[Senate Hearing 111-1187]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1187
OVERSIGHT OF THE GSA AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 22, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-029 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 22, 2009
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland, prepared statement................................... 130
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 131
WITNESSES
Prouty, Paul F., Acting Administrator, General Services
Administration, Accompanied by: Tony Costa, Acting
Commissioner, Public Buildings Service; Bill Guerin, Recovery
Executive, Recovery Program Management Office, Public Buildings
Service; and Kevin Kampschroer, Acting Director, Office of
Federal High-Performance Green Buildings....................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 10
Response to an additional question from Senator Lautenberg... 20
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cardin........................................... 21
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 24
Senator Inhofe........................................... 26
Gatlin, Doug, Vice President, Market Development, U.S. Green
Building Council............................................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 72
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 72
Burt, Lane, Energy Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 91
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 91
Bryan, Harvey, Professor, School of Architecture and Landscape
Architecture, School of Sustainability, Arizona State
University..................................................... 97
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 114
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 114
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Testimony of Associated Builders and Contractors................. 133
Statement from the American Forest & Paper Association........... 142
An Analysis of the Financial Performance of Green Office
Buildings in the USA........................................... 148
Statement from Independent Electrical Contractors................ 190
Testimony of the National Association of Home Builders........... 193
Testimony of the National Energy Management Institute............ 200
Information from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative............. 208
Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable
Energy Sources................................................. 214
Research paper on Green Jobs Myths............................... 263
OVERSIGHT OF THE GSA AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Klobuchar,
Udall, and Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning. Happy Earth Day to all.
We are going to skip opening statements because we want to
get right to our panel. We have two purposes this morning. One
is to see how we are doing on the Recovery Act, because there
was a good chunk of money that we provided to GSA to convert
their facilities to high-performance green buildings. We want
to know how that is coming. That is the first thing.
The second panel, we will hear from building and energy
efficiency experts from outside of Government regarding the
progress that has been made to date and the barriers to further
improvement. We are working across the aisle to write some
legislation to see if we can do more to move even faster and
further on our GSA efficiency efforts.
So with that, I am very happy to open it up and glad to
have those of you here. There is a lot going on today. I think
Al Gore is over on the other side of the building talking about
global warming, and John Kerry, I just left a hearing, he is
talking about the progress on the international side, of the
treaty that we are working on global warming.
So Mr. Prouty, why don't you go ahead and proceed.
STATEMENT OF PAUL F. PROUTY, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: TONY COSTA, ACTING
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE; BILL GUERIN, RECOVERY
EXECUTIVE, RECOVERY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SERVICE; AND KEVIN KAMPSCHROER, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
FEDERAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS
Mr. Prouty. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe and
members of this Committee. My name is Paul Prouty and I am the
Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you on Earth
Day. It is a fantastic opportunity for us to talk to you about
the things we are doing to make our Federal buildings more
energy efficient.
I am pleased to discuss GSA's contribution to our Nation's
economic recovery through green building modernization and
construction. The funds Congress provided GSA through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are a sound investment
in many respects. First, the money will help GSA reduce energy
consumption and improve the environmental performance of our
inventory.
Second, the funds in large part will be invested in
existing infrastructure. This will help reduce our backlog of
repair and alteration needs and increase asset value,
prolonging their useful life and ultimately further conserving
our Country's resources.
Third, the money will lessen our reliance on costly
operating leases by providing more Government-owned solutions
for long-term client requirements.
Finally, we will stimulate job growth in the construction
and real estate sectors and prompt long-term improvements in
alternative energy solutions and green building and energy-
efficient technologies.
Today, I will describe the steps we have taken to carry out
the public buildings services portion of the Recovery Act. With
me today are Tony Costa, Acting Commissioner of the Public
Buildings Service; Bill Guerin, the recovery executive in our
newly established Recovery Program Management Office; and Kevin
Kampschroer, our Acting Director of the Office of Federal High-
Performance Green Buildings.
It is not business as usual at GSA. We are moving forward
with speed, tempered by careful consideration of our
procurement responsibilities and our ultimate accountability to
the citizens. To streamline business processes and provide
tools and resources to assist GSA's regional recovery project
delivery, we have established a nationally managed, regionally
executed Project Management Office. The PMO works closely with
counterparts in the core PBS organization to leverage resources
and expertise.
The PMO office develops and maintains consistent processes,
policies and guidelines, manages customer requirements and
expectations at the national level, drives successful project
oversight and management, ensures accurate tracking and
reporting of the Recovery Act funds, manages cross-agency
resources, and enables PBS to adopt leading practices.
PBS and the Program Management Office have moved forward
quickly. On March 31, GSA on behalf of the Administration,
delivered to Congress a list of 254 projects in all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories to be
completed with funds provided by the Recovery Act. These
projects fall in the following categories: new Federal
construction, full or partial building modernizations, and
limited scope, high-performance green building projects.
In the new Federal construction category, we will invest $1
billion in 17 projects. In the building modernization category,
we will invest $3.2 billion in 43 projects. And in the limited
scope green buildings category, we will invest $806 million in
194 projects.
GSA selected the best projects for accomplishing the goals
of the Recovery Act, based on a detailed analysis of a number
of factors. Our goals in developing the list were to put people
back to work quickly and to dramatically increase the
sustainability of our buildings.
Many of the projects in the new Federal construction and
building modernization categories have previously received
partial funding. We can start construction quickly on these
projects, while also identifying ways that existing designs can
be improved.
These categories include projects such as the Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, a multi-
tenant office building project where heating, ventilation and
air conditioning, plumbing, electrical and life safety
improvements are expected to deliver a 23.6 percent energy
savings. This is over and above the 20 percent in energy
savings we have achieved in this building in recent years.
Examples of the ways in which we will improve new
construction and major modernization projects we have selected
include thicker insulation than required by the newest energy
codes in climates where it makes sense; installing variable
frequency drives to reduce energy and extend the life of
mechanical equipment; converting parking structure lighting to
light emitting diode LED, which dramatically lowers energy
consumption, improves safety and visibility, and reduces
maintenance; retrofitting or replacing less efficient windows;
and specifying dual flush toilets and waterless or low water
urinals to save water and reduce demand on aging city sewer
systems.
An example of the innovative improvements we will be making
in some of the construction and modernization projects is the
Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in Portland, Oregon.
As part of this project, GSA will install a new high-
performance double glass enclosure over the entire building,
which will dramatically enhance energy performance and blast
resistance. On the west facade, vegetative fins will provide
shade, and reduce the load of the new high-efficiency heating,
ventilation and air conditioning system that will be installed.
These are just some of the green improvements that GSA will
make as part of this project. We expect the building to attain
a LEED gold rating.
By using well-established contracting techniques, we can
start work quickly and make simultaneous improvements on
existing designs.
In the limited scope category, we have identified a number
of basic projects that can rapidly be deployed in many
buildings at once, buildings as varied as Oklahoma City Federal
Building, the Burlington Federal Building, U.S. Post Office and
Courthouse, and the J. Caleb Boggs Courthouse and Federal
Buildings in Wilmington, Delaware.
Through these basic projects, we can make significant
improvement to the energy performance of a building and also
improve the working conditions for the people in them.
Three examples of these improvements are installing
intelligent lighting systems that provide daylight and controls
for occupants to adjust for ambient light versus task light;
replacing flat roofs with ENERGY STAR membranes, integrated
photovoltaic panels bonded to the membrane or planted roofs;
accelerating the installation of advanced meters, which is
required to be completed by 2012 under the Energy Policy Act.
Advanced meters enable us to better manage buildings by
instantaneously providing information on buildings' energy use
and encouraging immediate operational changes.
For these projects, we have developed standard national
scopes of work, some of which were provided by the national
laboratories run by the Department of Energy. DOE's Federal
Energy Management Program, in conjunction with the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory has provided specifications for the
four most common types of solar installation. The Commercial
Buildings Program at DOE and the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory have provided specifications for three classes of
lighting and control strategies. We have also developed
standards using GSA's past projects as models.
Today, I have described the unprecedented and exciting
opportunity that lies before us to contribute to our Nation's
economic recovery by investing in green technologies and
reinvesting in our public buildings.
Greening our buildings will be an ongoing process. As the
Committee knows, the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 and other laws require GSA, among other things, to reduce
its energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015; reduce fossil
fuel generated energy consumption in our new buildings by
increasing amounts from 55 percent in 2010 to 100 percent in
2030; and to green an even greater portion of our inventory.
Although the Recovery Act will accelerate our progress in these
areas, it alone will not enable us to meet these goals.
We look forward to working with you and Members of this
Committee as we engage in this important work.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, this concludes my
prepared statement. We will be pleased to answer any questions
that you or any other members of this Committee may have. I
would like to request that Messrs. Costa, Guerin, and
Kampschroer join me for the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prouty follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Senator Boxer. Well, Mr. Prouty, I just want to say I am
very excited about your presentation. Would you like to
introduce the people you brought with you?
Mr. Prouty. I would very much like to do so.
This is Tony Costa. He is the Acting Commissioner of the
Public Buildings Service. This is Bill Guerin, who is running
our recovery work for the Public Buildings Service. And Kevin
Kampschroer, who is head of our Green Program.
Senator Boxer. Wonderful.
I am so happy we have been joined by Senator Lautenberg,
who is such a leader in the whole area of green buildings and
worked so hard to get some of those laws passed that you talked
about.
I want to just say people don't realize, and Senator
Lautenberg, you and I know this, buildings are 39 percent of
the problem when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. So when
we make a building green, we are not only saving money, we are
not only improving air quality, but we are absolutely
confronting head on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming.
I have long believed, and you have, Senator, and I am sure
you have all out there believed that the Federal Government
ought to be a model when it comes to the environment. And today
is Earth Day, and the reason I held this hearing is I want to
make sure that you are on track with this stimulus bill. It
sounds very good. And Senator, I am going to make available to
you a list of all their projects that they have already decided
they are going to do under the Stimulus Act.
And what I also wanted to say just for the record is that
GSA is the lessee or owner of over 354 million square feet of
space in 8,600 buildings located in more than 2,200 communities
nationwide. And you know, frankly, we have lost this
opportunity before, but now this new President and this
Congress believe that we can make a real difference if we take
the lead here, not only in the actual improvements that will be
made to the buildings, our buildings, the people's buildings,
but also showing that yes, there is a model for everyone else
to follow. I want us to be that model.
So I will make sure that everybody has this list. I am
looking to see what is going on in New Jersey. Yes, the
Paterson, the Robert A. Roe Federal Building in Paterson, New
Jersey is getting a big hunk of the stimulus money to make it
energy efficient.
Senator Lautenberg. The fact that I was born in Paterson
has nothing to do with it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Well, I am sure it is just a coincidence
here, but you know, there is so much room for improvement.
So I have just a couple of questions. Is there anything in
particular, and I would ask all of you if you have a point,
that this Committee can do to ensure the successful execution
of the stimulus bill, otherwise known as the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act? Are you experiencing any problems,
issues? And in your answer, could you tell me if most of these
improvements are being done in-house or are they contracted out
to the outside work force? And how is the new National Recovery
Executive Office operating to ensure that all these projects
are on track? Have you had any interaction with them, because
this Committee needs to oversee GSA.
We want to make sure, A, any problems you are having on
execution, how this National Recovery Executive Office is
working, and are you contracting out for most of these things
or doing them in-house?
Mr. Prouty. First of all, as far as any help we might need,
we at this point think that we quite frankly have all the help
that we need in all regards.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Prouty. This is a massive amount of funding and it is a
huge opportunity and we are up for the task.
As far as who is going to be doing the work, it is
primarily contracted out. Obviously, we have a staff that
manages the contracts for that.
Senator Boxer. So this is a boon to a lot of our businesses
across this Country. Is that correct? Out of all the
contracts--and I know I am interrupting you, but I am sorry--
out of all the contracts you will be letting, how many have
been let already, do you think? Probably a small percent, I
would think at this point.
Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Madam Chair, our plans are to award over $1
billion worth of project contracts by August, and so far----
Senator Boxer. A billion of the 4 billion?
Mr. Costs. A billion of the $5.5 billion.
Senator Boxer. OK. By August? And the rest?
Mr. Costa. The rest throughout the 18 months that we have
to spend the rest of the money.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me just say to you, and I know our
President has said this, the point of the stimulus bill is to
be a stimulus to this economy. In my State, I can only tell
you, 11.2 percent, the fifth worst unemployment. So we need
these funds to get out there, and we are going to be working. I
know that President Obama's team also believes that.
So that leads me to his National Recovery Executive Office.
Tell me, how is that working? Are they working in a good way
with you?
Mr. Costa. From the standpoint of outside of GSA, the
recovery?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Costa. They have provided great support. We work
closely with them in two basic areas. As you know, there is a
lot of reporting that goes beyond anything we are used to that
we are going to be responding to. We think that is a great
thing because it will be not only better for us to manage our
own work, but letting the public and our stakeholders know how
we are doing actually is a great continuing check for us. So we
are looking forward to that and we have been working closely
with the recovery folks on doing that.
GSA is actually helping to manage recovery.gov, the
mechanism that is being used to pull all that information
together. So we are both involved.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me just say as Chairman of this
Committee, and I know I speak for Senator Inhofe on this, if
you run into any difficulties making this happen in any way,
you need to let us know. We want to encourage you to move
quickly, of course carefully, but quickly because the point of
the stimulus is just that. You know, to get a billion out by
August is good, but that leaves you with the bulk of the funds,
so we encourage you.
I guess my last question to Mr. Prouty at this point is, do
you have enough staff to get this done? I trust you are using
some of this to staff up. Is that correct?
Mr. Prouty. That particular money is not going to be what
we use for staffing, but we do have funding for additional
staff. We have been working with the Office of Personnel
Management to look for opportunities. We are going to bring
back people who previously worked for us.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Prouty. Obviously, there are some contracting vehicles.
We don't expect a large increase in permanent staff, but
temporary staff we do expect.
Senator Boxer. I think that is key, because otherwise, the
funds won't get there.
Now, I will tell you that I am working on a bill now with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do even more with
GSA. I know our staff has been in close touch with you, and we
are just about ready to get that bill done. Is that correct,
Bettina? And so we will run it by you to make sure that it is
right where you want it to be and it is a reasonable bill. But
you know, my view is very strongly felt that we can be the
model, and that is what we should be.
We can't talk the game and not, you know, really walk the
walk. So I am very happy with what you have said today. I am
very happy at the spirit that I feel. I feel this is a new
time, new challenges. Everything you do will be marked. As
Chairman, I intend to go to visit some of these programs as
they get down the road a bit just to make the point of what we
are doing.
So with that, let me call on Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Prouty and your team, for doing the work
that you are. We are very encouraged by the early signs, I must
tell you. It is not the most glamorous part of assignments in
the Government. On the other hand, it is because there is a
question of believability in the public's minds whether or not
green can be that good for you. When a person has lost a job or
the economy is so shaky in front of us, it is a little hard to
say, OK, we are going to swap that kind of reality for a green
mission, one that will make our Country healthier, our
families.
As a matter of fact, I think Earth Day ought to have been
perhaps called something like Good Health Day, or Save the
Children Day, something that connotes a little more directness
and serious tone to things.
So I was happy, Madam Chairman, that the legislation that I
wrote in 2007 established the targets, established the mission,
established the Office of Federal High Performance Green
Buildings at GSA.
What kind of a role, Mr. Prouty, has that office taken on
to help get the reductions that are already there? We are using
26 percent less energy than we did just few years ago. That is
a major victory, or a major step forward. What did that office
have to do with it?
Mr. Prouty. Excuse me, if I may. That office obviously has
a large role Government-wide and also a large role in GSA.
Kevin Kampschroer is leading that office. If I might, I would
like to have him answer that question.
Mr. Kampschroer. For the last year when the office was
created by the Energy Independence and Security Act, and then
by the Administrator of General Services shortly thereafter, we
have been working with other Federal agencies to make sure that
the work of every agency is in concert with the others, both in
energy reductions and the improvement of high-performance green
buildings across the Government.
With regard to the application of those things, the work
that we did for the year enabled us to be poised when the
Recovery Act was passed to be able to make some very good
judgments very quickly on the projects that would be most
likely to yield the greatest returns in high-performance
improvements in the buildings. And those were the sets of
criteria that we were able to use.
We made use of the national labs, as the Administrator
mentioned in his statement, to help us analyze these data, and
also yield the limited scope, high-performance green building
projects that comprise the bulk of the number of projects on
the list, which are really focused on making the highest return
improvements both in the areas of building tune-up, building
mechanical systems improvements, and the lighting. Lighting in
particular because the technology has changed so significantly
over the last decade in lighting that we can make significant
improvements even in the case of a retrofit that might have
been done 10 or 15 years ago, which many were in our buildings.
And last, we are using in the case of roof replacement sort
of the judicious application of every form of renewable energy
generation that is appropriate both for the geographical
location and the physical configuration of the roof. So we have
some 20-odd projects where photovoltaic, for example,
generation will be included at the same time as dealing with a
significant infrastructure problem within our inventory, that
is to say leaking roofs and about 40 or so leaking roofs across
the Country. As a part of the Recovery Act, we will be
repairing every major leaking roof in our entire inventory.
Senator Lautenberg. I am sure that would be good news to
lots of people around the Country.
How many jobs might you think were created as a result of
that effort, this reduction in energy use? Were these jobs that
were handled within it sounds like a relatively simple program
because of the changes in technology in light bulbs and so
forth? How much of that was responsible for the reduction? And
did we have any significant job gain out there as a result of
this?
Mr. Kampschroer. Senator, we estimate based on a couple of
different studies that we researched, and we are not
economists, but based on the models that we have read about, we
believe that for every billion dollars of Recovery Act funding
in the construction arena, there will be 28,000 jobs created
across the Country in all different categories. They might be
construction jobs. They might also be design jobs in many
different professions. And that is a rough estimate. It is
maybe not the world's best economic model, but it is what we
were able to find.
Senator Lautenberg. So that is a future expectation. I am
really struck by this reduction in energy use of 26 percent.
That is over a period of a couple of years. Is that right?
Mr. Kampschroer. Nearly 30, yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. Nearly 30 years?
Mr. Kampschroer. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, so we are going back a lot further
than I thought. Did we start in a serious way 30 years ago
trying to install less energy, lower energy projects?
Mr. Kampschroer. Between 1985 and 2005, in GSA's inventory
we reduced the overall energy consumption compared to the
baseline by 30 percent, and the Government as a whole by 26
percent during that same period.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. So this wasn't induced by the
legislation that was passed in these last couple of years. This
was a continuation of programs that were begun before.
Mr. Kampschroer. That is correct. And since the legislation
was passed in the last several years, beginning with the Energy
Policy Act in 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007, the goals were increased first double and then triple
what they had been in previous laws. So now whereas we reduced
by 30 percent in 30 years under the old laws, our goal today is
30 percent in 10 years. And GSA is currently on track to meet
that goal as well. So we have significantly increased our
efforts in energy reduction even before the Recovery Act was
passed.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Because one of the things that we
see in the testimony is that GSA, among other things to reduce
energy consumption, the goal is 30 percent by 2015. Now, is
that a goal that was established based on the energy
consumption of 2007? Are we looking at a 2-year reduction? I am
sorry, in the 8-year period a reduction of 30 percent in fossil
fuel use?
Mr. Kampschroer. There are two interrelated goals in the
law. First of all is to reduce by 30 percent in 10 years with a
baseline of 2003 consumption in the buildings. So we reset the
baseline in 2003. As a part of that resetting the baseline, we
also increased the number of buildings that are being measured.
And second, we have a goal of reducing compared to private
sector the fossil fuel consumption of our buildings by 55
percent for those buildings that are under design today, either
new construction or major modernization, and then that number
between 2015 and 2030 ratchets up from 55 percent below to 100
percent below. So by 2030, our goal will be to design and
deliver buildings that consume no fossil fuel energy.
Senator Lautenberg. That is a terrific target. We hope you
don't miss it.
Mr. Kampschroer. Every project on the major modernization
list is being designed to use 55 percent less fossil fuel than
the commercial equivalents.
Senator Lautenberg. And one last thing. You talk about
releasing $1 billion by August for projects. What would you say
would be the principal programs that would help you achieve
your goal that this $1 billion will foster? And how long might
it be before we see that return on the $1 billion that we can
talk about?
Mr. Guerin. Senator, we have a series of things that we are
working on. We have several large projects that we are getting
ready to award that were designed and on the shelf ready to go.
An example of that would be the Austin Courthouse. We have a
series of programmatic activities, as Kevin was describing. The
single system projects in buildings that we will be pursuing in
the short term to get those awarded as well.
Senator Lautenberg. What are the single system projects?
Mr. Guerin. Like photovoltaics or the new roofs that Kevin
was referring to earlier. Those types of projects that can be
installed fairly quickly into buildings, we are going to design
and get those awarded as quickly as we can.
And then finally, we have a series of additional phases and
completions of projects that were waiting for funds, and we are
awarding those very quickly as well.
Senator Lautenberg. And this $1 billion will respond to the
formulas as we heard. How many jobs are created with each $1
billion expended?
Mr. Kampschroer. Roughly 28,000, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. You have gone almost 5 minutes over. I am
trying to get to the next panel because of their time
constraints.
Senator Lautenberg. Fine. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. And Senator Lautenberg, I think pressing on
this is important because we are going to see job creation,
green job creation right here.
So we want to thank all of you.
And Kevin, will you do me a favor and just put into the
record your recommendations of what more we can do as a
Committee to give you even more resources for more green in our
buildings, as we write our new legislation?
Mr. Kampschroer. Thank you. I would be happy to do so.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
And thank you all. We are very proud of the work you are
doing. We love this attitude of yes we can. Who said that?
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Who says, yes we can?
Senator Lautenberg. [Phrase in Spanish].
Senator Boxer. [Phrase in Spanish]. It sounds even better
in Spanish.
Will our next panel come up? Very happy to have you here.
And now we are going to have a vote, Senator Lautenberg, on
our global warming legislation.
I move it. Is there a second?
Senator Lautenberg. I second.
Senator Boxer. OK. I don't see Senator Inhofe here. What a
shame.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. OK. Just have to have a little sense of
humor as we move forward. Thank you.
Our second panel: Doug Gatlin, Vice President, Market
Development, U.S. Green Building Council; Lane Burt, Energy
Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council; Harvey
Bryan, Ph.D., School of Architecture and Landscape, School of
Sustainability at Arizona State.
Are all three of our folks here? Yes, good. And we are very
happy to have you here. What we really want is to follow your
leadership on what more do you think we can do to make the
Government a real model of green. If we do that, I know I speak
for Senator Lautenberg and myself, we think this is a great way
to not only make measurable progress on greenhouse gas emission
reductions, but also to be a model.
So Mr. Gatlin, would you like to start off? U.S. Green
Building Council, Market Development, thank you.
STATEMENT OF DOUG GATLIN, VICE PRESIDENT, MARKET DEVELOPMENT,
U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL
Mr. Gatlin. Madam Chair, thank you very much, and Ranking
Member Inhofe, on behalf of the U.S. Green Building Council's
20,000 organizational members and 78 local chapters. We would
very much like to thank you and the Committee for the
opportunity to testify about the role that the U.S. General
Services Administration can play in improving the energy
efficiency and sustainability of Federal buildings.
My name is Doug Gatlin and I am the Vice President of
Market Development for the U.S. Green Building Council.
We have an opportunity before us as a Nation, an
opportunity to reach out and grab from an enormous pool of
untapped resources lying virtually under our noses. I am
referring to the flows of energy, water and materials that are
consumed in our buildings and homes each day. By marshaling a
combination of new efficiency technologies, integrated design,
and targeted building management practices, we can tap into
these flows and collectively achieve a 30 percent or greater
reduction in energy consumption and even more substantial
reductions in water consumption and solid waste generation.
As you know, buildings are responsible for 38 percent of
U.S. greenhouse emissions every year and consumer 13.6 percent
of all fresh drinking water, as well as 40 percent of raw
materials globally. Recognizing this impact, green buildings
are an essential element of both an energy security strategy
and a climate change response.
The potential returns are tremendous. According to a 2007
report by McKinsey and Company, improvements in the efficiency
of buildings and appliances could generate $160 billion in
cumulative savings by the year 2030. Now, tune-ups to building
systems and equipment known as existing building commissioning
present opportunities for greater savings without any new
capital investment. Commissioning of existing buildings can
improve energy efficiency by roughly 15 percent additional at a
median cost of only 27 cents per square foot. This offers an
attractive payback of roughly 6 months.
In the Federal sector, this could translate into some $650
million in annual savings if the entire Federal stock were
simply to be recommissioned or tuned up. Again, that is for
roughly 25 cents per square foot in buildings that typically
costs hundreds of dollars to build, and three to five dollars a
square foot just to operate. And this will create thousands of
new highly skilled jobs in the buildings trades and in
particular in the mechanical service contracting arena because
it is a virtually new service.
With an inventory of more than 1,500 Government-owned
buildings and 7,000 leased spaces, GSA is a critical partner in
the effort to reduce the environmental impact of our buildings.
GSA has already taken several significant steps to improve its
stock, including requiring that all new capital projects and
major renovation projects earn LEED certification. These
projects are yielding significant results. A 2008 GSA study of
12 green buildings in its portfolio found that the buildings
achieved a 30 percent reduction in energy usage and a 13
percent decline in average maintenance costs.
And last month, USGBC certified the world's first LEED
platinum-level building under our new existing buildings
operations and maintenance rating system. It is occupied by the
FBI in Chicago and it is leased through GSA. Numerous other
Federal projects have made similarly impressive strides.
Green building efforts stand to become an even greater
focus of GSA through the work of GSA's Office of Federal High-
Performance Green Buildings, coupled with the $5.5 billion
received by GSA through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act. Importantly, the bulk of GSA's Recovery Act funds are
dedicated to a mix of new construction and major renovation
efforts in approximately 60 key projects.
The remaining funds for limited scope upgrades can be
augmented even further to greater ends through public-private
partnerships in the form of energy saving and green performance
contracts, and we recommend an increased adoption of these
measures by GSA. This is crucial, as the average age of the
Federal building stock is now currently right at 50 years on
average. So significant opportunities exist.
Green performance contracting draws upon an integrated
approach to encompassing energy and water-saving measures, as
well as features designed to improve the indoor health and
environmental quality of the buildings. Combining this model
with third party verifications such as that provided by the
LEED system can ensure that the buildings are both sustainable
and achieve optimal cost reductions. Expanding GSA's authority
to enter longer renewable power purchase agreements presents
similar opportunities for greening the Federal sector.
On Monday, April 27, the U.S. Green Building Council will
be launching our newest version of the LEED rating system. We
call is Version 2009, and we will also be adding a new customer
data entry platform which can accommodate up to one million
registered building projects. All told, this is for our
organization a more than 1,000 percent increase in our current
system capacity and we are doing this because of the enormous
exponential growth in demand for green building certification.
In sum, green building improvements to our existing stock
are so good that we really just can't afford not to do them.
They are cheap. In fact, they are profitable. They are good for
the planet and they are available immediately.
Thank you for your time and I would be happy to take any
further questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gatlin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Burt.
STATEMENT OF LANE BURT, ENERGY POLICY ANALYST, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Burt. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Inhofe, and
members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify
on energy efficiency in public buildings. My name is Lane Burt
and I am an Energy Policy Analyst with the Natural Resources
Defense Council. I am NRDC's principal advocate for Federal
policies that promote building and equipment efficiency.
The topic of discussion today is extremely timely as we
continue to discuss how to reduce global warming pollution
while contributing to our economic recovery. Energy efficiency
can do both of these things. Energy efficiency is the fastest,
cleanest and cheapest energy resource that we have and it can
help us fight global climate change and reduce our addiction to
oil and revitalize our economy.
The opportunity for energy efficiency in our buildings is
tremendous. U.S. buildings are the largest single source of
global warming pollution in the United States and the site of
countless opportunities for efficiency improvements.
I would like to call your attention to this chart on the
left--your right, excuse me--that NRDC has developed from the
2007 study by McKinsey and Company, detailing the cost and
scope of reducing global warming pollution. The column on the
far left, highlighted in red, represents building efficiency.
The building efficiency measures not only have the largest
potential emission reductions of any option, but they also have
net negative costs, making money over time.
The conclusion is clear: building efficiency makes sense no
matter when or why it is being considered. In the context of
global climate change, building efficiency is imperative.
As the owner of a huge portfolio of buildings, the Federal
Government has a vital role to play in reducing emissions from
the buildings sector. We can cut emissions and keep future
taxpayer dollars from being unnecessarily wasted on energy if
we pursue efficiency opportunities. The GSA, as the Federal
Government's landlord, should lead the charge for all Federal
agencies on increasing energy efficiency.
Improving commercial buildings is faster and results in
larger savings per building than retrofits in the residential
sector, making this sector ideal for near-term investment.
Federal facilities are nearly three times the size of the
average commercial building, making the opportunity even
greater.
Reducing costs to taxpayers is important, however there are
additional benefits to be had as the GSA is an ideal laboratory
for cutting edge building improvements that could generate even
greater savings in the private sector. Agencies can utilize
emerging technologies and design strategies, thereby increasing
their market penetration and helping to bring down the price.
Water efficiency is also vital, as the economic
consequences of shortages demonstrate that water is more than
an environmental issue. To maximize energy and water savings in
the Federal facilities and lead the private sector, the GSA and
all Federal agencies should prioritize efficiency improvements
with their recovery funds. GSA has already demonstrated
impressive improvements in complying with the requirements of
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and they
should continue this progress with the use of ARRA funds.
Specifically, we suggest that GSA release savings targets
for energy, water and emissions in each project and document
their success in meeting those targets. Documenting the savings
in every building is the best way to oversee the progress of
the agency, identify problems, and demonstrate success.
The GSA should also create a strategy for attaining all the
remaining cost-effective energy efficiencies in their
facilities, share best practices with State and local
governments and the private sector, and share its most
effective building energy management strategies across agencies
to encourage further improvements.
There are also opportunities for GSA to lead by utilizing
new tools. NRDC has developed, with stakeholders from all
aspects of commercial real estate, an energy efficiency lease
that seeks to properly allocate the costs and benefits of
efficiency improvements between owners, tenants and brokers.
This is intended to address the market barrier of split
incentives where the owner cannot profit from efficiency
improvements because the tenants pay the energy bills. The GSA
and other agencies should offer this lease structure to its
building tenants, while requesting this structure of building
owners in spaces it leases.
The Federal tax deduction for energy efficient commercial
buildings can also be utilized by Federal facilities because it
contains an option to assign the deduction to the designer or
engineer responsible for the improvements. GSA should consider
utilizing the deduction in all projects.
In conclusion, Federal facilities should lead by pursuing
all cost-effective energy efficiency measures to reduce the
energy costs of these facilities. We welcome the Committee's
leadership on Federal building energy efficiency and I thank
you for allowing me to present these views.
This concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Burt.
Dr. Bryan.
STATEMENT OF HARVEY BRYAN, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, SCHOOL OF SUSTAINABILITY, ARIZONA
STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Bryan. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
honor Earth Day by participating in this hearing on behalf of
the Green Building Initiative or GBI, and the Green Globes
rating system.
I am a founding member of the GBI Board and Chairman of the
Energy Committee. My background is included in the written
submittal.
I am a specialist in energy issues and served on the ASHRAE
Committee responsible for developing the 90.1 national energy
standard. While currently active in the development of Green
Globes, I have also been active in the U.S. Green Building
Council. I am a LEED-accredited professional, and helped
shepherd several buildings through the LEED process, and was
founding member and was board member of the Arizona USGBC
chapter.
As an active member of the Green Buildings community, I
chose to support the development of the Green Globes system in
the United States because I believe strongly that the
marketplace needs multiple tools and approaches to achieve
high-performance buildings.
GBI commends the Committee for creating this opportunity to
testify about GSA and energy efficient issues, and we are
honored to be on this panel.
GSA has certainly been a leader in applying green building
practices and has made considerable progress. There are many
lessons to be gained from this experience. We also understand
that the Committee is interested in ensuring that dollars spent
on energy efficiency through the stimulus package results in
measured savings. To this end, we would like to address two
primary topics.
First, one of our greatest challenges is that many
buildings designed to be energy efficient fall short once
operational. GSA has many successes to its credit, but it is
not immune to this fact. A key to solving this problem will be
to shift the mind set of people who design, construct and
operate buildings so that form follows function and
performance, and become fundamental considerations from initial
concept through design, construction and operations.
The second issue is measuring and specifically the fact of
measuring buildings before and after they undergo renovations
must be a priority. To this end, the Green Globes system is a
good example of how practical and affordable tools can play
that important role.
Regarding the first issue of performance shortfalls, the
answer is better information, tools and education. Whether
planning for a new or major retrofit, decisions should be based
on the best performance data available. This is the area where
we as an industry have fallen short. We rely too heavily on
benchmarking to code. For instance, GSA has, as I understand,
an arsenal of data available on the energy performance of its
standard building pipes and has conducted baseline research on
occupant comfort in many of the buildings. And so this should
be used as the primary data base, rather than building better
than code.
It is worthwhile to note that innovative States such as
California have created new building performance data bases to
facilitate more accurate prediction because it is important to
have accurate historical performance data. In fact, the
Department of Energy's commercial building energy consumption
survey should receive more funds for investment.
With regard to education and training, portfolio managers
need tools to create baselines and interpret these results and
prioritize improvements. For many building managers, this type
of evaluation requires new tools.
Unfortunately, GSA has, in conjunction with DOE, has
recently written a policy that calls for the use of only one
rating system, LEED, for all Federal buildings that seek green
building certification for either major retrofit or new
construction. This approach not only supports a federally
mandated sole source contract with one organization, the USGBC,
the owner of the LEED system, but also stifles benefits and
competition, which there are many.
Because of the affordability and ease of use, Green Globes
has been used to evaluate a number of public and private sector
buildings. Federal agencies such as DHHS, Interior, Veterans
Affairs and State Department have used Green Globes.
In conclusion, GBI applauds GSA's leadership in applying
green building technology and practices. We hope that the
important part of the agency's plan will be to measure before
and after performance of buildings. We encourage Congress to
examine public policy in regards to new laws encouraging
benchmarking tools such as CBECS data base.
Last, we ask the Committee to give direction to GSA to
support the use of multiple rating systems and private sector
solutions to encourage competition in the marketplace.
Thank you for this opportunity today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
I would like to say, of course we need to measure. That is
absolutely essential. We want to make sure that when we spend a
dollar, we get more than that over time, and that is something
that I think everyone agrees with. Otherwise, we are wasting
our time and money.
I wanted to announce here, and Senator Lautenberg you would
be interested in this, Wal-Mart just put out a press release
just now that to broaden their sustainability efforts, they are
expanding their solar power program in California over the next
18 months at 10 to 20 additional Wal-Mart facilities. It is
very exciting because we know the jobs that will go with this.
They say increasing the use of solar is the right thing to do
for the environment and makes tremendous business sense,
especially in these economic conditions.
I think it is important to note a lot of my colleagues are
saying this isn't the time to do anything. It is the opposite.
When you move toward energy savings, it is going to be better
for the economy, for job creation. And they say that they are
committed to expanding their solar presence in California. I
would say it is because California's laws are so incentivizing
to putting in solar, wind and geothermal.
Mr. Gatlin, you mention in your testimony that GSA has
adopted your organization's green building rating system, which
I support. And it has set a goal for each project to receive at
least the silver certification. Now, there are two higher
certifications.
Is there any reason, and I would ask Mr. Burt the same, why
we shouldn't shoot higher for a platinum or a gold?
Mr. Gatlin. Well, I will just say that the USGBC has
attempted to set a benchmark target for green performance
without being prescriptive in any way about what measures or
pathways that organizations have to take. So we actually have
four certification levels, including basic, silver, gold and
platinum.
In a post-occupancy study that the New Buildings Institute
conducted for us 2 years ago, they found almost a lockstep
correlation of energy savings and the increased certification
levels on LEED, with platinum buildings achieving typically 40
percent energy savings.
So given the principle that the savings will actually pay
for the up-front investment, it in many cases is a good
investment. I think that GSA is simply setting a target that
they think is achievable, given that platinum buildings in many
cases require an all-out effort to use all available new
technologies and practices. So I think they would rather go
broad and achievable, rather than set a target that may be only
for a subset of their portfolio.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Burt, what is your feeling? If you are
retrofitting, is it really too hard to get to the platinum, but
we should have that for our new buildings? What is your
feeling?
Mr. Burt. I think it is important to document which part of
the different LEED categories we are emphasizing. So if we have
an overall target of LEED silver, but a very aggressive target
for energy and water savings, then you may find that eventually
in constructing a new building or renovating a new building,
you actually may certify higher than silver to a gold or
platinum level, and you have prioritized those measures which
will provide the most return on investment.
Senator Boxer. That is not my question. Do you think that
we should shoot for higher than silver in our efforts?
Mr. Burt. Yes. I think it is possible to shoot for higher
than silver. I think there are precedents across the Country
where different cities have pointed to LEED silver as a
possible code target, which means that the enhanced performance
should be above this bar.
Senator Boxer. And am I right in saying it is obviously
easier to get to platinum if you are building a new building,
because then you could--you don't have to go backward?
Mr. Gatlin. That is not necessarily the case. I would also
just like to comment that we hope that GSA will embrace the
LEED system for operations and maintenance. It is a
benchmarking system for green operations and maintenance just
as aggressively as they have embraced our system for design and
construction.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is good.
Mr. Gatlin. There are just so many different paths to get
there. We did have a case study of a building in California
owned by the Adobe Company that was built to Title 24
California energy efficiency standards, had utility rebates,
and yet they were still able to identify an additional $1
million in green investments. They have made that existing
building platinum. It paid for itself in 10 months.
Senator Boxer. Wow. That is a fabulous, I know Adobe
Systems.
Well, what I am going to do is hand the gavel to Senator
Lautenberg. If he has to go, leave, then he can hand the gavel
to Senator Merkley. And if Senator Merkley promises me, if
another colleague comes, he stays for that, and then close it
down. I don't know how long Senator Lautenberg can stay.
So I am going to hand the gavel over to you, Senator.
I want to thank this panel very much, all of you, for your
sage words. We are going to move further. We are going to have
a bill here ready for mark up on the 7th of next month. We are
going to move even further because this is energy saving. This
is savings in the pockets of taxpayers. So thank you very much.
Senator, here is the gavel.
Senator Lautenberg [presiding]. Thank you. I take the gavel
without ceremony, Madam Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you for this awesome
responsibility.
One of the things that I see happening is that as we talk
about product reductions in energy use, cleaner air emissions,
et cetera, we still I think fail to have the public understand
exactly what our mission is. When we talk about saving lives or
saving quality of life, or permitting those who may be impaired
with a respiratory disease, what it means.
I come on this sort of full boat because one of my
grandchildren is asthmatic, and I know the trials that my
daughter goes through to make sure that Alexander has, that she
knows where the nearest clinic is when they go to emergency
clinic, when they go for him to participate in an athletic
event. And she is conscious of his wheezing and the sensitivity
of his ability to deal with these things.
I lost a sister to asthma in a sudden attack when she was
53 years old. Yes. And so I think the picture has to be even
more clearly presented, that we are talking about, again,
saving lives. And even as we talk about saving money, saving
quality of life that permits people to go about the things they
must do or enjoy doing.
And so I commend you all. I think you are on a mission of
great importance to the human race. I believe that climate
change is something compared to a plague, perhaps the 11th
plague. The Old Testament lists 10 plagues. This is a plague if
we don't take care of this, that could overcome mankind,
humankind. And again, you are acting as good soldiers in this,
and I really respect that your organizations are on the right
track.
Isn't there a way of examining the emissions coming from
the buildings that go beyond simply energy efficiency? How
about the products that are used in building materials, more
the kind of boards that are used so commonly--pressboard and
other materials that in themselves, we talk about saving kids
from materials that are plastics, that have a different
metabolism when they are mixed with certain food products, et
cetera.
So is there a concern about that? Mr. Burt, does your
organization look to these things as well?
Mr. Burt. Certainly, that is an extremely important
concern. I would say that in an existing building when you take
a look at the materials that are in there, you need to make
sure that all the materials and everything in the building is
up to health and safety standards, and is a healthy environment
for the occupants, and then go and invest in the energy
efficiency and the water efficiency measures.
I would also point out that in the LEED rating system,
there is a category for indoor environmental quality, which
covers the off-gassing of chemicals and toxins from the
products and also makes sure that there is adequate ventilation
in the building.
Senator Lautenberg. And is there an official recognition of
products now, an examination of these things, and perhaps a
label that says yes, this meets a green standard? What do you
think, Mr. Bryan?
Mr. Bryan. Yes. There are several organizations that are
now testing all products in the building industry for
emissions. Green Seal and Green Guard are two organizations
that are doing that. Both the Green Globes system and LEED also
acknowledges those as protocols for use within the indoor air
quality section.
Senator Lautenberg. Is the Green Globes, is that a
lighting?
Mr. Bryan. No. Green Globes is a system that I have been
talking about which is sort of a parallel system to some of the
other rating systems like LEED and other systems that are out
there that are in the marketplace today.
Senator Lautenberg. I see. No, because immediately when you
think of globe, you think of----
Mr. Bryan. I understand.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Mr. Bryan. But again, Green Seal and Green Guard are two
protocols, both systems used to acknowledge material impact.
The Green Globes system also does a material life cycle
assessment calculation that actually does comparisons between
products on both embedded energy, as well as impact to the air,
water and disposal landfill. And so it is a very robust
calculator that gives designers that information about the
impact those materials have on the occupants of those
buildings.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there interest in those using
products--this is stepping outside the building opportunities--
products that have to be dealt within trash disposal and so
forth? All of these things combine to make a threatening
environment. In this case, we are talking about something where
we see an ability to control it. The Government, there is a lot
of might that is included in the suggestion that the Government
has a standard.
But when we look around, again I see this as the perhaps
most important problem that mankind faces, and that is
protecting an environment, protecting nature and its being when
we see all of the--I am a tree hugger and have been for a long
time. When you see what is happening with the disappearance of
species, with things in the sea that are changing, and their
ability to afford sea life nutrition and nourishment.
So we have a war on our hands that we must win. And so,
once again I thank you for being here. The fact that we are
light in attendance doesn't mean that we are light in interest.
The record will be kept open for questions that will be
conveyed to you, and please if you get these questions, answer
as thoroughly and as quickly as you can.
With that, I go to the fact that Senator Merkley is in the
last seat doesn't mean that his views or his knowledge is any
different than those who are sitting up in the front.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator.
I wanted to ask a question about carbon sequestration. It
has been pointed out at various times that when you build
buildings with wood, you are taking a significant amount of
carbon and taking it out of cycle, if you will. I was just
wondering if any of you from the LEED system or the Green
Globes system can comment on how that calculates, or if it is a
factor in how you evaluate buildings.
Mr. Gatlin. I am not sure that I can give you a specific
estimate of the carbon sequestration of wood in buildings. We
can certainly research that and provide that in follow up. But
I would just mention that the committee that oversees our LEED
rating system--again our products are all member-driven,
consensus-based, and it is an open transparent system in the
market--has spent the last year aligning the credit categories
within the LEED rating system to the known environmental
impacts and sort of the weighting between those environmental
impacts.
So carbon emissions comes up as the most significant aspect
of the certification simply because of the magnitude of the
climate change. We are looking at not only the energy
associated with operations of the building, but the energy that
it took to create the materials in the buildings, life cycle
assessment if you will.
So I do not have the specific figure on the carbon
sequestration of wood, but it is within our Scientific Advisory
Committee's goal of aligning the credits as much as possible
with the ultimate environmental impacts.
Senator Merkley. OK, thank you.
Mr. Burt or Bryan.
Mr. Bryan. Yes. The Intergovernmental Climate on Climate
Change has determined a 100-year life cycle for dealing with
products. If wood products in a building has less than a 100-
year life cycle, it is considered to be a closed loop. That
means in its growth or absorption of CO2, and its
eventual decay, that it will be a closed system. If it has
longer than 100 years, it has to be accounted for, at least in
their system, and I think most of the environmental rating
systems and system systems are assuming that protocol.
Wood looks very good generally when we do comparisons with
other material for this reason. However, there are in larger
buildings, you are dealing with structural issues and wood
tends to have problems when you deal with multiple-story
buildings because of the structural issues. Like for small
buildings, wood is a very, very appropriate product. While we
don't encourage any one material, when you go through the
process very often those better materials from a carbon
sequestering standpoint will shine.
Senator Merkley. OK. Second, and thank you for your
answers. A second question I wanted to ask about is in terms of
GSA and the enormous number of buildings and enormous number of
rooftops that they have, is the GSA fully engaged in perhaps
the type of contracts energy--savings contracts where,
subcontracts, if you will, out the installation of the solar
panels, and then you basically get them installed for free, if
you will, and over time come to own them.
Has the GSA been proactive? Is there a tremendous amount
more they can do? What is your sense of that?
Mr. Gatlin. I will take a quick crack at that. I believe
that GSA has been proactive, especially using its construction
funding and its modernization funding to expand the adoption of
green roofs, either light-colored roofs or vegetative roof
systems which not only have heat island reduction benefits, but
also stormwater mitigation benefits.
I believe that with its existing stock, it has not moved
aggressively yet to tap into the types of performance
contracting vehicles that would allow them to take the savings
stream from their utility bill payments and essentially front
load them to some capital improvement efforts that could very
well include those green roof upgrades.
I believe the Department of Energy has handled the Federal
energy performance contracting specifications and has vehicles
that are more than available to do that within GSA stock.
Senator Merkley. OK, great. Any other comments?
Mr. Burt. GSA has prioritized the rooftop photovoltaics
with some of the limited scope projects that they have released
for the recovery funding, but I wouldn't be able to speak to
the financial vehicle for making that happen.
Senator Merkley. OK.
Mr. Bryan. I think they are doing a very good job. I think
on a couple of issues, I think all buildings should be what I
call solar ready, even though they may not be putting on the
system right now; that they keep the stairwells, elevator
shafts, things like that, from protruding into the, let's say,
unobstructed portions of the roof; try to gang them along the
northern side of the building. Also vents and other types of
things, we have a lot of problems with our air filters and
ventilation fume hoods, things like that.
Again, some buildings on my campus I know are completely
inappropriate for solar, even though we have wonderful access
in Arizona for solar energy, because of the design of the
rooftop. And so I think we can develop some protocols to
actually be solar ready and be available for solar in a few
years if we can't do it right now.
Senator Merkley. I think my time is up, but Senator
Whitehouse has arrived. No wait, Senator Udall has arrived.
Sorry, looking right past you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Thank you to the panel, and great having all of you here
today.
I believe that one of the most productive things that the
GSA could do to promote renewable energy would be to expand its
efforts to install photovoltaic solar systems on the roofs of
Federal buildings.
In regards to solar power, we have great technology and
manufacturing ability in the U.S., but we need to expand the
demand for it in order to bring down the cost. What should
Congress and GSA do to encourage solar installation on Federal
buildings?
Mr. Gatlin. One of the things that I mentioned in my
testimony was extending the lifetime of renewable power
contracts. Now, much of that will be for green-certified power
through the grid, but there also are arrangements where the
owner of the buildings can actually lease out the rooftop to
the utility for the application of those.
I don't know specifically within the acquisitions
legislation what, if anything, needs to be changed, but I do
know that there was some discussion on the House side about
extending the time of those power purchase agreements to go
beyond the current 10-year cap and that will actually allow for
more dedicated development of green energy resources for
Federal buyers.
Mr. Burt. I think the extension of the power contracts
period and the development of solar-ready buildings are both
excellent ideas. I would also point out that it is important
for GSA to make sure that they are doing the efficiency in the
building as well so that a greater portion of the building's
power can be provided by solar, either right away or eventually
if they are solar-ready.
Mr. Bryan. Yes, on my campus at Arizona State University,
we put in only in about 9 months almost two megawatts of
photovoltaics, and this year we are planning about eight more,
so we will possibly by the end of the year 10 megawatts of
installed power.
And we did notice a lot of the problems. We had some
limitations on our State constitution about public-private
contracts that we had to get around to extend our period to
deal with some of these power purchasing requirements. And so
we had to take some sort of creative, or creative sort of cuts
at that. And as I was saying, I would assume the same kinds of
restrictions and inertia that exists within some Federal laws
that I would like to think could be reviewed so we can take
advantage of this third-party financing because it is very hard
to get capital, particularly in State government, for any of
these types of projects.
Senator Udall. The GSA has decided to use LEED
certification for its green building branding efforts, but we
have been told that there are other significant green building
certification standards. Should GSA choose one standard to
allow a Federal building to be called green, to the exclusion
of other equivalent standard-setting organizations?
Mr. Gatlin. Since both of us on either side of Mr. Burt
represent the two standards, we will look to him to be an
objective arbiter. But I would just say that within our LEED
system, we have set up a new organization called the Green
Building Certification Institute which will be equipped to
scale up the certification to tens of thousands or even
hundreds of thousands of buildings.
The demand for primarily LEED certification in the
commercial building marketplace, both private and publicly
owned, has grown exponentially since 2006, I think due to the
realization not only of the cost savings and health benefits,
but in many cases private buildings are simply worth more as an
asset that are green-certified.
So I would say that our system, I believe our third party
certification system is the most robust. It is the furthest
along and most established, and now through the Green Building
Certification Institute, we have 10 global certification bodies
that will be expanding our capacity many-fold. All of them are
very familiar with the ISO requirements for certification--
International Standards Organization.
So through those partnerships, I think our certification
institute is very well equipped to handle the market demand.
Mr. Bryan. Much of my testimony addressed or sort of
countered that with the attributes of the Green Globes system.
However, there are I think about last time I counted, there are
seven other systems in operation and three in the works. So why
do we go with one? I don't understand that. A government should
not be giving any system, no NGO, a sort of leg up on any other
system until we really go to the market and really shake these
systems down.
I think it is very important to take advantage of all the
building inspectors out there. Over 100,000 building inspectors
work for municipal governments. The International Code Council,
which is a major body that develops building codes, have just
completed the ICC 7000, which is the national green building
standard. It is a residentially oriented standard, but that
process is going to allow the training of building officials to
do this inspection process in the field where they are in their
own local jurisdictions.
Green building is not rocket science. You don't need any
very highly specialized persons to do it. A well-trained
building inspector who knows the industry, has been working in
the industry for some time, can do these inspections.
Also, the State of California is developing their own green
building standard. The ASHRAE 189 is developing a standard that
will probably be introduced into the International Code Council
process and be codified, so it actually could be then
administered by building inspectors.
And the other aspect, Green Globes is web-based and all we
need to expand is adding more service. We do have the third-
party verification system in place, and that is being
administered by the CSA America, which is an ISO certification
organization.
So we have a third-party hands-off process of certifying
the verifies for the Green Globes system. I just want to
underline the need to incorporate many stakeholders that are
already doing a very effective job in building the industry,
try to bring them into the system, particular the building
inspectors.
In doing green buildings, we are talking about thousands
and thousands of buildings that we have to go through this
process. We have to scale that up at a very high level of
certification and verification, and we cannot do that by
developing new organizations. We should use the existing
manpower we have in the field.
Mr. Burt. The most important thing here is saving the
energy and saving the water in the buildings, and verifying
that this is done correctly. So it shouldn't be necessarily a
question of which tool or this tool or that tool. We need to
make sure that the tools we are using are actually resulting in
the savings that we need to have.
I am not nearly as familiar with Green Globes as I am with
LEED, and I can see that LEED does a very good job of that.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Senator Merkley. I wanted to follow up on Senator Udall's
question. Why are so many organizations forming? The LEED
organization existed and Green Globes has jumped in, and you
mentioned that there are seven, and that there are three more
forming. What is the impetus behind so many different groups
jumping into this conversation about how to identify a green
building, if you will?
Mr. Bryan. Well, I think there is tremendous demand out
there, and again, organizations like ASHRAE have been in place
for a number of years. The International Code Council has been
in place for a number of years. They know the industry very
well, and they want to make sure they are positioned as sort of
the ramp-up is happening, which I think is happening now,
especially with the stimulus money and the various other
activities going on nationally.
So these organizations I don't think have a hidden agenda.
These are working. Both ASHRAE and ICC and Green Globes are
working with the ANSI, the American National Standards
Institute, consensus process. So these are open committee
meetings that decide the various protocols for these documents.
These are not closed activities being done by a member-only
organization.
Senator Merkley. Let me frame the question a little bit
differently. Is it primarily differences in ideology as you
balance different environmental components that drive the
proliferation of organizations? Or the issue of how you ramp up
to meet the demand, if you will, to get certification through
the pipeline, if you will? I will just expand that to anyone.
Mr. Burt. I think it is important to note that not all of
the programs mentioned are actually direct competitors. They
have arisen to occupy different niches in the green building
industry. ASHRAE and ICC are putting things out in code
language, which is slightly different from what LEED does,
where it is an exceptional label, basically. You are
documenting that you are far above the code level.
There are also different systems that are focused on
existing buildings and operations than are focused on new
construction. So they are not all direct competitors.
Also, for example, EPA's portfolio manager is directly tied
into many of the other programs, so there is a lot of
communication going on across all the borders as well.
Mr. Gatlin. Senator, USGBC was set up as a member
organization. Our members are companies, governments and
institutional owners and managers of buildings. And we have
been absolutely astonished that even while the construction
market and other industries have had a significant downturn,
that the growth in our membership has actually continued at a
pace in excess of what it was in 2006 and 2007.
The fastest-growing source of our members is building
contracting professionals. I just want to add that it has
always been in our foundations and our bylaws to have a
completely open, transparent process. The rating system is
developed by the industry experts who populate our membership,
the 20,000 companies and organizations, and also has to be
balloted--any of those changes to the rating system have to be
balloted by our membership and approved.
So we do not have a staff-driven rating system. We do not
have a lobby interest-driven rating system. There is true
balance across all sectors of the building industry.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Merkley.
As you all know, the Congress put in place the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, which has specific
targets in it that we have been talking about today, this 55
percent in 2010 and then 100 percent in 2030. I would be
interested in your opinions that we could accelerate those
targets. I mean, the way we are proceeding at this point and
from your vantage point, do you think those could be
accelerated or moved up?
Mr. Gatlin. It is our opinion that more can be done in the
existing buildings arena from a green building perspective. The
broad scope measures called I believe in Mr. Prouty's
testimony, some of the generic measures that they are
installing in buildings, are really the ticket there on the
existing building side.
Through every financing means necessary, whether it is
through appropriations or whether it is through third-party
financing vehicles such as performance contracting, there is a
significant amount of opportunity in the Federal sector.
And as was mentioned before, even when there has been a
lighting or HVAC system upgrade within the last 10 years, there
has been such technology innovation even within the last 5 to
10 years that there will be many more cost-effective upgrades
to go back to some of those buildings that were upgraded as
recently as 10 years ago.
Mr. Burt. I agree with what was just said. We can't
necessarily predict when the technological innovations will
happen. We are very confident that it will happen. So we have
to be careful about setting hard goals and deadlines too far
out in the future because we don't know the exact timing.
That said, one thing I talked about in my testimony is the
need for GSA to identify all the remaining cost-effective
energy efficiency in the rest of the facilities and strategize
how do we go about getting that. And I think if they did that,
we would have a lot better sense of when it can be done, how it
can be done, and how soon, and how much we can accelerate the
process.
Mr. Bryan. I also agree. However, I have seen in the
industry in the past, from the private sector, is the first
couple of years there seems to be a fairly good downward
sloping that they are on a trajectory, beating the trajectory.
That is because they are going at the low-hanging fruit, the
easy things. Lighting, variable speed motors, things like that
are easy things to do and retrofit. The harder things are re-
glazing, reinsulation, large fit-out of large mechanical air
conditioning systems. Those are the big ticket items.
So my recommendation is that we have to be diligent. We
have to look to the long term. We have to have the resources
there for the long term, the heavy lifting, and going beyond
the low-hanging fruit as far as the conservation and efficiency
efforts are concerned.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, and thank you, Chairman
Merkley. I see we have been joined by Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for being here. We are doing a lot of work
with green buildings in my State, the State of Minnesota.
People don't always think of it as a solar State given how cold
it is, but we are doing a lot with that, as well as wind and
other things.
I just want to talk in more detail about the LEED
certification process. I know you just mentioned that, Dr.
Bryan. I have heard a lot about that from our people, the cost
associated with it and potential improvements to it. Could you
talk about the costs associated with it? How much you estimate
it is? And what we could do to improve it?
Mr. Bryan. Well, again, I was sort of countering the LEED
system with another system that I felt is actually more cost
effective because it is a much lower first entry cost into the
system. It is web-based. It is very low cost, with ability to
interact with the system. Documentation is minimum because we
have onsite verification of a third party verifier.
So this reduces the cost. Much of the LEED cost is not the
direct cost as far as paying for the system. It is the indirect
cost of the documentation and a lot of the stuff you need to
collect for submittal to get your certification.
And as I mentioned, the Green Globes system has an onsite
third party reviewer that basically helps alleviate a lot of
that stuff. The material still has to be there, but it is done
onsite in a kind of a day-long walk through the building. When
you see something you know it is in there, rather than just
something in a specification that is submitted as a submittal.
So that is one of the major differences. So I think it is a
little bit more cost effective for that reason.
Senator Klobuchar. Anyone want to add anything?
Mr. Gatlin. Senator, if I may, representing the U.S. Green
Building Council. We have had to make enhancements to our
system and also expand our contractor pool substantially, as
there are now over 20,000 buildings in the pipeline. So that
20,000 buildings has scaled up dramatically from just fewer
than 5,000 about 4 years ago.
Our fees for providing the certification essentially are
just directly to cover the review expenses. It comes in at 3.5
cents per square foot, where typically the green building
improvements yield a dollar or more per square foot in direct
operating savings, and even indirect savings in many cases, as
GSA showed in its post-occupancy study, a 13 percent reduction
in maintenance costs down the line.
So they are fairly small. I think extremely small relative
to the benefits. And I think what you don't get by simply
referencing the rating system as opposed to pursuing
certification is the added impetus to do it right once you know
you are going to go through a third party review. And that has
in many cases sort of flushed out some mistakes in the process
that can go back and be corrected.
Senator Klobuchar. You know, I hear it over and over again
that they are not doing LEED because it is just too expensive.
Maybe when you described it as three cents, that is probably
the best way to describe it. For them, they are looking at how
much of a cost it would be when they are trying to do the
environmentally right thing, so on the margin it is maybe more
expensive to build, and then they look at this LEED thing, so
they don't do it. They go to ENERGY STAR or some other thing.
So that is what I am trying to grapple with here, because I
think nearly every building that I have been to, except the few
that did the LEEDs in our State, say we are not going to do it.
So I just think it is an issue. I have been surprised at
how much it has come up when I have been out and about, really
all over the Country.
The other thing I am trying to figure out as we try to push
for more green buildings, more energy efficient buildings, what
the factors are that make some metropolitan areas have more of
them. I am asking this question very openly, not because I know
the answer, but is it State laws? What is it, like Portland is
No. 1; Minneapolis-St. Paul is number 25; Atlanta is No. 3. You
know, what is the thing that makes incentives for more green
buildings?
Mr. Gatlin. I think in Portland, in Chicago, and several
cities around the Country, almost 50 cities--I am sorry, in
almost 35 States and over 100 jurisdictions there are
incentives. And those certainly helped in the early days. The
early adopters were either in cities with incentives or where
governments through their own took on an executive order
mandate to have green buildings.
In Atlanta and in other cities, we have seen a really
robust commercial market embrace LEED. There is increasing
empirical studies, as well as evidence through broker
transactions that green buildings, LEED-certified buildings,
sell at higher transaction costs, actually have more attractive
rental rates. So there is a market demand as well.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Burt.
Mr. Burt. I think the incentives are very helpful,
especially when they are structured in a way that they set a
performance target and tell the industry to go do it, because
then the industry responds. They learn how to do it, and they
learn how to do it well. They bring the costs of doing it down
so that we get a nice feedback cycle where we continue to learn
about how to do the buildings.
I think it is also very helpful once the process has
happened that the market then values those buildings greater
because they realize this is a better building, it is a better
space, and it is much better across the board. And that is how
you get a continuing cycle of green building.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Mr. Bryan. As an educator, I think education is a major
force. I know I am training the next generation of students who
will be architects and engineers. They are really hungry for
this information, and I know they are going to go out and do a
good job because they are getting well trained. I think all our
universities have courses on green buildings now, among all the
architectural and construction schools and many of the
engineering schools across the country. It is an exciting area.
I think also on the local level, again education by again
professional organizations or their membership, the American
Institute of Architects, ASHRAE, National Association of--all
these organizations I think are doing a much more effective job
than they did a few years ago on educating their membership to
these issues.
As I mentioned before, it is not rocket science, but there
is some good preparation and understanding, especially in the
use of computer modeling, computer simulation. We have gotten
in a lot of trouble, a number of people have been using tools,
predicting performance and we have not seen that performance in
reality, and that has given, I think, some of the systems a
questionable--some of the systems have been put into question
because of some poor consultants using some tools that they
shouldn't have even had a driver's license before using a
computer program like DOE-2 or one of those other programs out
there.
So there is a lot we have to do in education to ramp up
everybody's level of expertise.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
All right. Well, that is a good end. I want to thank all of
you for being here, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator
from the State of Maryland
Madam Chairman, thank you.
Over the last 2 years we have heard testimony from a number
of individuals. A little over a year ago, for example, we heard
from Dr. Pachauri, and we are grateful that he has come back to
provide us with a further update on the science of global
warming.
I want to thank Chairman Boxer for her work in keeping the
focus on sound science as this debate continues.
While the list of witnesses has included the occasional
obligatory nay-sayer, we have seen a steady stream of
scientists who have provided a remarkably consistent set of
facts regarding:
the state of the global climate system,
projections on how the climate system is changing, and
the likely impacts these changes will have on health and
human welfare, agriculture, transportation systems, and
important ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay.
Much of the testimony has been informed by the latest,
peer-reviewed science and represents a consensus of the
scientific community on the nature of the climate system's
warming, the causes for that warming, and the degree to which
this warming will continue.
Climate change will likely have an impact on our Nation's
treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Possible impacts for the
Chesapeake include increased sea-levels, lower dissolved oxygen
levels, more precipitation, and changes in various species'
abundance and migration patterns. Many species will deal with
the interaction of several climate change effects, which could
impact their ability to survive in the Bay region.
It is not only wildlife that are threatened by climate
change--the EPA has found that increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations pose a threat to human health due to a number of
factors including more deaths attributed to heat and the
increase in vector-borne diseases. In Baltimore, the EPA
projects that a 3 degree Fahrenheit overall increase in air
temperature could increase the heat-related death toll by 50
percent from 85 to 130 people annually.
The research upon which these findings are based is rooted
in an extensive, careful analysis of past and present
observations of the atmosphere and ocean coupled with advanced
numerical predictive models.
The science record is remarkable in another key aspect.
Time is not on our side. The scientific community consistently
warns us that the longer we wait to take aggressive action to
curb greenhouse gas emissions, the steeper the climb will be to
meet our targets.
Thankfully, today we have not simply a strong scientific
consensus on the issue. We also have an increasing body of
evidence that our efforts to address climate change will result
in a number of net positives for America and the world.
Our national security is enhanced as we reduce our
reliance on foreign sources of oil.
Our economy will be recharged as we move to a sustainable
energy system and the thousands of green jobs it will produce
in solar, wind and bio-energy development and energy efficiency
projects.
And, lowering greenhouse gas pollution will almost
certainly also result in a lowering of other air pollutants,
meaning our citizens will be breathing cleaner air.
Thankfully, today we have both an Administration in the
White House as well as the congressional leadership we will
need to tackle this extraordinary challenge.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and
learning more about the latest climate science research.
And I look forward to using this hearing as a strong
springboard for us as we confront one of the greatest
challenges of our age. With your strong leadership, I look
forward to drafting and passing a climate change bill this
year. Let's get started.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. I am
pleased to have the opportunity once again to discuss energy
efficiency within our committee.
Using less to do more is a fundamental economic principle
that American industry has practiced with great success. Its
application has helped the United States rise in prosperity
and, I believe, will be a key element of our economic recovery.
Moreover, increased productivity in the form of energy
efficiency and innovation--along with developing new domestic
sources of energy and ensuring a diverse energy supply--are
essential to strengthening our Nation's energy and financial
security. For these reasons, it is important to pursue
opportunities for energy efficiency and innovation in our
public buildings.
While I was not a supporter of the Stimulus bill, it did
contain some productive elements. For example, it provides an
unprecedented opportunity for GSA to make investments in the
existing stock of Federal buildings. It is extremely important
that GSA's decisions make these buildings more energy efficient
and that such improvements are cost-effective. It is also
important that the choices GSA and other Federal agencies make
to ``go green'' deliver measurable performance results.
It's my understanding that so-called ``green'' buildings
don't always perform as intended. This raises serious concerns
for me, and it also raises fundamental questions: What research
still needs to be done on the actual benefits of green
buildings? What standards and benchmarks are currently being
used for various aspects of building design and certification?
How can the Government make sure that we are spending money on
the efforts that ensure we are meeting our energy goals and not
creating unintended burdens on our taxpayers and communities?
I am concerned that GSA selected LEED as its only category
of ``green'' building for new construction. I believe that the
increased interest in green buildings and advances in
technology in recent years have and are creating new building
rating systems. These systems should be allowed to compete in
the market and Government agencies should be able to determine
which system meets their performance requirements. I do not
think that GSA should be in the business of selecting one
system over another. Additionally, we need to practice careful
oversight to ensure that the best rating systems are being used
in Government decisions.
I am pleased to have Dr. Harvey Bryan, Professor at the
Arizona State University School of Architecture and Landscape
Architecture with us today on behalf of the Green Building
Initiative. He will share his expertise with us today and
update us on what GBI has been doing since our last hearing. I
am also looking forward to hearing from Acting Administrator
Paul F. Prouty as well.
Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity.
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[all]