Architect of the Capitol: Progress in Improving Energy Efficiency
and Options for Decreasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (18-JUN-08,
GAO-08-917T).
In April 2007, GAO reported that 96 percent of the greenhouse gas
emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex facilities--managed by
the Architect of the Capitol (AOC)--resulted from electricity use
throughout the complex and combustion of fossil fuels in the
Capitol Power Plant. The report concluded that AOC and other
legislative branch agencies could benefit from conducting energy
audits to identify projects that would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. GAO also recommended that AOC and the other agencies
establish a schedule for conducting these audits and implement
selected projects as part of an overall plan that considers
cost-effectiveness, the extent to which the projects reduce
emissions, and funding options. AOC and the other agencies agreed
with our recommendations. This statement focuses on (1) the
status of AOC's efforts to implement the recommendations in our
April 2007 report and (2) opportunities for the Senate to
decrease greenhouse gas emissions and associated environmental
impacts. The statement is based on GAO's prior work, analysis of
AOC documents, and discussions with AOC management.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-917T
ACCNO: A82408
TITLE: Architect of the Capitol: Progress in Improving Energy
Efficiency and Options for Decreasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DATE: 06/18/2008
SUBJECT: Accountability
Cost analysis
Cost effectiveness analysis
Data collection
Data integrity
Electricity demand
Emissions inspection
Energy auditing
Energy consumption
Energy costs
Energy demand
Energy efficiency
Energy management
Energy planning
Energy policy
Environmental assessment
Environmental monitoring
Environmental policies
Environmental protection
Facility maintenance
Facility management
Fossil fuels
Greenhouse gases
Program evaluation
Renewable energy sources
Strategic planning
Cost estimates
Capitol Power Plant (DC)
U.S. Capitol
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-917T
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to [email protected].
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 18, 2008:
Architect Of The Capitol:
Progress in Improving Energy Efficiency and Options for Decreasing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Statement of Terrell G. Dorn, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Architect of the Capitol:
GAO-08-917T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-917T, a testimony to the Committee on Rules and
Administration, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In April 2007, GAO reported that 96 percent of the greenhouse gas
emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex facilities�managed by the
Architect of the Capitol (AOC)�resulted from electricity use throughout
the complex and combustion of fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant.
The report concluded that AOC and other legislative branch agencies
could benefit from conducting energy audits to identify projects that
would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. GAO also recommended that AOC
and the other agencies establish a schedule for conducting these audits
and implement selected projects as part of an overall plan that
considers cost-effectiveness, the extent to which the projects reduce
emissions, and funding options. AOC and the other agencies agreed with
our recommendations.
This statement focuses on (1) the status of AOC�s efforts to implement
the recommendations in our April 2007 report and (2) opportunities for
the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and associated
environmental impacts. The statement is based on GAO�s prior work,
analysis of AOC documents, and discussions with AOC management.
What GAO Found:
AOC has made some progress toward implementing the recommendations in
GAO�s April 2007 report, but opportunities remain. For example, AOC has
prioritized a list of Capitol Hill buildings that need energy audits
but has not developed a schedule for conducting the audits that
explains the prioritization scheme or provides information on the
anticipated costs. AOC prioritized the order of energy audits based on
each building�s energy use and has begun conducting the first of the
audits. In addition, AOC has contracted with a private firm to conduct
preliminary audits of the Senate office buildings that could lead to
more targeted audits and eventually identify cost-effective projects
that would decrease energy use and related greenhouse gas emissions. We
believe that developing a more detailed schedule for future audits that
includes an explanation of the prioritization scheme and cost estimates
would assist the Congress in its appropriations decisions and
facilitate the completion of additional audits. With respect to our
recommendation that AOC implement selected projects as part of an
overall plan to reduce emissions, AOC has implemented projects to
reduce energy use and related emissions, but the projects were not
identified through the processes we recommended. AOC could more fully
respond to our recommendation by first completing the energy audits and
then evaluating the cost-effectiveness and relative merits of projects
that could further decrease the demand for energy.
The Senate�s options for decreasing the greenhouse gas emissions and
related environmental impacts associated with its operations fall into
three main categories�implementing projects to decrease the demand for
electricity and steam derived from fossil fuels, adjusting the Capitol
Power Plant�s fuel mix, and purchasing carbon offsets or renewable
electricity from external providers. Of these options, efforts to
decrease the demand for energy could lead to recurring cost savings
through reductions in energy expenditures while the other options may
prove less cost-effective and involve recurring expenses. However, a
key challenge in identifying energy-saving opportunities results from
limited data on the baseline level of energy use within each Senate
building. Specifically, the meters for steam and chilled water no
longer function or do not provide reliable data. In addition, the
buildings are not equipped with submeters for electricity that, if
installed, could enhance efforts to identify sections of the buildings
that consume relatively high levels of energy. AOC has purchased but
not installed new chilled water meters, is evaluating options for
acquiring new steam meters, and plans to install submeters by February
2009.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-917T]. For more information,
contact Terrell G. Dorn at (202) 512-6923 or [email protected].
[End of section]
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss
opportunities for enhancing energy efficiency and decreasing the carbon
footprint of the Capitol Hill Complex. In April 2007, we reported that
96 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the Capitol Hill
Complex resulted from purchased electricity (59 percent) and the
combustion of fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant (37
percent).[Footnote 1] The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has
jurisdiction over the day-to-day operations of facilities located in
the complex. Because the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions from
the Capitol Hill Complex stem from energy use, our April 2007 report
recommended that AOC and other legislative branch agencies conduct
energy audits to identify projects that would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. We also recommended that AOC and other legislative branch
agencies establish a schedule for conducting these audits and implement
selected projects as part of an overall plan that considers the cost-
effectiveness of the projects, the extent to which they reduce
emissions, and options for funding them. AOC and the other agencies
agreed with our recommendations.
In addition to the work we did for our April 2007 report, we analyzed
the potential costs of fuel-switching from coal to natural gas at the
Capitol Power Plant, as directed by the Chief Administrative Officer of
the House of Representatives in the Green the Capitol
Initiative.[Footnote 2] Specific actions outlined in the initiative
included purchasing electricity generated by renewable sources,
purchasing carbon offsets, and directing AOC to adjust the fuel mix of
the Capitol Power Plant so that the portion of its output consumed by
the House is derived entirely from natural gas.[Footnote 3] In May
2008, we recommended that, before adjusting the plant's fuel mix beyond
the level directed by the initiative, AOC consult with its oversight
committees in the Congress and evaluate the economic and environmental
tradeoffs associated with the use of each fuel at the plant.
My statement today will focus on (1) the status of AOC's efforts to
implement the recommendations in our April 2007 report and, (2)
opportunities for the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas emissions,
including the cost-effectiveness of decreasing demand for energy
relative to other options such as fuel switching at the Capitol Power
Plant or purchasing renewable electricity and carbon offsets. Today's
remarks are based on our prior work, analysis of documents provided by
AOC on its progress in responding to recommendations in our April 2007
report, and related discussions with AOC management.
Summary:
The Architect of the Capitol has made some progress toward implementing
the recommendations in our April 2007 report but more opportunities
remain. For example, AOC has prioritized a list of Capitol Hill
buildings that need energy audits but has not developed a schedule for
conducting the audits that explains the prioritization scheme or
provides information on the anticipated costs. With respect to energy
audits, AOC is conducting an energy audit of the U.S. Capitol Police
Buildings and Grounds and plans to use $400,000 of fiscal year 2008
funds for energy audits of the Capitol Building and the Ford House
Office Building. AOC has also requested $1.4 million for additional
energy audits in its fiscal year 2009 budget request. In addition, AOC
has contracted with a private firm to conduct preliminary audits of the
Senate Office Buildings that could lead to more targeted audits and
eventually identify cost-effective projects that would decrease energy
use and related greenhouse gas emissions. To more fully implement this
recommendation, AOC would need to enhance its prioritized list of
audits by providing a more detailed schedule for completing the audits.
AOC also has an opportunity to more fully address our recommendation
that it implement selected projects as part of an overall plan to
reduce emissions that considers cost-effectiveness, the extent to which
the projects reduce emissions, and funding options. Specifically, AOC
has implemented numerous energy efficiency projects throughout the
Capitol Complex but has not identified these projects through the
process we recommended of first conducting energy audits and then
implementing selected projects based on cost-effectiveness and other
considerations. Projects underway or completed include upgrading
lighting systems, replacing steam system components, conducting
education and outreach, purchasing energy-efficient equipment and
appliances, and installing new windows in the Ford House Office
Building.
The Senate's options for decreasing Capitol Hill greenhouse gas
emissions and related environmental impacts associated with its
operations fall into three main categories--(1) implementing projects
to decrease the demand for electricity and steam, (2) adjusting the
Capitol Power Plant's fuel mix, and (3) purchasing carbon offsets or
renewable electricity from external providers. Of these options,
efforts to decrease the demand for energy could lead to a reduction in
the Capitol Hill Complex carbon footprint and recurring cost savings
through reductions in energy expenditures. On the other hand, the other
options may involve recurring expenses which may be large enough to
render them less cost-effective. If natural gas prices remain
relatively high, fuel switching may prove particularly costly. As we
reported in April 2007, a strategy for reducing emissions could include
energy audits that identify and evaluate energy-efficiency and
renewable-energy projects, and the evaluation of other projects that
may fall outside the scope of energy audits, such as purchasing energy-
efficient appliances and computers. Importantly, these steps could
assist the Senate in addressing the largest sources of emissions--the
consumption of purchased electricity and fossil fuel combustion in the
Capitol Power Plant. However, a key challenge in identifying energy-
saving projects for the Senate buildings results from limited data on
the baseline level of energy use within each Senate building.
Specifically, the Senate Office Buildings currently have meters
provided by the local utility to track electricity use in each
building, but the AOC-owned meters that track the consumption of steam
and chilled water either no longer work or do not provide reliable
data. In addition, the Senate buildings are not equipped with submeters
for electricity that, if installed, could enhance efforts to identify
sections of the buildings that consume relatively high levels of
energy. AOC has purchased but not installed new chilled water meters,
is evaluating options for acquiring new steam meters, and plans to
install submeters by February 2009. In addition to decreasing the
demand for energy, the Senate could require AOC to adjust the fuel mix
at the Capitol Power Plant to rely more heavily on natural gas, which
produces about half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned but also
costs about four times as much for a comparable amount of energy input.
As we estimated in May 2008, meeting the House of Representative's fuel-
switching requirement would cost between $1.0 and $1.8 million in
fiscal year 2008 and between $4.7 and $8.3 million over a five-year
period. While we have not analyzed the potential costs of fuel
switching at the Capitol Power Plant to meet the needs of the Senate,
our estimates for the House may provide some indication of the
potential costs of such a directive. Additionally, fuel-switching
requirements could impose a recurring cost on AOC and may prove less
cost-effective than implementing projects that decrease the demand for
energy. Finally, the Senate could pay for electricity derived from
renewable sources or purchase carbon offsets. Such steps could
encourage emissions reductions outside of the Capitol Complex but would
also impose a recurring cost on the Senate and may be less cost
effective than decreasing the demand for energy.
Background:
Energy audits typically identify information on projects that could
address the consumption of fossil fuel and electricity as well as
projects that could reduce emissions from other sources, such as leaks
in refrigeration equipment. Energy audits also include information on
the cost-effectiveness of projects and on the extent to which the
projects could reduce emissions. This information can then be used to
evaluate and select projects. The audits generally fall into three
categories--preliminary, targeted, and comprehensive--and are
distinguished by the level of detail and analysis required. Preliminary
audits are the least detailed and provide quick evaluations to
determine a project's potential. These audits typically do not provide
sufficiently detailed information to justify investments but may prove
useful in identifying opportunities for more detailed evaluations.
Targeted audits are detailed analyses of specific systems, such as
lighting. Comprehensive audits are detailed analyses of all major
energy-using systems. Both targeted and comprehensive audits provide
sufficiently detailed information to justify investing in projects.
Energy-saving projects that fall outside the scope of energy audits
include efforts to enhance outreach and education efforts to curtail
energy use by building occupants and purchasing high-efficiency
appliances. Outreach and education efforts include providing
information on how employees can conserve energy, such as AOC's "how-to
guides" that detail cost-effective methods to save energy in the
workplace. Efforts to curtail energy use include purchasing energy-
efficient computer equipment and appliances, using information
available from the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star
program or the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). Energy Star-
qualified and FEMP-designated products meet energy-efficiency
guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Energy and, in general, represent the top 30 percent most
energy-efficient products in their class of products. These products
cover a wide range of categories, including appliances and office
equipment. According to the Energy Star program, office products that
have earned the Energy Star rating use about half as much electricity
as standard equipment and generally cost the same as equipment that is
not Energy Star qualified.
AOC Has Made Some Progress toward Implementing GAO's Recommendations on
Energy Audits and Implementing Projects that Decrease Emissions:
AOC has made some progress toward implementing the two recommendations
in our April 2007 report. First, AOC has taken steps to address our
recommendation that it develop a schedule for routinely conducting
energy audits by developing a prioritized list of buildings for which
it plans to conduct comprehensive energy audits (see App. 1).
Specifically, AOC is currently undertaking a comprehensive energy audit
of the U.S. Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds and obtained a draft
submission in May 2008 from the private contractor performing the
audit. AOC also plans to use $400,000 of fiscal year 2008 funds to
perform comprehensive energy audits of the Capitol Building and the
Ford House Office Building, and says it will direct any remaining
fiscal year 2008 funds to an audit of the Hart Senate Office
Building.[Footnote 4] Additionally, AOC has contracted with a private
firm to conduct a preliminary energy audit of the Senate Office
Buildings that could prove useful in identifying opportunities for more
comprehensive and targeted evaluations.
AOC officials said that they developed the prioritized list of
buildings to audit by comparing the amount of energy used per square
foot of space in each building (referred to as energy intensity) and
then placing the buildings that use relatively higher levels of energy
at the top of the list. However, AOC's prioritized list does not
provide information on the energy intensity of each building, an
explanation of its prioritization scheme, or cost estimates.
Furthermore, AOC has not developed a schedule for routinely conducting
audits as we recommended in our April 2007 report. AOC officials said
that they cannot complete a more comprehensive schedule because of
uncertainty about the extent to which AOC will receive future
appropriations to conduct the audits. We believe that developing a more
detailed schedule for future audits along with an explanation of its
prioritization scheme and cost estimates would assist the Congress in
its appropriations decisions and facilitate the completion of
additional audits.
Second, AOC can do more to fully address the second recommendation in
our April 2007 report that it implement selected projects as part of an
overall plan to reduce emissions that considers cost-effectiveness, the
extent to which the projects reduce emissions, and funding options. In
recent years, AOC has undertaken numerous projects throughout the
Capitol Hill Complex to reduce energy use and related emissions, but
these projects were not identified through the process we recommended.
Projects completed or underway include upgrading lighting systems,
conducting education and outreach, purchasing energy-efficient
equipment and appliances, and installing new windows in the Ford
building. Examples of projects in Senate office buildings include
upgrading the lighting in 11 offices with daylight and occupancy
sensors, installing energy efficiency ceiling tiles in the Hart
building, and replacing steam system components. According to AOC,
these efforts have already decreased the energy intensity throughout
the Capitol Hill Complex. Specifically, AOC said that it decreased its
energy intensity--the amount of energy used per square foot of space
within a facility--by 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2006 and 6.7 percent
in fiscal year 2007.
As AOC moves forward with identifying and selecting projects that could
decrease energy use and related emissions, it could further respond to
our recommendation by developing a plan that identifies the potential
benefits and costs of each option based on the results of energy
audits. Such a plan could build on AOC's existing Sustainability
Framework Plan and its Comprehensive Emissions Reduction Plan for the
Capitol Complex, which identify measures that could lead to
improvements in energy efficiency and reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. Complementing these plans with information on projects
identified through energy audits would further assist AOC in using the
resources devoted to energy efficiency enhancements as effectively as
possible.
Efforts to Further Reduce Energy Consumption May Prove More Cost-
Effective Than Other Measures in Decreasing Emissions:
The Senate has three primary options for decreasing greenhouse gas
emissions and related environmental impacts associated with its
operations. These include (1) implementing additional projects to
decrease the demand for electricity and steam derived from fossil fuel;
(2) adjusting the Capitol Power Plant's fuel mix to rely more heavily
on natural gas, which produces smaller quantities of greenhouse gas
emissions for each unit of energy input than the coal and oil also
burned in the plant; and (3) purchasing renewable electricity or carbon
offsets from external providers. Each option involves economic and
environmental tradeoffs and the first option is likely to be the most
cost-effective because the projects could lead to recurring cost
savings through reductions in energy expenditures.
Regarding the first option, as we reported in April 2007, conducting
energy audits would assist AOC in addressing the largest sources of
emissions because the audits would help identify cost-effective energy-
efficiency projects. In general, energy projects are deemed cost-
effective if it is determined through an energy audit that they will
generate sufficient savings to pay for their capital costs. These
projects may require up-front capital investments that the Senate could
finance through direct appropriations or contracts with utility or
energy service companies, under which the company initially pays for
the work and the Senate later repays the company with the resulting
savings. Until AOC exhausts its opportunities for identifying energy-
efficiency projects that will pay for themselves over a reasonable time
horizon, this option is likely to be more cost-effective than the
second two options, both of which would involve recurring expenditures.
In pursuing energy audits, AOC faces a significant challenge collecting
reliable data on the baseline level of energy use within each Senate
office building. Such data would help identify inefficient systems and
provide a baseline against which AOC could measure potential or actual
energy-efficiency improvements. First, while AOC has meters that track
electricity use in each building, the meters that track the steam and
chilled water used by each building no longer work or provide
unreliable data. AOC officials said that they have purchased but not
installed new meters to track the use of chilled water and are
evaluating options for acquiring new steam meters. Installing these
meters and collecting reliable data would enhance any efforts to
identify potential energy saving measures. Second, AOC does not have
submeters within each building to track the electricity use within
different sections of each building. Such submetering would further
assist in targeting aspects of the Senate buildings' operations that
consume relatively high quantities of energy. AOC said that it plans to
install submeters for electricity, chilled water, and steam by February
2009.
A second option for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions would involve
directing AOC to further adjust the fuel mix at the Capitol Power Plant
to rely more heavily on the combustion of natural gas in generating
steam for space heating. The plant currently produces steam using a
combination of seven boilers--two that primarily burn coal, but could
also burn natural gas, and five boilers that burn fuel oil or natural
gas. The total capacity of these boilers is over 40 percent higher than
the maximum capacity required at any given time, and the plant has the
flexibility to switch among the three fuels or burn a combination of
fuels. The percentage of energy input from each fuel has varied from
year to year, with an average fuel mix of 43 percent natural gas, 47
percent coal, and 10 percent fuel oil between 2001 and 2007.
In June 2007, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives released the Green the Capitol Initiative, which
directed AOC to operate the plant with natural gas instead of coal to
meet the needs of the House. The House Appropriations Committee
subsequently directed GAO to determine the expected increase in natural
gas use for House operations and the associated costs at the power
plant that would result from the initiative. In May 2008, we reported
that the fuel-switching directive should lead to a 38 percent increase
in natural gas use over the average annual quantity consumed between
2001 and 2007. We also estimated that the fuel switching should cost
about $1.4 million in fiscal year 2008 and could range from between
$1.0 and $1.8 million depending on actual fuel costs, among other
factors.[Footnote 5] We also estimated that the costs would range from
between $4.7 million and $8.3 million over the 2008 through 2012
period, depending on fuel prices, the plant's output, and other
factors. While we have not analyzed the potential costs of fuel
switching at the Capitol Power Plant to meet the needs of the Senate,
our estimates for the House may provide some indication of the
potential costs of such a directive. Additionally, AOC officials said
that further directives to increase its reliance on natural gas in the
plant could require equipment upgrades and related capital
expenditures.
Our May 2008 report also found that decreasing the plant's reliance on
coal could decrease greenhouse gas emissions by about 9,970 metric tons
per year at an average cost of $139 per ton and could yield other
environmental and health benefits by decreasing emissions of nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, and pollutants that cause acid rain. While
fuel switching could decrease emissions of carbon dioxide and other
harmful substances, it would also impose recurring costs because
natural gas costs about four times as much as coal for an equal amount
of energy input. Thus, fuel switching may prove less cost-effective
than decreasing the demand for energy.
Finally, a third option for the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas
emissions and related environmental impacts includes purchasing
electricity that is derived from renewable sources and paying external
parties for carbon offsets. Neither of these activities would involve
modifications to the Capitol Complex or its operations but could
nonetheless lead to offsite reductions in emissions and related
environmental impacts. Both options, if sustained, would result in
recurring costs that should be considered in the context of other
options for decreasing emissions that may prove more cost-effective.
Madam Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee
may have.
For further information about this testimony, please contact Terrell
Dorn at (202) 512-6923. Other key contributors to this testimony
include Daniel Cain, Janice Ceperich, Elizabeth R. Eisenstadt, Michael
Hix, Frank Rusco, and Sara Vermillion.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Prioritized List of Buildings for Comprehensive Energy
Audits:
Fiscal Year: 2008;
Facility: Capitol Building.
Fiscal Year: 2008;
Facility: Rayburn House Office Building.
Fiscal Year: 2008;
Facility: Hart Senate Office Building[A].
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: Russell Senate Office Building.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: Senate Underground Garage.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: Senate Employees Child Care Center.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: Webster Hall Page Dormitory.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: Senate Furniture Warehouse.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: Robert A. Taft Memorial.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: CPP Boiler Plant.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: CPP West Refrigeration Plant.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: CPP Administration Building.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: CPP Generator Building.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: CPP East Refrigeration Plant.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Facility: CPP Storage (Butler) Building.
Fiscal Year: 2010;
Facility: Ford House Office Building.
Fiscal Year: 2010;
Facility: Longworth House Office Building.
Fiscal Year: 2010;
Facility: East and West Underground Garages.
Fiscal Year: 2010;
Facility: House Page Dormitory.
Fiscal Year: 2010;
Facility: Cannon House Office Building.
Fiscal Year: 2011;
Facility: Thomas Jefferson Building.
Fiscal Year: 2011;
Facility: James Madison Memorial Building.
Fiscal Year: 2011;
Facility: LOC Special Facilities Center.
Fiscal Year: 2011;
Facility: Book Storage Modules.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: Alternate Computer Facility.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: 67 K Street.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: Canine Facility.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: Capitol Police Courier Acceptance Site.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: John Adams Building.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: BG Conservatory.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: BG Administration Building.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: BG Production Facility (Greenhouse).
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: Construction Management Division.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: CG Vehicle Maintenance Garage.
Fiscal Year: 2012;
Facility: Supreme Court Building.
Source: AOC.
[A] Hart is third in order for fiscal year 2008, if funding permits.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Legislative Branch: Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, GAO-07-516 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
25, 2007). Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, and certain synthetic gases including hydrofluorocarbons
emitted from refrigerants. Buildings within the Capitol Complex include
the Senate Office buildings (Dirksen, Hart, and Russell), House Office
Buildings (Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn), U.S. Capitol Building and
Grounds, the Capitol Power Plant, Library of Congress Buildings and
Grounds, U.S. Capitol Police Buildings, and the U.S. Botanic Garden.
The Capitol Power Plant provides steam and chilled water for heating
and cooling the Capitol building and 23 surrounding facilities.
[2] GAO, Economic and Other Implications of Switching from Coal to
Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating
Units Nationwide, GAO-08-601R (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008).
[3] According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration, for a comparable amount of energy input, the amount of
carbon dioxide emitted from burning natural gas is about half that
emitted from burning coal. Carbon offsets are a measurable reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions from a project in one location that is used to
compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere.
[4] AOC completed energy audits of the Capitol Building in 2001, and of
the Rayburn and James Madison Buildings in May 2005. AOC has requested
$1.4 million for energy audits in its fiscal year 2009 budget request.
[5] All of our cost estimates are in constant 2006 dollars.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***