensive'' facilities that house industrial
processes, as well as other ``exempt'' facilities, often for national
security reasons. This focus neglects more than half of all energy use
by the federal government, mostly in transportation and mobile
equipment. Also overlooked is the energy use and potential savings by
federal contractors, many of whom perform ``outsourced'' functions that
would alternatively be the direct responsibility of a federal agency.
Among the potential ways (most of which likely are not in the
jurisdiction of the Committee) for capturing these savings are:
Establishment of a government-wide energy savings target
or a savings target for all vehicles and equipment (``mobility'')
energy. In addition to the target for federal buildings, the latest
Executive Order 13423 includes energy savings targets for fleet
vehicles. However, these fleets are responsible for less than ten
percent of federal oil consumption. In addition, the executive order
rescinded the only target that directly addressed greenhouse gas (GHG)
reductions for the federal sector: Executive Order 13123 previously
called for a 30 percent GHG reduction from federal buildings, from 1990
to 2010. If Congress chooses to reinstate a similar performance target
for federal agencies, it should apply to energy-related GHG emissions
from all federal energy use, including buildings, vehicles, and
equipment.
Imposition of energy saving requirements for buildings
leased by the federal government. The current building standards and
energy-saving targets apply only to government-owned buildings.
However, the government also leases a large number of buildings, many
of which are built specifically for use by federal agencies based on
long-term lease commitments. One way or another, the government pays
for the energy used in these buildings, and it should demand that they
be energy-efficient. Other buildings, such as privatized military
housing, also are built for the government and often with government
assistance, and should be required to be energy-efficient as well.
Imposition of smart growth or locational efficiency
requirements. In addition to the impact of building design on the
actual energy use, the location of federal buildings can have a
dramatic impact on the energy use of employees in commuting and other
driving. The impact is often multiplied as federal buildings often
attract additional residential and commercial development and
infrastructure. Moving federal facilities to far suburbs or other areas
outside of cities encourages sprawl, more driving, and greater oil use.
A required transportation energy impact assessment could influence
decisions on where to locate major new or expanded federal facilities.
Directive to encourage federal contractors to improve
their own energy efficiency. Some industry leaders, including Wal-Mart,
are not only reducing their own energy use dramatically but also
requiring their suppliers to improve efficiency, both to lower costs
and reduce environmental impacts. Federal agencies could encourage and
assist their large contractor base to reduce their own energy use
thorough procurement preferences or requirements.
Application of standards and savings targets to Congress.
Congress could take an important symbolic step by applying all the
agency energy savings targets and requirements to its own buildings,
vehicle use, and procurement--making the Capitol complex a model for
energy efficiency.
Successful federal energy management also can further vital federal
goals by influencing others to use energy wisely. The federal
government could:
Challenge state and local governments and major businesses
to match the federal commitment to energy efficiency. Many federal
programs, including ESPCs and procurement requirements, have been
models for other levels of government. The federal government should
challenge other major energy users--both public and private--to commit
to aggressive energy savings goals and policies at least comparable to
the federal ones.
Support state and utility energy-efficiency and demand-
management programs. Many federal facilities have taken advantage of
state and utility energy-efficiency programs, and the federal market
has been essential to building the important infrastructure of energy
service companies and other energy service providers. Utility DSM
programs have been among the most effective public tools to reduce
energy use, and all agencies and agents representing the federal
government should strongly support cost-effective utility DSM programs
and associated surcharges to pay for them.
conclusion
While federal energy management is only a piece of the solution to
the economic, environmental, and security challenges from energy use in
this country, the federal government is the single largest energy user
and could be the most influential model in the Nation and for that
matter, in the world, for using advanced energy-efficient technologies
and practices. Congress has an important role to play. First, sustained
congressional oversight is needed to focus agencies' top management
attention on maximizing energy savings. Second, sufficient funding is
needed to pay for the necessary initial costs to achieve long-term
savings, along with continued support for alternative financing
mechanisms. Third, new legislation could expand the scope and savings
of federal energy management activities. The Public Buildings Cost
Reduction Act of 2007 is an important first step. These actions will
save taxpayer dollars and help save the planet at the same time.
______
Responses by Kateri Callahan to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. During the hearing, I asked GSA about the issue you
raised in your testimony regarding GSA procurement schedules. Would you
provide the Committee with a few examples of inefficient and outdated
equipment which still appears on GSA schedules despite legislative
mandates that such equipment be eliminated?
Response. Examples of non-compliant products that still appear on
the GSA Advantage include incandescent exit signs (e.g., B-674041);
refrigerators (e.g., CS22AFXKQ); and air conditioners (e.g., 2291615).
Question 2. You suggest that the federal government require that
owners of the buildings which the government leases share in the cost
of energy efficiency. Would you elaborate on that for the Committee and
describe how such a system would work?
Response. New or renewed federal leases in existing buildings
should be required to give preference to buildings that meet the EPA
Energy Star rating requirement (efficiency in the top 25th percentile).
If leased space is not available in such buildings, then the lease
agreement in a non-Energy Star building should provide for installation
of all lighting, equipment, and building energy-efficiency upgrades
that pay for themselves through energy cost savings within the term of
the lease.
Question 3. You testified that roughly five percent of the federal
government's energy use is at GSA buildings. That statistic suggests
other agencies, not GSA, are the big energy users. The Alliance has
worked with many federal agencies. Which has the farthest to go in
terms of energy efficiency?
Response. The Department of Defense (DOD) is by far the largest
energy user in the federal government (see Figure 1).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
And while there are many ways to measure agency progress in
improving energy efficiency, the most often used measure is energy use
per square foot (i.e., building energy intensity). As shown in Figure 8
below, out of a total of 17 individual agencies, DOD is average in
terms of progress toward meeting the 2005 intensity reduction
requirement established in Executive Order 13123 (i.e., 30 percent
below 1985 levels). Given that DOD represents nearly three-fourths of
government primary energy consumption in 2005, it is not surprising
that the federal government also fell short of its 2005 target.
As the chart also indicates, at least 9 cabinet level agencies did
not meet the 2005 requirements and three of them--the State Department,
the Department of the Interior, and Housing and Urban Development--had
not even achieved their 1995 requirements by 2005. In fact, the State
Department's energy intensity actually increased during this time
period.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 4. You talked about making the Capitol complex a model of
energy efficiency, a goal I strongly support. Many of the Alliance
members have worked with federal agencies and with the Architect of the
Capitol. What recommendations do you have for improving energy
efficiency practices at the AOC? Are there lessons to be learned from
other agencies?
Response. The AOC should participate in the FEMP Interagency Task
Force, led by DOE FEMP, which meets once every two months to learn more
about ways to improve federal energy management.
In addition, the House Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Dan
Beard, has developed a preliminary report entitled ``Green the Capitol
Initiative'' that was submitted to House Speaker Pelosi on April 19,
2007. This report details five areas to improve energy efficiency in
Capitol complex operations and notes that the Architect of the Capitol
has identified over 100 opportunities for improving the physical
buildings and operations in analysis required by the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). These areas cover interior lighting, office
electronics, data center and computer servers, heating, ventilating and
air conditioning, and the Capitol power plant. The Alliance to Save
Energy encourages the Architect of the Capitol to review and implement
the recommendations that will be made available in the final report,
which should be published in the coming weeks.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Ms. Callahan.
Ms. Townshend, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MELANIE TOWNSHEND, PROJECT EXECUTIVE, GILBANE
BUILDING COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA
Ms. Townshend. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members and
staff for conducting the hearing and inviting me to speak on
behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America,
commonly known as the AGC, on your proposed legislative
solutions to make government buildings more efficient and
reduce their operational costs through the use of innovative
technologies and practices.
I am Melanie Townshend. I am a LEED-accredited project
executive at Gilbane Building Company, and I serve as our
company's nationwide sustainable practices coordinator. We are
one of the Nation's oldest building firms. We are an active
member of the Associated General Contractors, and we consider
ourselves a leader in implementing sustainable design and
construction practices today. Our knowledge base has been
gained through management of over 45 successful green building
projects across the Country.
Additionally, we are a top builder and construction manager
for the Federal Government, and our portfolio includes both the
National World War II Memorial and the Department of Justice
modernization, both of which I was pleased to be personally
involved in.
The Associated General Contractors of America is the oldest
and largest of the national trade associations in the
construction industry. We were founded at the request of
President Woodrow Wilson in 1918 and we now represent over
32,000 firms, 7,000 of the Nation's leading general
contractors, 12,000 specialty firms, and more than 13,000
suppliers, and of course these are all major employers and so
represent a huge number of stakeholders in the environment we
live in.
AGC members are engaged in the construction and renovation
of commercial and public facilities. We prepare the sites and
the infrastructure for residential and commercial development.
Madam Chair, our members embrace green construction. We
recognize green construction is not a temporary phenomenon or
whim. It is here to stay. Most of our contractors are
proactively educating themselves on good green construction
practices. The AGC is currently preparing a contractors guide
to green building construction. This will complement several
existing resources on the issue. The manual will
comprehensively address green construction subjects, standards,
rating systems, risk management issues, subcontracting
procurement, and building operations, a very comprehensive body
of work.
We stand ready to facilitate and support green
construction, with particular respect to the construction of
Federal facilities. We simply urge that you set clear and
consistent standards for the design and construction of those
projects.
We do not as an organization favor any one rating system
over another, but rating systems provide the common language to
measure the achievement in the design and construction of a
sustainable building.
We currently doubt that the benefit of any single
definition of green construction for any and all purposes would
work. It is important that rating systems allow for variations
in regional, local, and site-specific conditions, as well as
the nuances of different building types. For example, many
hospital projects incorporate the Green Guide for Health Care.
Many military projects incorporate SPiRiT. Many private sector
projects and public sector projects have been built under the
U.S. Green Building Council LEED rating system.
Private sector competition can and should be used to
encourage the innovative technologies and common sense
solutions to these environmental problems, and in fact that
evolution has been very strong in our marketplace over the last
few years.
I have attached to the written testimony summaries of two
major green rating systems, Green Globes and the LEED Green
Building Rating System. Based on our experience, Green Globes
may be more suitable for mainstream commercial buildings. LEED
may be more appropriate for high performance or top tier
buildings. But again, we don't come here to endorse any one
rating system, but simply the importance of setting the
criteria when setting forth to do a project.
You specifically requested our comments on the bill for the
Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007. The bill does not
raise any serious concerns. We would note the language included
in section 2(b) of the legislative document with respect to the
plan for energy efficiency at GSA facilities. Specifically,
that section 2(b), 2(e) requires GSA to recommend language for
uniform standards for use by Federal agencies in implementing
cost-effective technology and practices.
We do have some concern that this language might lead the
GSA to favor one rating system over another. We support
uniformity and the economies of scale that it brings, but we do
suggest that GSA build language around the common elements of
several rating systems currently in place in the marketplace.
While this issue may be outside the precise jurisdiction of
the committee, we also encourage Congress to enact legislation
to allow tax exempt financing for green construction projects.
Green bonds make it easier for construction project owners to
offset the costs of site remediation, sustainable design
features, and environmentally friendly technologies or
products.
In addition, the AGC supports legislation currently pending
in the U.S. House, H.R. 539, the Buildings for the 21st Century
Act, which would extend the commercial building tax deduction
originally enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
through to 2013, and increased it from $1.80 to $2.25 per
square foot.
In addition to building green buildings for our owners to
help them achieve their larger societal environmental
sustainability goals, we understand that our own day-to-day
construction activities impact the environment. AGC and its
members are striving to comply with all of the environmental
laws, regulations and permitting requirements to minimize our
environmental impact of construction on a daily basis.
Green construction encourages contractors to discuss and
put into practices the activities that will minimize the impact
of their operations on the environment. Some examples are site
layout to minimize site disturbance, control of erosion and
runoff, minimizing the use of fossil fuel and emissions, using
conservation as well as alternative fuels, reducing waste from
construction through recycling and reuse, and working to
improve indoor air quality during construction by low-emitting
material use.
The AGC is also leading by example. We recently opened our
headquarters at 2300 Wilson Boulevard in Arlington, VA, which
was designed to the LEED Silver level of certification. The
environmentally sensitive systems in that facility will save
the occupants about $75,000 a year in energy costs, and about
$5,000 a year in water use.
Senator Boxer. Could you sum up at this point please?
Ms. Townshend. Yes, ma'am.
So we appreciate the opportunity to participate. We want
you to know that we stand ready to facilitate and support green
construction, and we encourage you in the direction that you
are already moving.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Townshend follows:]
Statement of Melanie Townshend, Gilbane Building Company, on Behalf of
the Associated General Contractors of America
Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Inhofe, for conducting
today's hearing and for inviting me to speak on behalf of the
Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) on legislative
solutions intended to make government buildings more efficient and to
reduce their operational costs through the use of innovative
technologies and practices.
My name is Melanie Townshend. I am a LEED Accredited Project
Executive at Gilbane Building Company and am our company's Nationwide
Sustainable Practices Coordinator. Gilbane is one of the Nation's
oldest building firms and an active member of the Associated General
Contractors. Gilbane is also among the leading firms implementing
sustainable design and construction practices and strategies. Our
extensive knowledge base has been acquired through management of over
45 successful Green Building related projects. Additionally, Gilbane is
a top builder and Construction Manager for the federal government, with
a portfolio that includes the National World War II Memorial and the
Department of Justice Modernization, both of which 1 was personally
involved.
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the oldest
and largest of the national trade associations in the construction
industry. Founded at the request of President Woodrow Wilson in 1918,
AGC now represents more than 32,000 firms, including 7,000 of the
Nation's leading general contractors, 12,000 specialty contractors, and
more than 13,000 materials suppliers and service providers.
AGC members engage in the construction of commercial buildings and
public works facilities, and they prepare the sites and install the
infrastructure necessary for residential and commercial development.
Madam Chair, AGC and its members are embracing green construction.
We recognize that green construction is not a temporary phenomenon; it
is here to stay. Accordlingly, many contractors are proactively
educating themselves on green construction practices. To assist in this
effort, AGC is currently preparing an ``AGC Contractor's Guide to Green
Building Construction'' to complement several existing resources on the
issue. The manual will comprehensively address green construction
subjects, describing the various green building standards and rating
systems, as well as the risk management, subcontracting, procurement,
and operational issues associated with green construction.
AGC stands ready to facilitate and support green construction. With
respect to the construction of federal facilities, AGC would simply
urge the government to set clear and consistent standard& AGC does not
favor any one rating system over any other.
Indeed, AGC doubts the benefit of a single definition of green
construction for any and all purposes, and would note, for example,
that all ratings systems should allow for variations in regional,
local, and site-specific conditions and the nuances of different
building types. For example hospital projects incorporate the Green
Guide for health Care as a criteria and rating mechanism, and many
military construction projects incorporate SPiRiT, another Green
Building rating tool. Furthermore, private sector competition should be
used to encourage innovative technologies and common-sense solutions to
environmental problems.
I have attached to my written testimony a one-page summary of two
major green construction rating systems: Green Globes and LEED Green
Building Rating System. Based on AGC members' experience, Green Globes
may be more suitable for mainstream construction and LEED may be more
appropriate for high performance or ``top tier'' buildings. But again,
AGC does not endorse one system over another.
Madam Chair, you specifically requested AGC's comments on S. ----,
the Public Buildings Cost Reduction An of 2007--Overall, the bill does
not raise serious concerns. AGC would, however, note the language
included in Section 2(b) of the legislation with respect to the plan
for energy efficiency at General Services Administration (GSA)
facilities. Specifically, the language contained in Section 2(b)(2)(E)
requires GSA to recommend ``language for uniform standards for use by
Federal agencies in implementing cost-effective technology and
practices.'' AGC has some concerns that this language would lead GSA to
favor one rating system over another. AGC supports uniformity, but
would suggest that GSA build its language around the common elements of
the several rating systems currently in place.
While this issue may be outside the jurisdiction of this Committee,
AGC also encourages Congress to enact legislation to allow tax-exempt
financing for green construction projects. Green bonds make it easier
for construction project owners to offset the coast of site
remediation, sustainable design features, and environmentally-friendly
technologies or products. In addition, ACC supports legislation pending
in the U.S. House of Representatives, it 539, the Buildings for the
2.B' Century Ace, which would extend the Commercial Building Tax
Deduction originally enacted as pan of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
until 2013 and areas from $1.80 S2.25 per square foot. In addition to
building green facilities for our owners to achieve larger societal
environmental sustainability goals, AGC understands that construction
operations also impact the environment. AGC and its members strive to
comply with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and permit
requirements, and to minimize the environmental impact of construction
operations on a daily basis.
Green construction further encourages contractors to discuss and
put practices into place to minimize the impact of their operations on
the environment. Examples include site layout to minimize site
disturbance, erosion, and run off during construction; minimizing the
use of fossil fuel and emissions through conservation and alternate
fuels; reduced waste through material recycling and reuse; and improved
indoor air quality during construction by using low-emitting materials.
AGC is also leading by example--We recently opened our new
headquarters, located at 2300 Wilson Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia,
which was designed to achieve a LEED Silver level of certification.
Environmentally-sensitive systems in our new facility will save
occupants mound $75,000 a year in energy costs and $5,000 a year in
water use.
AGC again appreciates the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing. AGC stands ready to facilitate and support green construction,
and encourages the Committee to further promote its use in the public
and private sectors. We look forward to working with you on this and
other construction issues.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Melanie Townshend to Additional Questions from
Senator Boxer
Question 1. In your statement you urge ``clear and consistent''
standards to facilitate green construction. You also state that the
Association of General Contractors does not favor one rating system
over another. How can we reconcile these positions? Which of the two
major ratings systems exemplifies a flexible system that maintains
clear standards?
Response. As long as one of the major rating systems is specified
for each individual project, the design and construction team members
will have clear and consistent standards to follow in executing the
project. The major ratings systems in use today are US Green Building
Council LEED, SPIRIT, Green Globes, and Green Guide for Healthcare
Projects. All of these systems have experienced evolution in the past
few years and are expected to continue their development. LEED has
evolved in such a way as to recognize how different types of buildings
can be made sustainable, and has included a broad scope of industry
training along with the development, so I would say that this is the
most flexible of the current major systems.
Question 2. You worked both on the construction of the World War II
memorial and in the retrofit of the Main Justice Department building.
At the Justice Building, what kinds of energy efficient technologies
did you install, and what were the payback times for those
technologies?
Response. On the Main Justice Project, direct digital controls for
the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system, as well as
energy-efficient lighting fixtures, were installed. Many of the
existing building elements were retained and the retrofit adhered to
historic preservation requirements, so this project scope did not
include technology upgrades which might have been possible in a more
complete replacement project. We are not privy to the operating costs
of the facility but our general understanding is that the
implementation of these technologies would typically results in payback
in a period of about 2 years. Installation at the Main Justice Project
was phased over a 7-year period, so the full effects would not have
been realized until the end of the entire project.
Senator Boxer. I thank both of you for very constructive
comments and advice. Some of these things that you talk about
are so crucial, and I wish that, frankly, the jurisdiction of
this committee were a little broader than it is. We can only
deal with the government buildings and that is what we are
doing here today. But we will talk to our colleagues, because
you both have come out with some terrific ideas in terms of how
to really improve energy efficiency in general.
I do appreciate the private sector's contribution because
frankly a lot of the work we do is done by the private sector.
So we want to make sure you are with us and you get the
importance of it, and clearly you do.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Again to both of you, thank you for joining us today and
for your testimony and responding to our questions.
I really have three questions I would like for each of you
to respond to. The first would be to just ask you to react to
the testimony of Commissioner Winstead. Was there anything he
said that you would like to go back and just sort of underline
or emphasize, that you thought was especially poignant,
appropriate, timely; that we should really put an exclamation
point behind it? That is my first question.
My second question is, when you look around the world to
folks in other countries who share our concerns about reducing
the amount of energy we are using, clean air, clean energy, the
folks who share those views, what are some lessons that maybe
we should look beyond our borders to take advantage of?
The third one is the same question I asked Commissioner
Winstead. Ms. Callahan, I think you answered it in part, but I
would ask you to answer it again. If you were in our shoes,
what would you be doing?
So if you could take them one at a time, I would appreciate
it. Just start off by looking back at Commissioner Winstead's
testimony.
Ms. Callahan. I think for the Commissioner, a couple of
things ring clear. He told you that they invite and encourage
the kind of oversight that you are doing. Somebody has to step
up and say, we are going to hold people accountable, and this
has to be a central element of your job and how you are
evaluated, meaning energy management.
That hasn't happened to the level it needs to yet. So I
think that in every Agency should be brought in in a good, but
energetic way, the way it happened today, and be talked to
about your goals and the objectives and the laws that are in
place, and what they are doing to fulfill it. Give them a
chance to do what the Commissioner did today, which is to be
able to show you that they actually are doing a lot, but that
there is more that can be done. So that is one thing he said.
The other, on lighting, lighting is just a huge opportunity
for us. The Alliance to Save Energy has entered into a
coalition with some other environmental groups and Phillips,
which is one of the world's largest lighting manufacturers, to
call for the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, inefficient
incandescent light bulbs in the United States over the next
decade. We are working to bring others into that coalition.
GSA talked about how important it is and how many billions
and billions and billions of dollars you can save by moving
away from those inefficient lighting technologies. That I found
very encouraging.
The other that I think is very important that he mentioned,
he mentioned about renewables, but payback periods being long
enough that the agencies can be willing to do it, and that it
will make sense to them on a cost-effective basis, and to keep
money coming into the funnel. Some of the ESCO projects, the
Energy Savings Company projects, may have payback periods that
are 10 years to 15 years. However, the Federal Government isn't
paying anything on that loan, if you will. The payment is
coming out of the energy savings. In fact, in some instances,
the agencies begin to save from day one. They share the savings
with the energy service company. So those kinds of things I
think are important.
Senator Carper. Hold it right there.
Let me go to Ms. Townshend to ask her to answer the same
first question. Anything from Commissioner Winstead's comments
that you would like to emphasize?
Ms. Townshend. Our industry does see GSA as a leader in the
green building standards, and they have done an excellent job
on the LEED-certified projects thus far. To go to Senator
Alexander's point earlier, they are encouraging designers to
maintain the aesthetics and the desirability of the building,
as well as the energy efficiency.
I do think the Commissioner made an important point about
how site-specific and purpose-specific the design or retrofit
of each building has to be. That can be an expensive and time
consuming process. It does require a lot of support to make
that happen.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Second question. Go ahead, Ms. Callahan.
Ms. Callahan. OK. The second one, in terms of what are the
things that we would do if I could talk outside the scope of
the committee, I think the things that you mentioned, research
and development and putting money into that. We have
systematically since 2002 cut the funds into energy efficiency
research and development programs at the Department of Energy.
They are down by one-third. We need to reinvest. You need to
invest more to save more money.
Senator Carper. I wonder if that reflects the President's
budget request for 2008?
Ms. Callahan. The President's budget request for 2008 again
shows somewhat of a decrease in the funds. What we are
encouraged by is that you all in the continuing resolution
bumped up the energy efficiency and renewable energy budget by
$300 million, and we are taking that as a sign that the
appropriators will again invest more in that in 2008 and
beyond, since they were willing to go at such a high level in
the budget.
Senator Carper. That is a pretty good bump.
Ms. Callahan. It is a pretty good bump, and we really
appreciate it. I think it will put to very good use.
I would mention that for every R&D dollar, there is a
National Academy of Sciences study that shows for every dollar
that the Federal Government is investing in its energy
efficiency programs, there is a $17 return on that investment
back into our economy in terms of energy savings and investment
in new technology.
Senator Carper. Who says it is $17 to $1?
Ms. Callahan. It is $17 to $1, the National Academy of
Sciences. That was a study that was done on the DOE programs.
The second area is tax credits. You mentioned that. That is
something that we believe can really be a market transformer.
Some were put in place in 2005 in the Energy Policy Act, but
they expired too soon, particularly the commercial building tax
incentives. They have already been extended for a year, but I
am sure that my fellow witness can tell you that to plan,
execute, and construct a building is a 5- or more year window,
and those tax incentives are just simply not available long
enough to have a meaningful impact. So that is another area.
Then finally, standards. In addition to putting the carrots
out with tax incentives to get the better products out there,
we need to make sure that we say as a Country there is a
certain minimum efficiency level for our clothes washers, our
air conditions, our televisions, our cell phones that we going
to allow. So we need to begin to more aggressively establish
minimum energy efficiency standards.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Townshend.
Ms. Townshend. I would agree strongly with two of those
aspects. The tax credits are important in motivating building
owners and developers, and the time to develop a project is
long. So they need continuing encouragement on the financial
side to incorporate green building.
However, the good news about that is that the cost of green
building is almost down to zero. A few years ago, we would have
said it was a 10 percent premium. Now frequently it is not a
premium at all. So that proves that the marketplace is working
with us to make things more achievable.
I think watching the marketplace is the other key thing we
all need to do. More products are coming in. We need to have
standards for those products, but be aware of the technology
innovations that are coming online every day.
Senator Carper. All right. Any closing words?
Ms. Callahan. Well, the third one, lessons learned from
beyond. There is a lot that is out there. I would like to say,
though, I have been over to Europe a couple of times talking to
folks over there, and then we host international folks.
The United States is doing a lot and we are doing a lot
more than we are being credited for in terms of energy
efficiency. It is often overlooked what we are doing, because
we are not doing it under the banner of climate change, the way
so many other countries are. But I would like to just make that
note that it is remarkable what we are doing, and particularly
the businesses in the United States leading, and the Federal
Government.
But the thing that I think strikes me, the one thing,
because I know I am running out of time, they in many countries
more appropriately price energy. When energy prices are high,
that sends a signal and people respond accordingly. When
gasoline prices went over $3 a gallon, you saw a downturn in
the market for gas guzzling SUVs.
There is a reason in Europe that they are diesel. Diesel-
fueled vehicles are very fuel-economic vehicles, and it is
because of the government's requirement and the taxing that
makes the energy prices high.
So I think that that is something that the Congress, as
tough as that is, really needs to look at. Are we appropriately
pricing energy when you look at the impact it is having on our
environment, on our energy security, and on our economy?
Senator Carper. Good points. Thank you.
My time has expired. The Chairman has been very generous.
Ms. Townshend. I would just say that the building trades
really want to do a good job, and that is the message coming
from the industry. So that cultural push is there to support
what you are doing.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
Again, to our witnesses, thank you so much.
Madam Chair, maybe for most people on our committee, this
is not an exciting moment. I just think this is such an
exciting issue for us to be tackling, and I applaud your
leadership and look forward to supporting what you put
together.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much.
Let me say this. I agree with you, Ms. Callahan. A lot of
things we do, we don't take the time to realize its effect.
Now, this bill is going to lead to cost reductions in the
running of the Federal Government, and it is also going to lead
to reductions in greenhouse gases. The beauty of this is, it is
this dual impact.
So today we are taking the first step, this committee is,
toward addressing the issues of both cost and the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. The beauty of it is we have such
wonderful support all across the spectrum. I think it is a
confidence-builder.
I have to say Senator Carper has been encouraging me from
day one that I took the gavel and we had our first talks, that
we really needed to bring bipartisanship back to the issue of
this environment and dealing with this environment. I am so
happy that I am working with the former Chairman on this,
Senator Inhofe, and working with Senator Alexander, Senator
Isakson, everybody here, as well as, of course, the various
Democrats on the committee.
So this is the summary. I have no more questions. I would
like to submit a couple of questions to Ms. Callahan for the
record because you have so much to offer us. I so appreciate
the organization that you are with. You have been pounding away
at this even when it wasn't popular. Now it is coming back into
popularity to talk about energy savings. But you have been
there since we all put our sweaters on in the 1970s--not you
personally. You were too young, but your predecessors.
You know, it is wonderful to know that Senators Percy and
Humphrey teamed up. So now we are teaming up across party lines
here.
So let me just summarize S. 992. This hearing was about S.
992, and we received strong support for it. It is, as I say,
our very first bill out of this committee that addresses the
issue of both costs and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
This bill quite simply will make Federal buildings a model of
energy efficiency.
It is in fact very much in tune with what the President
announced, and I see Marty has walked in, which is perfect
timing. It is essentially looking at the Executive order,
making it stronger, frontloading it, and working with the
Administration, able to do this. This is very key.
This bill will save taxpayer dollars. It will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. We have to make the point, and we all
agreed on this, that buildings are responsible for 38 percent
of greenhouse gas emissions. So by making Federal buildings the
model of energy efficiency, we are sending a signal to
everyone: You have a responsibility, and guess what, you will
save money when you do these things.
Working with the private sector, whose been right out front
on this, and we appreciate so much Ms. Townshend's testimony
today, we can really take much more of a leadership than we
have up to this point, because we are in fact making it a
priority by passing this legislation.
The other point I don't want to miss is the matching grant
part of this bill. It is very important because we have cities
and counties that are asking us for help. They want to go out.
They want to make these capital investments. They know it is
going to bring a payback within 3, 4, or 5 years, and some even
sooner.
Working with Senator Inhofe, we made this program I think
very efficient because we have said it is a pilot program for 5
years, $20 million a year. We are capping the grants I think at
$1 million so that we can really watch what they do. We spread
the dollars around.
Now, again just looking at the number of buildings. GSA
owns 1,550 buildings and they manage at least 7,137 buildings.
That is a lot of buildings. Looking at, again, cities and
counties, there are 22,000 cities and counties together. If
they each have a couple of buildings, which we know they have
at least a couple of buildings, we are talking tens of
thousands more buildings.
We are saying to them, if you can prove to us that the
payback is within 5 years, this grant is yours. If you need to
plant trees to create shade around a very sunny building in a
hot climate, you can use it for that. If you want to improve
your air conditioner, you can use it for that. EPA will
administer this program.
We have tried to make this bill non-bureaucratic, I would
say, and I really want to thank the CEQ for their help. I
really want to thank my staff and the staff of Senator Inhofe.
We will name them all tomorrow, how hard they all worked. This
is not easy to find agreement on these things. Every word in
this bill was subjected to many hours of discussion.
So it took us a long time, but it was worth doing. We kept
to our deadline.
So here we are. I promised the Senate a confidence-building
bill and here it is. It is ready to go. It is bipartisan. It is
our first step to addressing the costs in Federal buildings and
global warming. So I am very excited about it. We have a very
important markup, I say to the staff who is here, tomorrow
morning at 10 o'clock. I hope everyone will be here on time.
We had a breakthrough on WRDA. We are going to mark that
up. Yes, tomorrow. So we will have WRDA coming out of this
committee. We will have S. 992. The Public Buildings Cost
Reduction Act of 2007 will also come out of the committee, as
well as a couple of nominations, a courthouse naming and so on.
So we have a busy schedule tomorrow.
Thanks again to all of the witnesses today. GSA was
terrific. I think our two witnesses here were excellent.
Senator Carper, I want to thank you. I want to thank
Senators Inhofe, Alexander, Klobuchar, and Sanders for all
participating.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]