Energy Conservation: Contractors' Efforts at Federally Owned Sites
(Letter Report, 04/29/94, GAO/RCED-94-96).

Energy experts estimate that the federal government--the nation's
largest energy consumer--could cut annual energy use in its buildings by
at least 25 percent. This report focuses on how energy contractors
managing sites owned by five agencies--the Departments of the Air Force,
Army, Navy, and Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration--have achieved reductions in energy use. GAO discusses
(1) energy consumption at the government-owned sites operated by
contractors in the United States, (2) incentives and funding sources
available for contractors to use in reducing energy consumption, and (3)
contractors' energy conservation efforts and the results these efforts
have achieved.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-96
     TITLE:  Energy Conservation: Contractors' Efforts at Federally 
             Owned Sites
      DATE:  04/29/94
   SUBJECT:  Energy conservation
             Federal facilities
             Energy efficiency
             Energy costs
             Cost control
             Federal agencies
             Monitoring
             Energy consumption
             Federal funds
             GOCO

             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee
on Governmental Affairs,
U.S.  Senate

April 1994

ENERGY CONSERVATION - CONTRACTORS'
EFFORTS AT FEDERALLY OWNED SITES

GAO/RCED-94-96

Contractors' Energy Conservation Efforts


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  Btu - British thermal units
  DOD - Department of Defense
  DOE - Department of Energy
  DSM - demand-side management
  FEMP - Federal Energy Management Program
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-255932

April 29, 1994

The Honorable John Glenn
Chairman, Committee on
 Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

This report responds to your request that we evaluate the energy use
and conservation measures employed at locations where contractors
perform work for the federal government in government-owned
buildings.  Energy experts estimate that the federal government--the
nation's largest energy consumer--could reduce annual energy
consumption in its buildings by at least 25 percent. 

As agreed with your office, this report focuses on the extent to
which contractors managing and operating sites\1

owned by five agencies are achieving reductions in energy use.  The
five agencies are the Departments of the Air Force, Army, Navy, and
Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA).  We used a combination of a nationwide questionnaire and
on-site visits to examine (1) energy consumption at government-owned
sites that contractors operate in the United States, (2) incentives
and funding sources available for contractors to use in reducing
energy consumption, and (3) contractors' energy conservation efforts
and the results these efforts have achieved.  We sent our
questionnaire to 111 contractor representatives and received 105
responses.  Not all contractors responded to each question. 


--------------------
\1 For this report, we defined a site as a government-owned building,
or group of buildings, for which a contractor was responsible.  Sites
varied from the one building at Air Force Plant #59 to the hundreds
of buildings at DOE's Hanford Site. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

As of December 31, 1993, the Air Force, Army, Navy, DOE, and NASA
relied on contractors to operate 103 of their sites.  These sites
used a considerable amount of the total energy used in government
buildings--over 4 percent of the federal government's total annual
energy consumption during fiscal year 1992.\2 Total energy costs for
these sites during fiscal year 1992 exceeded $780 million. 

Energy-reduction incentives available to contractors can include
federal funding that is designated for energy conservation measures,
rebates from utilities, and contracts between the government and an
energy services company to share in dollars saved through energy
conservation.  Contractors used these incentives to a limited degree. 
For example, 26 of our questionnaire respondents reported receiving
rebates from utilities totaling $2 million from October 1, 1989, to
July 1, 1993. 

Contractors' energy-reduction efforts are showing positive results. 
For example, of 88 respondents, 33 contractors reported energy
reductions of 1 to 5 percent and 43 reported reductions greater than
6 percent between October 1, 1989, and July 1, 1993.\3 Our review
indicated that future reductions in energy use at contractor-operated
sites may depend on the willingness of contractors to use corporate
funding to solicit energy savings performance contracts when
feasible, their willingness to pursue utility rebates where
available, and the availability of federal funding.  However,
spurring such efforts is a March 1994 executive order that expands
the energy conservation requirements applicable to
contractor-operated facilities.\4

Based on agencies' estimates of potential future savings, we
calculated that energy cost savings at federally owned,
contractor-operated sites could exceed $43 million annually from a
one-time investment of $216 million in energy efficiency improvements
at these sites.\5 These improvements could involve lighting, heating
and air conditioning, and insulation. 


--------------------
\2 Total energy consumption is the energy used in "buildings and
facilities" and that portion of general operations energy categorized
as "exempted buildings/process operations" energy.  App.  I provides
definitions for these terms. 

\3 Not all respondents answered all the questions.  Among the reasons
why some of the questions were not answered by all respondents are: 
the questionnaire instructions told the respondent to skip a
question, the respondent chose not to answer a specific question, the
questions did not apply or were not relevant to the respondent, or
the respondent unintentionally neglected to provide an answer. 

\4 On March 8, 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12902,
which revises the energy conservation requirements that were in
effect during our review.  The new order establishes an
energy-reduction goal of 30 percent for all federal buildings by 2005
and requires a reduction of at least 20 percent for industrial
facilities.  These requirements also apply to federally owned,
contractor-operated sites. 

\5 Energy in the categories of (1) buildings and facilities and (2)
exempted buildings/process operations. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The federal government is the single largest energy user in the
United States, consuming the equivalent of 222 million barrels of oil
in fiscal year 1992--about 2.1 percent of all U.S.  consumption.\6
The Alliance to Save Energy--a nonprofit coalition of business,
government, environmental, and consumer leaders dedicated to
increasing the efficiency of energy use--estimated in 1991\7 that the
federal government could reduce its energy use for buildings\8 by 25
percent.  The Office of Technology Assessment reported that the best
information available indicated that a reduction in energy use of at
least an additional 25 percent was technically feasible and
economically attractive for federally owned buildings.\9 Also, a
January 1993 report by DOE's Office of Inspector General estimated
that annual energy cost savings of $14 million were available at the
six sites it reviewed.\10

Federal agencies have been directed since 1976 to reduce their energy
use, pursuant to goals established in legislation and executive
orders.  For example, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (P.L.  94-163), called for selected federal agencies to
reduce their energy consumption by 10 percent as compared to 1972. 
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act, as amended (P.L. 
95-619); Executive Order 12759, issued in April 1991; and the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (P.L.  102-486), which incorporated several of the
executive order's goals and made them requirements, extended
energy-reduction targets to all federal agencies.  Energy consumption
in buildings is to be reduced by 20 percent in fiscal year 2000 from
fiscal year 1985 levels based on British thermal units (Btu)\11 per
gross square foot.  However, these requirements do not specifically
address contractor-operated sites.  A recent GAO report discusses
several agencies' progress in meeting this 20-percent
energy-reduction goal.\12

The federal government's use of contractors to operate and manage
sites dates back at least to World War II.  At that time, the federal
government sought to obtain private industry's participation in
dangerous and uncertain activities--for example, to develop the atom
bomb, the government gave contractors wide latitude in operating its
weapons research and production sites.  DOE, which is now responsible
for and relies on contractors to operate the government's nuclear
weapons research and production sites, uses more energy than any
other civilian agency in the federal government.\13

The five agencies use contractual arrangements for managing and
operating federal sites whereby utility bills are paid either by the
contractor or the federal government.  Any savings realized through
energy conservation measures benefits the contractor or the federal
government, depending on who pays the utility bill.  For example, a
DOE energy management official told us that DOE pays all utility
bills for its contractors, and any savings will benefit DOE.  Savings
to the agencies represent savings to the federal taxpayers. 


--------------------
\6 Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management
and Conservation Programs, Fiscal Year 1992, U.S.  Department of
Energy (Draft, July 1993). 

\7 Energy Use in Federal Facilities:  Squandering Taxpayer Dollars
and Needlessly Polluting Our Environment, The Alliance to Save Energy
(Jan.  1991). 

\8 The federal government classifies its energy use under two
categories:  (1) general operations and (2) buildings and facilities. 
(See app.  I for a more detailed discussion of the types of energy in
the general operations category as well as how we developed our
savings estimates.)

\9 Energy Efficiency in the Federal Government:  Government by Good
Example?, OTA-E-492 (May 1991). 

\10 Department of Energy's In-House Energy Management Program,
DOE/IG-0317 (Jan.  6, 1993). 

\11 A British thermal unit is the quantity of heat required to raise
the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.  A
gallon of oil is equivalent to about 139,000 Btu.  A barrel of oil
contains 42 gallons, or about 5,800,000 Btu. 

\12 See our report entitled Energy Conservation:  Federal Agencies'
Funding Sources and Reporting Procedures (GAO/RCED-94-70, Mar.  30,
1994).




\13 See DOE's Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1992 (Draft,
July 1993). 


   CONTRACTOR-OPERATED SITES
   DIFFER BY USAGE, ACTIVITY, AND
   AGE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

As of October 31, 1993, the Air Force, Army, Navy, DOE, and NASA
relied on contractors to operate and maintain 103 of their sites.\14
The 83 contractors responding to our questionnaire concerning energy
consumption reported using the equivalent of about 10 million barrels
of oil during fiscal year 1992.  (See table 1.) This amounted to over
4 percent of the federal government's total annual energy consumption
for all of its buildings.  For fiscal year 1992, 93 contractors
reported total energy costs for their sites of over $780 million. 



                           Table 1
           
            Comparison by Agency of Energy Used by
            Contractors in Government-Owned Space

                    (Barrels in millions)


                                                  Percent of
                                                  government
                                                      -owned
                                                  space that
                         Equivalent   Percent of          is
                         barrels of       agency  contractor
Agency                          oil        total   -occupied
-----------------------  ----------  -----------  ----------
Air Force                       0.9          4.9         0.6
Army                            2.2         11.1         0.9
Navy                            0.8          5.9         0.3
DOE                             5.5         78.0        75.0
NASA                            0.3         17.0        22.0
============================================================
Total                           9.7           \a          \a
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Energy used in the categories of (1) buildings and facilities
and (2) exempted buildings/process operations.  (See app.  I for an
explanation of the information used in table 1.)

\a Not applicable. 

Of 83 respondents, over one-half (47) indicated that the sites they
operated were inactive or operating at a significantly reduced level
of activity, as of July 1, 1993.  (See table 2.)



                           Table 2
           
           Comparison of Contractor-Operated Sites
           by Activity and Energy Usage for Fiscal
                          Year 1992

                    (Barrels in millions)



                          Equivalen         Equivalen
                   Numbe  t barrels  Numbe  t barrels  Total
Agency                 r     of oil      r     of oil     \b
-----------------  -----  ---------  -----  ---------  -----
Air Force              4        0.4      9        0.4     13
Army                   4        0.2     13        2.0     17
Navy                   2        0.2     10        0.7     12
DOE\c                 25        2.9     11        2.6     36
NASA                   1        0.1      4        0.2      5
============================================================
Total\b               36        3.8     47        5.9     83
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes sites with significantly reduced missions or with excess
capacity. 

\b Totals are based on questionnaire responses regarding activity
status. 

\c The determination of the number of DOE sites and the energy used
at those sites are explained in app.  I. 

The activity level at some sites has been reduced for various
reasons.  For example, many buildings at DOE sites are awaiting
decontamination and decommissioning because DOE's major mission has
shifted from nuclear weapons production to environmental restoration
and waste management.\15 DOE headquarters officials pointed out that
the buildings at such sites still consume a significant percentage of
the energy that was consumed when the sites were fully operational. 
For example, the contractor's energy manager at one of these sites
estimated that 60 to 80 percent of the contractor's total energy
consumption was used to condition and control air to confine
radioactive, hazardous, and biological contaminants at such
buildings.  One of the Army's contractor-operated, small-caliber
ammunition manufacturing plants also operates at a significantly
reduced level of capacity.  According to contractor officials, the
site is operating at 25 percent of capacity because the current level
of demand does not merit a higher level of production.  According to
Army officials, the plant will remain in a reduced operation mode for
the foreseeable future. 

The phrase "the greying of America" may be applied to
contractor-operated sites owned by the federal government.\16 Of 97
respondents, 69, or 71 percent, indicated that the sites they
operated were at least 30 years old.\17 (See table 3.)



                           Table 3
           
           Comparison of Contractor-Operated Sites
                            by Age

                        (Age in years)


                0-   11-   21-   31-   41-   51-     Average
Agency          10    20    30    40    50    85         age
------------  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----------
Air Force        1     0     0     6     1     6          42
Army             0     1     0     1     1    16          51
Navy             0     0     1     3     3     6          44
DOE              6    10     7     8    14     1          29
NASA             0     0     2     0     3     0          40
============================================================
Total            7    11    10    18    22    29          38
------------------------------------------------------------
The age and associated deterioration of the sites forces contractors
and agencies to focus more on plant maintenance than on energy
conservation, according to agency and contractor officials.  For
example,

  At one Air Force site we visited, the wooden building was about 50
     years old and had required repairs to the roof; the water
     system; and the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
     system.  None of those projects were justified on the basis of
     energy conservation alone, although the increased roof
     insulation and more efficient motors in the water system and the
     heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system all
     contributed to reductions in energy usage. 

  According to contractor officials at one Navy site we visited, the
     Navy has not budgeted any money for energy conservation projects
     at this site.  However, the age of the site has necessitated
     replacing old air conditioning units, which were installed in
     1945.  As in the previous example, the contractor justified
     replacing the equipment because of its age and poor condition,
     not because of the possible energy savings that would result. 

The need to make such repairs, together with the frequent need to
spend funds on cleaning up environmental pollution and correcting
worker health and safety problems, redirects attention from
activities such as energy conservation, according to contractor
personnel.  For example, contractor officials at one Air Force site
told us that projects to maintain or enhance production, to address
worker health or safety requirements, and to address environmental
requirements take precedence over energy conservation projects
because the company could be subject to production losses, regulatory
fines, and personal lawsuits for failure to respond to those
requirements.  The officials said that while those requirements have
redirected funds that could otherwise have been applied to energy
conservation projects, some of the projects that were completed did
have energy conservation benefits.  However, according to these
officials, the Air Force had not provided any dedicated funding for
energy conservation projects at this site. 

NASA's contractor-operated sites range in age from 28 to 50 years
old.  Although NASA had not dedicated any funds to energy
conservation projects, it has used its capital maintenance and
improvement funds for energy conservation projects.  For example,
contractor officials at the Slidell Computer Complex identified 18
energy conservation projects that had been implemented using $1.4
million of NASA's funding for construction of facilities during the
past 17 years. 


--------------------
\14 App.  II discusses how we identified the agencies that used
contractors to operate their sites and how we determined the number
of sites. 

\15 See our report entitled Department of Energy:  Cleaning Up
Inactive Facilities Will Be Difficult (GAO/RCED-93-149, June 25,
1993). 

\16 See our report entitled Federal Research:  Aging Federal
Laboratories Need Repairs and Upgrades (GAO/RCED-93-203, Sept.  20,
1993). 

\17 For this report, the age of the site is based on contractors'
estimates as to when the bulk of the sites they operate were
constructed.  Newer buildings have been constructed at some sites. 


   AVAILABLE INCENTIVES RECEIVE
   LIMITED USE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Three main energy-reduction incentives are available to contractors. 
These are rebates from utilities, federal funding designated for
energy conservation measures, and contracts between the government
and a company to share in dollars saved through energy conservation
efforts.  Among our questionnaire respondents, each of these
incentives was in use to some degree. 


      REBATES FROM UTILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Of 97 respondents, 42 responded that their local utilities offered
one or more rebates under demand-side management (DSM) incentive
programs, as of July 1, 1993.  These programs typically consist of
limiting energy demands on the utility system by both conservation
and other techniques, such as the installation of controls and
equipment to shift loads to off-peak demand periods.  Utilities can
offer rebates for items such as high-efficiency lighting fixtures or
bulbs, high-efficiency windows, or energy management control systems. 
Cumulatively, 26 respondents reported receiving over $2 million in
rebates between October 1, 1989, and July 1, 1993. 

Although such programs have been available for years, according to
the Manager of the Energy Systems Modernization Office of DOE's
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, testifying before the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, utilities initially designed the
programs for their private-sector customers, and typically the
customers had to spend operating or capital funds up front as well as
assume responsibility for procuring all of the services and
technologies for the retrofits.  According to some agency officials
we interviewed, they have had difficulty participating in utility
rebate programs because they have not always met participation
requirements.  For example, the utilities' commitment to reimburse
the upfront expenses may be available for only a short time, and at
the end of that period, the rebate may no longer be available.  If
the contractor or the federal agency does not have funds available
during that window of opportunity, the contractor or the agency may
not be able to participate. 

One of NASA's sites that has been relatively successful in
participating in utilities' energy conservation programs also
provides an illustration of the kinds of impediments to
participating.  For this site, as is typical in such arrangements,
the utility allocated funds for energy conservation programs on an
as-available basis and required the planning, design, and completion
of projects in the same calendar year that it allocated the funds. 
No carryover was allowed.  The impact of that restriction was that
many projects that otherwise qualified for utility-sponsored rebates
could not take advantage because the projects' schedules extended
beyond the utilities' rebate periods. 


      ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE
      CONTRACTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Contractors used shared energy savings contracts, which the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 renamed energy savings performance contracts,
sparingly.\18 Of the 20 questionnaire respondents that had taken
actions to determine whether such agreements were available and
whether participation was feasible, 13 were operating DOE-owned
sites.  Only one respondent--operating a DOE site--reported signing
an agreement, as of July 1, 1993. 

Contractors have reported that they had encountered substantial
difficulties in pursuing energy savings performance contracts because
the complex, time-consuming process involved in negotiating such
arrangements creates disincentives for small and mid-size
contractors.  A contractor told us that it is extremely difficult and
costly to develop these contracts with federal agencies. 

DOE's efforts at its Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory illustrate how a
contractor and an agency can work together to implement an energy
savings performance contract.  In this instance, an energy services
company spent an estimated $328,000 on energy conservation projects
that the company installed at no capital cost to either the
contractor that operates the site or the government.  In addition to
the energy conservation measures valued at about $328,000, DOE should
also realize energy savings of about $150,000.\19 However, to achieve
these benefits, DOE has invested or will invest about $150,000 for
activities, including (1) developing and awarding the contract, (2)
developing a system for measuring energy savings, and (3) monitoring
the energy savings during the contract period, according to DOE
officials. 

Although DOE headquarters officials recognize that energy savings
performance contracts are an option, they cautioned that such
contracts are typically a "last resort" means of financing energy
conservation projects, which can best be used when federal funding is
unavailable.  DOE has about $17 million available annually for energy
conservation retrofit projects,\20 which DOE would prefer to use
before entering into energy savings performance contracts.  DOE
headquarters officials told us that DOE would prefer to finance the
entire project since all of the savings then accrue to the
government. 

NASA provides a similar example of how an agency and a contractor can
work together to overcome the obstacles to implementing energy
conservation efforts at federal sites.  NASA's Michoud Assembly
Facility represented a situation in which NASA and the site operating
contractor agreed to include energy conservation clauses in the
production contract.  In this instance, energy cost reduction program
clauses, initially included in the fiscal year 1988 contract, allow
the operating contractor an opportunity to share in savings achieved
by implementing energy conservation projects at the site.  Cumulative
savings from fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year 1992 total over
$5.1 million, of which 16 percent, or $820,000, was awarded to the
contractor and the balance to the government. 


--------------------
\18 Typically, under such a contract, an energy services company
installs the conservation measures it determines are most
cost-effective and provides financing and maintenance services.  In
exchange, the company is repaid using a portion of the energy cost
savings resulting from the more efficient measures. 

\19 The DOE energy savings estimate is based on the net present value
of savings over the expected term of the contract. 

\20 See DOE's Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1992 (Draft,
July 1993). 


      FUNDING FOR ENERGY
      CONSERVATION MEASURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The government's funding for energy efficiency improvements has
increased somewhat in recent years, though it still remains
considerably below the levels reached during the 1980s.  In fiscal
year 1985, the Department of Defense (DOD), DOE, and NASA invested
nearly $208 million (using constant fiscal year 1992 dollars) in
energy efficiency improvements at all of their sites, including those
operated by contractors.  By fiscal year 1990, the agencies'
investment in energy efficiency improvement measures had dropped to
less than $23 million.  From there, the investment increased to about
$74 million in fiscal year 1992.  (See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  Funding Levels for
   Energy Efficiency Improvements

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All numbers are in fiscal year 1992 constant dollars. 

Source:  Developed by GAO from DOE data. 

Responding to our questionnaire, 55, or 57 percent, of the 96
respondents believed that the amount of direct or indirect funding
for improving the energy efficiency at their sites was less than
adequate.  Also, contractor representatives responding to our
detailed questions about energy conservation at six of the sites we
visited said that unless the federal agencies provided the funding
for the more costly projects, such as replacing boilers, little was
done.  Officials at four of the five agencies, and some contractor
officials, told us that because of limited funding, projects with
relatively short payback periods had a better opportunity of being
funded.  As a practical matter, agencies were able to fund projects
with payback periods of 3 years or less.  In contrast, DOE
headquarters officials told us that DOE has had sufficient funding
for all of its retrofit projects, including those with payback
periods of up to 10 years.  However, officials did say that funds for
surveys and studies to identify potential retrofit projects had been
limited in the past. 


   CONTRACTORS' EFFORTS FOCUS ON
   NEED TO REDUCE THEIR OWN COSTS
   AND COMPLETE MISSION WORK
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

One of the primary reasons contractors reported for implementing
energy conservation measures was their own need to follow good
business practices--that is, to save money and remain competitive. 
Respondents indicated that the incentives discussed earlier--such as
rebates from utilities and shared energy savings contracts--played
only a limited role in their decisions.  Of 96 respondents, 75, or 78
percent, reported that energy efficiency was a moderate to very high
priority, as of July 1, 1993.  Of 97 respondents, 88, or 91 percent,
had implemented at least one project with energy-saving consequences
since October 1, 1989.  Reflecting such efforts, of 88 respondents, 2
reported increases in energy usage that were not attributable to
mission changes, 10 reported no change in energy usage, 33 reported
energy reductions of 1 to 5 percent, and 43 reported energy
reductions greater than 6 percent between October 1, 1989, and July
1, 1993.  (See table 4.)



                                     Table 4
                     
                        Changes in Energy Usage by Agency
                       Between October 1, 1989, and July 1,
                                       1993


                                   Air
Change in energy usage           Force    Army    Navy     DOE    NASA     Total
------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  --------
Increase of any amount               2       0       0       0       0         2
No change                            0       2       2       5       1        10
1-5 percent decrease                 6       6       2      17       2        33
6-10 percent decrease                1       2       3      12       0        18
11-15 percent decrease               1       3       3       6       0        13
16-20 percent decrease               1       2       1       1       1         6
More than 20 percent decrease        0       2       1       2       1         6
================================================================================
Total                               11      17      12      43       5        88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE headquarters officials said that DOE was funding all energy
conservation retrofit projects that DOE contractors proposed. 
However, headquarters officials at the other agencies said that their
agencies did not have dedicated energy conservation funds. 
Contractor officials at some of the sites we visited said that they
undertook projects with energy conservation benefits primarily for
other purposes.  In these cases, contractors bought new
equipment--such as replacement lighting fixtures and bulbs--primarily
to reduce costs or become more competitive, but the purchase also had
energy reduction as a side benefit.  Some contractors said that
because of the uncertainty at these sites as to how long the site
would be operating, the payback period for such investments had to be
relatively short--generally 3 years or less. 

We identified three key factors that will likely affect the degree to
which future energy-reducing activity is pursued at
contractor-operated sites.  These factors are (1) contractors'
willingness to use their own funds and existing incentives, (2)
agencies' evaluations of whether energy conservation measures are
warranted at sites that are experiencing excess capacity, and (3) the
availability of federal funding. 


      CONTRACTORS' WILLINGNESS TO
      PURSUE ENERGY SAVINGS UNDER
      EXISTING INCENTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Contractors have generally made limited use of existing incentives
such as rebates or energy savings performance contracts.  Until
recently, the contractors generally were not faced with a requirement
to reduce energy consumption.  For instance, in September 1991 DOE
directed that its sites (including all its contractor-operated sites)
develop plans for increasing energy efficiency by 20 percent by
fiscal year 2000.  Furthermore, DOD officials told us that 1992 was
the first year that DOD assigned a specific 20-percent reduction
target for energy conservation to contractors operating its sites. 

It is unclear whether contractors' use of incentives will increase. 
The picture appears equally uncertain about contractors' willingness
to use their own funds to participate in incentive-based projects. 
For example, a contractor representative at one Navy site that
manufactured aircraft components told us that the present uncertainty
associated with ongoing cutbacks in defense spending has adversely
affected the contractor's ability to plan projects to reduce energy
consumption.  The representative said that, in general, the
contractor will not spend money to implement any energy conservation
projects that will not recoup its investment within 24 months.  At
the same time, however, the contractor said that because of the age
of the sites, it must continue to invest in short-term projects to
lower operating costs and thus remain competitive when bidding for
contract renewal or additional work. 


      DECISIONS ABOUT UNDERTAKING
      ENERGY REDUCTIONS AT
      MARGINALLY ACTIVE SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

The age, condition, and marginal activity status of some
contractor-operated sites may cause agencies and contractors to
determine that substantial energy-saving investments are unwise,
particularly when energy-saving expenditures may divert funds from
other objectives considered to be of a higher priority, such as
environmental cleanup.  Also, the Air Force has a long-standing
policy of divesting itself of all of its 11 contractor-operated
sites.  Seven of these sites, according to the Air Force, are badly
contaminated, making it difficult if not impossible to divest itself
of ownership in the near future. 

The combination of old buildings, environmental contamination, and an
uncertain long-term future make it difficult for the contractors or
the Air Force to justify large investments to make the buildings more
energy efficient.  For example, one contractor-operated site we
visited manufactures avionics equipment for fighter planes.  The site
was rapidly constructed, primarily of wood, during the early days of
World War II.  Contractor officials told us that the highest funding
priority is the myriad of local, state, and federal government
requirements to protect the environment as well as worker health and
safety.  In addition, funding is diverted from energy conservation to
emergency repairs required because of equipment breakdowns.  The Air
Force's policy of divesting itself of all contractor-operated sites
makes long-term investment in energy conservation measures at this
site unattractive. 

Another instance of the difficulties that arise from the combination
of old buildings and environmental contamination involved a
Navy-owned site at which the contractor manufactures ship-based
missile launch systems and advanced 5-inch guns.  The site was built
during the early days of World War II, and a contractor official told
us that only about 20 percent of the site's space is currently used. 
A contractor official said that no Navy funds are dedicated to energy
conservation, and any energy conservation improvement benefits are
achieved as a by-product of projects to replace worn-out equipment,
remedy environmental contamination problems, or resolve worker health
and safety concerns. 


      AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL
      FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

The availability of federal funding for energy conservation purposes
will have a major impact on how many energy efficiency improvement
projects are implemented at contractor-operated sites.  The Energy
Policy Act of 1992 requires federal agencies to implement, to the
maximum practicable extent, energy-saving projects with a payback
period of less than 10 years, in buildings owned by the federal
government.  Experts agree that the potential exists for significant
energy cost savings in government-owned buildings.  To provide a
conservative estimate of the magnitude of potential energy savings at
contractor-operated sites, we used agency estimates and calculated
that annual energy cost savings at federally owned,
contractor-operated sites could exceed $43 million.  These savings,
however, would require a one-time estimated $216 million investment
in energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings.  Appendix I
provides details on how we calculated potential energy cost savings. 

By way of comparison, the amount of this one-time investment
significantly exceeds the $74 million in total funding available for
energy-reduction measures at all DOD, DOE, and NASA facilities,
including those operated by contractors, in fiscal year 1992.  For
example, as shown in table 1, contractor-operated sites represented
less than 2 percent of DOD agencies' building space and about 5 to 11
percent of their energy consumption, and these sites must compete for
funding with other facilities that are not contractor-operated. 
Consequently, the likelihood of limited funding appears to be the
strongest motivation for (1) carefully planning how to spend existing
funds in the most efficient manner and (2) ensuring that agencies and
contractors take maximum advantage of the incentives already
available to them. 


   NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER EXPANDS
   ENERGY CONSERVATION
   REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

On March 8, 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12902, which
establishes new requirements for federal energy managers and others
regarding the federal government's energy conservation efforts.  The
new executive order, which revokes most of Executive Order 12759,
requires a 30-percent energy use reduction in buildings by 2005,
based on Btu-per-gross-square-foot measured from 1985 energy usage. 
The order also establishes a new requirement for federal industrial
facilities.  The order requires that such facilities, in the
aggregate, increase energy efficiency by at least 20 percent by 2005
as compared to 1990 energy usage, using definitions and standards
that are to be developed under the direction of DOE.  Furthermore,
the executive order specifically requires all government-owned,
contractor-operated facilities to comply with the goals and
requirements of this order and directs agencies to incorporate energy
management goals into such facilities' management contracts. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Contractor-operated sites use a significant amount of the total
energy used at government buildings.  To date, energy conservation
has been a moderate to very high priority among 75 of 96 respondents
to our questionnaire performing operations at government-owned sites. 
The contractors have emphasized implementing energy efficiency
improvement projects that recoup the initial investment over a short
time, while reducing the contractors' operating costs.  Because
federal agencies may not have the funding necessary to install all
practicable energy efficiency improvements, the extent of further
energy-reduction activities at contractor-operated sites is difficult
to predict. 

The agencies' major concerns at this time are cleaning up
environmental contamination resulting from past operations and
ensuring that employee health and safety is protected.  However,
funding is likely to be limited for these efforts, let alone for
energy conservation.  The competing priorities and limited funds
highlight the need for agencies to ensure that existing incentives,
such as rebates from utilities and energy savings performance
contracts, are used to the maximum extent practicable.  To date,
usage of these incentives has been limited.  In implementing the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, with its requirement that agencies
implement to the maximum extent practicable energy-saving projects
with paybacks of less than 10 years, agencies will need to identify
the energy conservation measures that are needed to make
contractor-operated sites as energy efficient as practicable. 
Executive Order 12902 provides even more impetus to install
conservation measures at contractor-operated sites.  We believe that
this new executive order, with its renewed emphasis, should, if
accompanied by adequate funding, provide the means for
contractor-operated sites to do their part in reducing the federal
government's energy usage and energy costs. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We discussed the factual information contained in this report with
DOD, DOE, and NASA officials, who expressed general agreement with
the information presented.  However, they provided some clarifying
comments that have been incorporated into the report as appropriate. 
For example, DOE and NASA officials noted discrepancies in how some
contractors calculated and reported energy use statistics.  We
incorporated their concerns, as discussed in appendix I.  DOE
officials noted that some of the contractors who responded that they
had no long-range energy management plan for their sites were
included in other contractors' plans, and we revised the
questionnaire response to reflect this clarification.  DOE officials
also said that energy savings performance contracting may not be the
most advantageous method of financing energy conservation projects at
contractor-operated sites, and we have included their comment.  As
requested, we did not obtain written agency comments on a draft of
this report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies to appropriate congressional committees, federal
agencies, and other interested parties.  We will also make copies
available to others on request. 

If you or your staff have any further questions, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy and
 Science Issues


ENERGY USE CATEGORIES AND
ESTIMATED ENERGY COST SAVINGS
=========================================================== Appendix I


   ENERGY USE CATEGORIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The federal government classifies its energy use under two
categories:  (1) general operations and (2) buildings and facilities. 
The general operations category covers energy used in vehicles and
equipment and energy used in energy-intensive buildings.  The energy
used in energy-intensive buildings, which includes process energy, is
exempt under section 543 of the National Energy Conservation Policy
Act, as amended, from compliance with energy-reduction goals. 
Examples of general operations energy are aircraft and naval fuels;
automotive gasoline used by federally owned and leased vehicles and
privately owned vehicles used for official business; the energy used
in federal construction, as well as the energy used in industrial
operations; certain research and development activities; and in
electronic intensive facilities. 


   ENERGY USAGE COMPUTATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Each year contractors report their energy usage by fuel type to the
individual federal agencies.  The agencies report that information to
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program
(FEMP).  FEMP converts agencies' actual energy usage (which is
collected in units such as kilowatt hours of electricity and gallons
of fuel oil) to British thermal units (Btu) when reporting federal
agencies' energy usage to the Congress.  A source-based conversion
factor of 11,600 Btu per kilowatt hour for electricity is used to
determine the Btu generated, while a site-based conversion factor of
3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour of electricity is used to determine Btu
used by the customer. 

When responding to our questionnaire, the contractor personnel made
the conversion from actual energy usage to Btu equivalents. 
According to DOE and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) headquarters officials, however, the responses indicate that
some respondents used the source conversion factors and others used
the site conversion factors.  Also, at least one other contractor
included information which, according to DOE headquarters officials,
typically is not provided in DOE reports of energy usage.  For
example, the total energy usage at one of DOE's sites during fiscal
year 1992, including process energy to enrich uranium, was 50.845241
trillion (or 50845.241 billion) Btu.  This site's energy usage,
excluding process energy, was 275.633 billion Btu--a difference of
over 50 trillion Btu.  DOE headquarters officials said that the
process energy used at uranium enrichment sites had been, as a matter
of long-standing practice, excluded from reports of energy usage
provided to FEMP.\1 As a result of these types of discrepancies, DOE
contractors' responses to our question concerning energy usage during
fiscal year 1992 totaled 128,484 billion Btu while DOE's reported
total was only 44,902 billion.  DOE headquarters officials believe
that the total energy used by DOE contractors during fiscal year 1992
cannot exceed about 91 percent of the agency's total, or about
40.810575 trillion Btu. 

Determining how each respondent computed the amount of energy used
that they reported to us would have been very time-consuming and,
therefore, we chose to use DOE's approximation of energy used by its
contractors as an upper limit for our calculation of the quantity of
energy used by DOE's contractors.  DOE officials based that estimate
on information that DOE sites report in DOE's Energy Management
System.  However, neither DOE nor we were able to precisely identify
which DOE reporting sites corresponded to our questionnaire
respondents.  We chose to use the energy usage data only from those
sites that directly corresponded to our questionnaire respondents. 
As a result, our calculation of the contractors' energy usage totaled
a conservative 78 percent of the agency's total rather than the
estimated 91 percent. 

A similar situation occurred with NASA's contractors.  However, a
NASA headquarters official identified the discrepancies associated
with four of the five contractors' questionnaire responses and
provided us with detailed information about the correct energy usage
for each contractor, which we used in our calculations. 


--------------------
\1 Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, on July 1, 1993, DOE's
uranium enrichment operations were transferred to a government-owned
corporation, the U.S.  Enrichment Corporation; the enrichment
operations are no longer a part of DOE. 


   POTENTIAL SAVINGS FROM ENERGY
   CONSERVATION MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

Our questionnaire respondents reported spending about $783 million
for energy used at their sites during fiscal year 1992.  In 1991, the
Alliance to Save Energy reported that the federal government could
reduce its energy bill for buildings by an additional 25 percent. 
That estimate was based on data gathered concerning private sector
office buildings and residential units and did not include any
information on federal buildings.\2 The Alliance believed that
because offices and residential units made up 46 percent of all
federal buildings the estimate for the private sector provided a
useful comparison.  Given that over 70 percent of the
government-owned buildings occupied by our questionnaire respondents
are at least 30 years old, the savings associated with contractor
operations in government-owned buildings may actually be higher than
the 25 percent that the Alliance believed was possible. 

We asked the energy officials at the five agencies if the Alliance
estimate, and other higher estimates, were reasonable.  Four of them
believed that, given adequate funding to implement energy
conservation measures, savings in a range from 20 to 30 percent from
the fiscal year 1985 baseline were possible.  Because of funding
limitations, the significant number of energy conservation measures
completed prior to the 1985 baseline, and the fact that some DOE
sites are located in areas where public utilities charge low rates
for energy, which makes identification of conservation projects with
paybacks of less than 10 years more difficult, DOE officials believed
that potential future savings of 5 percent were possible.  We used 20
percent as a starting point and calculated annual energy cost savings
of $31.7 million for the contractor-operated sites owned by the Air
Force, Army, Navy, and NASA.  We used 5 percent for DOE and
calculated $11.6 million in future annual energy cost savings.  The
total estimated savings for all five agencies was, therefore, $43.3
million. 

We did not include the general operations energy in our calculations
of potential energy cost savings because the Department of Defense's
(DOD) jet fuel usage was such a large portion of general operation's
energy usage.  For instance, 68 percent of the total energy used by
the federal government in fiscal year 1992 was used for general
operations.\3 However, DOD used 92 percent of the general operations
energy, and fuels used by vehicles and equipment represented 89
percent of the general operations energy.  Furthermore, DOD jet fuel
usage was 86 percent of total vehicle and equipment energy. 

Although the Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires agencies to implement
all practicable projects with paybacks of less than 10 years, if we
conservatively assume an average payback of 5 years, $5 must be
invested for each $1 returned as energy savings.  Therefore, to save
$43.3 million per year, an investment of about $216 million in
federal building energy efficiency improvements is needed.  In fiscal
year 1992, DOD, DOE, and NASA reported spending about $74 million for
projects that included energy efficiency improvement benefits at all
sites, including those operated by contractors.\4


--------------------
\2 Energy Use in Federal Facilities:  Squandering Taxpayer Dollars
and Needlessly Polluting Our Environment, The Alliance to Save Energy
(Jan.  1991). 

\3 Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management
and Conservation Programs, Fiscal Year 1992, U.S.  Department of
Energy (Draft, July 1993). 

\4 See DOE's Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1992 (Draft,
July 1993). 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II


   OBJECTIVES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

We focused our review on the extent to which contractors that were
operating sites owned by five agencies are achieving energy
reductions at the sites they manage.  The five agencies were the
Departments of the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Energy and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Specifically, our objectives
were to examine (1) energy consumption at government-owned sites that
contractors operate in the United States, (2) incentives available
for contractors to use in reducing energy consumption, and (3)
contractors' energy conservation efforts and the results these
efforts have achieved. 


   SCOPE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

We surveyed the 31 federal agencies that report their energy usage to
DOE's Federal Energy Management Program Office to determine which
agencies used contractors to operate their sites.  Energy management
officials at DOD (Air Force, Army, and Navy), DOE, and NASA readily
identified a total of 111 contractors performing operations for them
at sites that these agencies owned.  The remaining agencies told us
that they (1) did not use contractors, (2) were not sure if they used
contractors, or (3) were sure they used contractors but were not sure
how many they actually used.  Since the energy used by the remaining
agencies represented less than 11 percent of the federal government's
total annual energy use in fiscal year 1992,\1 and since some had
large numbers of field locations--for example, according to a
headquarters official, the U.S.  Postal Service has over 30,000
locations nationwide--which would have made determining the exact
number of contractors very difficult and would have been very
time-consuming, we limited our review to the Air Force, Army, Navy,
DOE, and NASA. 

We visited the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense
(Production and Logistics), DOD; FEMP Office, DOE; the In-House
Energy Management Program Branch, DOE; the Office of Energy
Management, NASA; and the Facilities Management Division, Public
Buildings Service, General Services Administration in Washington,
D.C., and discussed with representatives of those offices their role
in energy management. 

We used a questionnaire that was mailed to 111 contractors identified
as performing operations in government-owned space to elicit a wide
range of information concerning contractors' energy management
operations.  (See app.  III for the questionnaire that we used.) We
visited selected field locations to pretest the questionnaire and/or
to conduct more detailed interviews with the contractors concerning
their energy conservation efforts.  We pretested our questionnaire
only at the following sites:  Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
in Bethpage, New York; Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Radford,
Virginia; and Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York.  We
visited the following sites to pretest our questionnaire and to
conduct more detailed interviews concerning their energy conservation
efforts:  Air Force Plant #59 in Johnson City, New York; Hanford Site
in Richland, Washington; and Slidell Computer Complex in Slidell,
Louisiana.  We visited the following sites to ask the contractors
more detailed questions concerning their energy conservation efforts: 
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant in Dallas, Texas; Naval
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Army
Ammunition Plant in Independence, Missouri; and Michoud Assembly
Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana.  We discussed with agency field
location and/or contractor representatives their roles in energy
management.  We also contacted the Energy Systems Modernization
Office of the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, and the Alliance
to Save Energy to discuss specific aspects of energy conservation
efforts.  We reviewed the agencies' past, current, and proposed
guidance for energy management. 


--------------------
\1 See DOE's Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1992 (Draft,
July 1993). 


   METHODOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

To determine the extent to which contractors, rather than federal
agencies, control energy usage at government-owned sites, we surveyed
the 31 federal agencies that reported their energy usage to DOE's
FEMP Office from fiscal years 1985 to 1990.  We asked either the
facilities or energy officials, which we identified with FEMP's
assistance, at the various agencies to provide listings of
contractors that operated federally owned sites.  Energy management
officials at DOD (Air Force, Army, and Navy), DOE, and NASA
identified a total of 111 contractors as operating federally owned
sites for their agencies, as of October 1993. 

The Department of Labor identified 39 contractors that operated Job
Corps Centers nationwide.  However, this information was not provided
to us in time for those contractors to be included in our mailing. 
Furthermore, since the Department of Labor used less than 1 percent
of the federal government's total annual energy in fiscal year 1992,
we elected not to include the information relative to these
contractors in our report. 

Of the remaining 27 agencies, 13 told us that they did not use
contractors to operate any of their facilities.  Another five
agencies, which accounted for about 5 percent of the federal
government's total annual energy use in fiscal year 1992,\6 told us
that they were not sure how many contractors they used.  Because the
amount of energy used by those agencies was relatively small and the
large number of their field locations would have made determining the
exact number of contractors very difficult and time-consuming, we
chose not to include those agencies in our review.  The remaining
nine agencies, which accounted for less than 2 percent of the federal
government's annual energy usage in fiscal year 1992,\7 did not know
how many, if any, contractor-operated facilities they owned. 

Because we found that the 27 remaining agencies' total energy usage
was relatively minor, and/or agencies' canvassing their sites to
obtain precise counts of contractors would have been an extensive
effort, we limited our mailing to the 111 contractors identified by
energy management officials at DOD, DOE, and NASA. 

We received 105 responses from our mailing to the 111 contractors. 
These respondents represented 103 valid sites.  (See table II.1.)
Responses varied by agency as discussed in the following paragraphs. 



                          Table II.1
           
           Schedule Showing Questionnaire Responses


                                                        Vali
                             Total      Non-     Valid     d
                          response  response  response  site
Agency            Mailed         s         s         s     s
----------------  ------  --------  --------  --------  ----
Air Force             15        14         1      11\a  11\a
Army                  24        20         4        20    24
Navy                  14        13         1        13    14
DOE                   53        53         0      48\b    49
NASA                   5         5         0         5     5
============================================================
Total                111       105         6        97   103
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Although we received a total of 14 responses, the Air Force
considers these to be only 11 valid responses. 

\b Although we received a total of 53 responses, 5 contractors
responded that they did not belong in our universe.  DOE agrees that
the five contractors should not be included. 

For DOD, we mailed questionnaires to 15 Air Force contractors located
at 15 sites,\8 and 1 contractor did not respond.  We mailed
questionnaires to 24 Army contractors located at 24 sites, and 4
contractors did not respond.  We mailed questionnaires to 14 Navy
contractors located at 14 sites, and 1 contractor did not respond. 

We mailed questionnaires to 53 DOE contractors and received responses
from all of the contractors.  We received 48 valid responses since
one contractor who received two questionnaires sent us a combined
response for operations at two locations.  Another contractor who
received one questionnaire sent us two responses because the firm
operated federally owned sites in two states and believed that
separate responses were warranted.  Five of the respondents said that
they did not belong in our universe. 

We mailed questionnaires to five NASA contractors who operated five
sites\9 and received responses from all five contractors. 

To determine the extent to which the federal agencies assure
themselves that contractors are optimizing energy conservation
opportunities, we examined the agencies' energy management orders and
policy guidance (both current and proposed), the contract provisions
concerning energy management (if any existed), the annual energy
management plans, and the annual reports they submit to FEMP.  To
determine the extent to which the contractors are optimizing energy
conservation opportunities, we examined their energy management
orders and policy guidance (both current and proposed), annual energy
management plans, and the annual reports they submit to their
contracting agency. 

We discussed the facts presented in this report with DOD, DOE, and
NASA energy management officials.  They generally agreed with the
information but offered some clarifications, which we incorporated
where appropriate.  Our work was conducted during the period November
1992 through March 1994 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III

--------------------
\6 See DOE's Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1992 (Draft,
July 1993). 

\7 See DOE's Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1992 (Draft,
July 1993). 

\8 The Air Force considers these to be only 11 valid sites because
four of the contractors to which we mailed questionnaires subcontract
with other contractors at these sites. 

\9 NASA and we count the Downey/Palmdale site as one site. 


QUESTIONNAIRE ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY
AT CONTRACTOR-OPERATED, FEDERALLY
OWNED SITES
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Jim Wells, Associate Director
Michael T.  Blair, Jr., Assistant Director
Charles B.  Hessler, Assignment Manager
Jonathan T.  Bachman, Senior Social Science Analyst

SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE

Charles A.  Sylvis, Evaluator-in-Charge
John E.  Cass, Staff Evaluator

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Jackie A.  Goff, Senior Attorney

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Energy Conservation:  Federal Agencies' Funding Sources and Reporting
Procedures (GAO/RCED-94-70, Mar.  30, 1994). 

DOE's National Laboratories:  Adopting New Missions and Managing
Effectively Pose Significant Challenges (GAO/T-RCED-94-113, Feb.  13,
1994). 

Federal Research:  Aging Federal Laboratories Need Repairs and
Upgrades (GAO/RCED-93-203, Sept.  20, 1993). 

Department of Energy:  Cleaning Up Inactive Facilities Will Be
Difficult (GAO/RCED-93-149, June 25, 1993). 

Energy and Science Reports and Testimony:  1992 (Apr.  1993). 

Nuclear Weapons Complex:  Weaknesses in DOE's Nonnuclear
Consolidation Plan (GAO/RCED-93-56, Nov.  19, 1992). 

Federal Buildings:  Actions Needed to Prevent Further Deterioration
and Obsolescence (GAO/GGD-91-57, May 13, 1991). 

NASA Maintenance:  Stronger Commitment Needed to Curb Facility
Deterioration (GAO/NSIAD-91-34, Dec.  14, 1990). 

Barriers to Installing Energy-Efficient Lighting in Federal Buildings
(GAO/T-GGD-90-54, July 11, 1990). 

