Federal Energy Management
Addressing Challenges through Better Plans and Clarifying the Greenhouse Gas Emission Measure Will Help Meet Long-term Goals for Buildings Gao ID: GAO-08-977 September 30, 2008The federal government is the nation's single largest energy consumer, spending approximately $17 billion in fiscal year 2007. A number of statutes and executive orders have established and revised goals directing agencies to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions--such as carbon dioxide, which results from combustion of fossil fuels and natural processes, among other things--and increase renewable energy use. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which (1) federal agencies met energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emission, and renewable energy goals in fiscal year 2007; (2) federal agencies have made progress in each of these areas in the recent past; and (3) six selected agencies are poised to meet energy goals into the future. For this review, GAO, among other things, conducted site visits for six agencies and reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) annual reports to Congress on federal energy management.
Based on draft DOE data, most of the 22 agencies reporting to DOE for fiscal year 2007 met energy goals for energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy. Specifically, all but one agency met the energy efficiency goal. Three of these agencies would not have met the goal through reductions in energy intensity--the amount of energy consumed per gross square foot--alone; they also used credits for the purchase of renewable energy or source energy to help meet the goal. Because the greenhouse gas emission goal is tied to the energy efficiency goal, the same number of agencies met the greenhouse gas emission goal, while 17 of the 22 agencies met the renewable energy goal. Determining the extent to which agencies have made progress over time toward the goals is problematic due to key changes in the goals--as specified in statute and executive order--and how progress is measured. For example, the energy efficiency goal changed the types of buildings included and the baseline year against which progress was measured. The greenhouse gas emissions goal also changed, from a measure of greenhouse gas emissions to a measure of energy intensity; this change makes it problematic to compare performance before and after the change. Moreover, GAO found that a goal based on energy intensity is not a good proxy for emissions because a reduction in energy intensity does not always result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Although there is no consensus on a best measure at present, alternative measures are in use that may better track agencies' greenhouse gas emissions than the current measure based on energy intensity. Agencies' prospects for meeting energy goals into the future depend on overcoming four key challenges. First, the six agencies GAO reviewed--the departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Veterans Affairs (VA); the General Services Administration (GSA); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS)--had long-term plans for achieving energy goals that lacked key elements, such as plans that outline agencies' strategies that are linked to goals and provide a framework for aligning activities, processes, and resources to attain the goals of the plan. Second, investment in energy projects competes with other budget priorities, causing agency officials to increasingly rely on alternative financing mechanisms--contracts with private companies that pay for energy improvements. However, as past GAO work has shown, agencies entering into these contracts could not always verify whether money saved from using less energy was greater than projected costs and may yield lower savings than if timely, full, and upfront appropriations had been used. Third, agencies face challenges in obtaining reliable energy consumption data but are taking steps to collect more reliable data. Finally, facilities may lack staff dedicated to energy management and may find it difficult to retain staff with sufficient energy expertise; however, agency officials are participating in training and implementing initiatives for energy management personnel.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-977, Federal Energy Management: Addressing Challenges through Better Plans and Clarifying the Greenhouse Gas Emission Measure Will Help Meet Long-term Goals for Buildings
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-977
entitled 'Federal Energy Management: Addressing Challenges through
Better Plans and Clarifying the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure Will
Help Meet Long-term Goals for Buildings' which was released on October
2, 2008.
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 Webmaster@gao.gov.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
Federal Energy Management:
Addressing Challenges through Better Plans and Clarifying the
Greenhouse Gas Emission Measure Will Help Meet Long-term Goals for
Buildings:
Federal Energy Management:
GAO-08-977:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-977, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government is the nation‘s single largest energy consumer,
spending approximately $17 billion in fiscal year 2007. A number of
statutes and executive orders have established and revised goals
directing agencies to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions”such as carbon dioxide, which results from combustion of
fossil fuels and natural processes, among other things”and increase
renewable energy use. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which
(1) federal agencies met energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emission,
and renewable energy goals in fiscal year 2007; (2) federal agencies
have made progress in each of these areas in the recent past; and (3)
six selected agencies are poised to meet energy goals into the future.
For this review, GAO, among other things, conducted site visits for six
agencies and reviewed the Department of Energy‘s (DOE) annual reports
to Congress on federal energy management.
What GAO Found:
Based on draft DOE data, most of the 22 agencies reporting to DOE for
fiscal year 2007 met energy goals for energy efficiency, greenhouse gas
emissions, and renewable energy. Specifically, all but one agency met
the energy efficiency goal. Three of these agencies would not have met
the goal through reductions in energy intensity”the amount of energy
consumed per gross square foot”alone; they also used credits for the
purchase of renewable energy or source energy to help meet the goal.
Because the greenhouse gas emission goal is tied to the energy
efficiency goal, the same number of agencies met the greenhouse gas
emission goal, while 17 of the 22 agencies met the renewable energy
goal.
Determining the extent to which agencies have made progress over time
toward the goals is problematic due to key changes in the goals”as
specified in statute and executive order”and how progress is measured.
For example, the energy efficiency goal changed the types of buildings
included and the baseline year against which progress was measured. The
greenhouse gas emissions goal also changed, from a measure of
greenhouse gas emissions to a measure of energy intensity; this change
makes it problematic to compare performance before and after the
change. Moreover, GAO found that a goal based on energy intensity is
not a good proxy for emissions because a reduction in energy intensity
does not always result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Although
there is no consensus on a best measure at present, alternative
measures are in use that may better track agencies‘ greenhouse gas
emissions than the current measure based on energy intensity.
Agencies‘ prospects for meeting energy goals into the future depend on
overcoming four key challenges. First, the six agencies GAO
reviewed”the departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Veterans
Affairs (VA); the General Services Administration (GSA); the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS)”had long-term plans for achieving energy goals that
lacked key elements, such as plans that outline agencies‘ strategies
that are linked to goals and provide a framework for aligning
activities, processes, and resources to attain the goals of the plan.
Second, investment in energy projects competes with other budget
priorities, causing agency officials to increasingly rely on
alternative financing mechanisms”contracts with private companies that
pay for energy improvements. However, as past GAO work has shown,
agencies entering into these contracts could not always verify whether
money saved from using less energy was greater than projected costs and
may yield lower savings than if timely, full, and upfront
appropriations had been used. Third, agencies face challenges in
obtaining reliable energy consumption data but are taking steps to
collect more reliable data. Finally, facilities may lack staff
dedicated to energy management and may find it difficult to retain
staff with sufficient energy expertise; however, agency officials are
participating in training and implementing initiatives for energy
management personnel.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOE (1) reevaluate the current measure for
greenhouse gas emissions and establish one that more accurately
reflects agencies‘ performance in reducing these emissions, and (2)
finalize and issue guidance for agencies‘ use in developing long-term
plans that contains key elements for meeting current and future energy
goals. GSA, NASA, and USPS concurred; VA neither agreed nor disagreed;
and the other agencies did not comment.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-977]. For more
information, contact J Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or
gaffiganm@gao.gov, or Terrell G. Dorn at (202) 512-2834 or
dornt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOE Reports That Most Federal Agencies Met Fiscal Year 2007 Energy
Goals:
Assessing Progress Toward the Goals Over Time Is Problematic Due to Key
Changes in the Goals and How Performance Is Measured:
Agencies' Prospects for Meeting Energy Goals in the Future Depend on
Addressing Four Challenges:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Appendix III: Comments from the United States Postal Service:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Agencies and Site Visits Included within Scope of Engagement:
Figures:
Figure 1: Changes to Energy Efficiency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and
Renewable Energy Goals, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
Figure 2: Timeline of Statute and Executive Orders with Energy Goals,
Fiscal Years 2000-2007:
Figure 3: Energy Consumed in Federal Buildings by Energy Type, Fiscal
Year 2007:
Figure 4: Site Energy Consumed in Buildings Not Excluded from Energy
Goals, Fiscal Year 2007:
Figure 5: Reduction in Energy Intensity from a Fiscal Year 2003
Baseline, Fiscal Year 2007:
Figure 6: Renewable Electric Energy Use as a Percentage of Total
Electricity Use, Fiscal Year 2007:
Figure 7: Changes in How the Energy Efficiency Goal Is Measured:
Figure 8: Changes in How the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goal Is Measured:
Figure 9: Changes in How the Renewable Energy Goal Is Measured:
Figure 10: Approximate Upfront Funding for Energy Projects, Fiscal
Years 2000-2007:
Figure 11: Total Funding for Energy Projects by Funding Mechanism,
Fiscal Years 2000-2007:
Abbreviations:
ASE: Alliance to Save Energy:
Btu: British thermal unit:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EISA 2007: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007:
E.O. 13123: Executive Order 13123:
E.O. 13423: Executive Order 13423:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005:
ESPC: energy savings performance contract:
GSA: General Services Administration:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
OFEE: Office of the Federal Environmental Executive:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
REC: renewable energy certificate:
UESC: utility energy savings contract:
USPS: U.S. Postal Service:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 30, 2008:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Mark Pryor:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Warner:
United States Senate:
The federal government is the nation's single largest energy consumer,
spending approximately $17 billion in fiscal year 2007 on energy for
buildings and vehicles, according to the most recent available data.
This total represents almost 1 percent of all federal expenditures for
2007. And these costs have been rising in recent years. According to
the Department of Energy (DOE), from 2003 to 2007, the cost per unit of
energy increased by 59 percent in constant 2007 dollars. In light of
these energy price increases, congressional interest in making the
federal government more energy efficient has grown as well.
Since the 1970s, federal statutes and executive orders have set and
revised a number of goals for changing the way federal agencies use or
obtain energy. Most recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005) and two executive orders set energy goals for federal agencies.
As figure 1 shows, the goals address such areas as improving energy
efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions[Footnote 1], and
increasing the use of renewable energy source[Footnote 2]s. For
greenhouse gas emissions, Executive Order 13423 (E.O. 13423) lays out a
direction linked to the energy efficiency goal rather than a numerical
goal specific to emissions.[Footnote 3] These goals apply to a range of
buildings, from standard office buildings to more energy-intensive
buildings, such as industrial or laboratory buildings.[Footnote 4] In
January 2007, E.O. 13423 revoked Executive Order 13123 (E.O. 13123),
which had guided agencies in energy conservation efforts since June
1999 and added energy goals to those in EPAct [Footnote 5]2[Footnote
6]005., In addition, the statute and E.O. 13423 set goals for agencies
to reduce petroleum consumption and increase the use of alternative
fuels in vehicle fleets. Some types of federal buildings are excluded
from these goals, such as buildings for which national security is
overwhelmingly the primary function and prevents the implementation of
energy efficiency measures or prohibits reporting of energy data
because it would pose a demonstrated security risk.
Figure 1: Changes to Energy Efficiency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and
Renewable Energy Goals, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
This figure is a table with illustrations showing changes to energy
efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy goals,
between fiscal years 1999 and 2007.
Statute or executive order: E.O. 13123: (June 3, 1999);
Building categories: Standard buildings;
Energy efficiency: Each agency is to reduce energy consumption per
gross square foot of its facilities by 30% by 2005 and 35% by 2010,
compared to 1985;
Greenhouse gas emissions: Each agency is to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions attributed to building energy use by 30% by 2010 compared
with such emissions levels in 1990;
Renewable energy: By 2005, 2.5% of building electricity consumption
shall come from renewable energy projects (electric or thermal/gas)
built after 1990.
Statute or executive order: E.O. 13123: (June 3, 1999);
Building categories: Industrial/laboratory buildings;
Energy efficiency: Each agency is to reduce energy consumption per
square foot, per unit of production, or per other unit as applicable by
20% by 2005 and 25% by 2010,relative to 1990;
Greenhouse gas emissions: Same as for standard buildings;
Renewable energy: Same as for standard buildings.
Statute or executive order: EPAct 2005: (August 8, 2005);
Building categories: All buildings;
Energy efficiency: Reduce energy consumption per gross square foot by
2% annually in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, relative to a2003
baseline;
Greenhouse gas emissions: [Empty];
Renewable energy: Of the total amount of electric energy an agency
consumes, the following amounts are to be from renewable electric
energy: not less than: 3% in FY 2007-2009, 5% in FY 2010-2012, 7.5% in
FY 2013 and beyond (no new source requirement – i.e., projects built
after a certain date).
Statute or executive order: E.O. 13423: (January 24, 2007);
Building categories: All buildings;
Energy efficiency: Reduce energy intensity by(i) 3% annually through
the end of FY 2015 or (ii) 30%by the end of FY 2015, relative to the
baseline of the agency‘s energy use in 2003;
Greenhouse gas emissions: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a
reduction of energy intensity of (i) 3% annually through the end of FY
2015 or (ii) 30% by the end of FY 2015,relative to the agency‘s energy
use in 2003;
Renewable energy: At least half of the renewable energy required in
EPAct2005 consumed by an agency in a fiscal year should come from new
renewable resources (those placed in service after January 1, 1999).
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EPAct 2005 and Eos 13123 and 13423; Art
Explosion (clip art).
Note: Buildings meeting certain criteria--such as those with a national
security function--may be excluded from meeting the energy goals.
[A] Section 503 of E.O. 13123 directed the Secretary of Energy, in
collaboration with the heads of other agencies, to develop goals for
the amount of energy generated at federal facilities from renewable
energy technologies. In July 2000, the Secretary approved the goal
specifying that 2.5 percent of building electricity consumption shall
come from renewable energy projects built after 1990.
[End of figure]
As figure 1 shows, EPAct 2005 changed the energy efficiency goal in
E.O. 13123. Further, the most recent executive order, E.O. 13423,
increased the reduction in energy intensity called for in EPAct 2005.
Energy intensity is the amount of energy consumed--measured in British
thermal units (Btu)--per gross square foot. The energy goals in place
for the agencies in fiscal year 2007 are the following:
* Energy efficiency. Reduce energy intensity by 6 percent, from a 2003
baseline. EPAct 2005 required a 2 percent annual reduction in energy
intensity starting in 2006, which would have resulted in a total of 4
percent for 2007. However, the new executive order was implemented mid-
fiscal year 2007, and the implementation instructions for the new order
directed agencies to reduce energy intensity by 6 percent for fiscal
year 2007, from a 2003 baseline. After 2007, E.O. 13423 directs
agencies to reduce energy intensity by 3 percent annually, or a total
of 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015, relative to a 2003
baseline. Agencies could count two types of credits toward their energy
efficiency goal in fiscal year 2007: credits for purchasing renewable
energy and source energy credits. To calculate credits for purchasing
renewable energy, DOE subtracts a purchase from the amount of energy
the agency consumes in measuring its progress toward the goal.[Footnote
7] This credit will be phased out completely by fiscal year 2012.
Source energy credits take into account the use of site energy--energy
used only at a particular site--and source energy--the energy consumed
in producing and delivering energy to the site. For example, an agency
can obtain source credits if it generates electricity on-site using
natural gas and recovers the heat used to generate the electricity.
While the agency may use more site energy, it reduces its electricity
purchases and the use of associated fuels at the power plant, thereby
decreasing total energy use. According to DOE, these credits are
expected to continue as a necessary adjustment for the site-delivered
Btu-per-gross-square-foot performance measure.
* Greenhouse gas emissions. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing
energy intensity by 6 percent by 2007, from a 2003 baseline. After
2007, agencies are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing
energy intensity by 3 percent annually, or a total of 30 percent by the
end of fiscal year 2015, relative to a 2003 baseline.
* Renewable energy. Of the total amount of electricity consumed, at
least 3 percent must be from a renewable energy source, with at least
half of that amount from a renewable energy source put into service
after January 1, 1999. This goal is in place through 2009. After 2009,
the percentage of electricity from a renewable energy source increases
incrementally, but at least half of the amount must still be from
renewable energy sources put into service after January 1,
1999.[Footnote 8] Under EPAct 2005, agencies also get a 100 percent
bonus for renewable electric energy generated on federal or Indian
land. Under E.O. 13423, this energy must be defined as "new" to qualify
for the bonus.
DOE, the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE), and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) play a role in ensuring that
agencies comply with the goals. DOE is responsible primarily for
coordinating the implementation of the energy efficiency and renewable
energy goals for agencies set forth in EPAct 2005, while OFEE is
responsible primarily for overseeing the implementation of E.O. 13423.
In practice, OFEE has delegated much of its responsibility for
achieving federal energy goals to DOE. OMB is responsible for, among
other things, issuing semiannual scorecards that track agencies' energy
performance for a number of indicators.
DOE develops and issues guidance on how to meet the energy goals. It
also chairs the Interagency Energy Management Task Force, a group of
agency headquarters-level energy managers who, among other things,
address energy issues affecting federal buildings and operations and
comment on guidance. DOE also reports annually to Congress on agencies'
energy use and progress toward meeting energy goals. Not all agencies
report every year, and the agencies reporting may vary from year to
year; however, the majority of federal agencies report each year. In
some cases, when control of a building is delegated from the General
Services Administration (GSA) to an agency, the agency will then be
required to report to DOE, which may influence the number of agencies
included in the annual report.
To achieve the energy goals, agencies may take a range of actions, from
switching to more energy-efficient lighting and encouraging staff to
conserve energy, to ensuring that all new building construction meets
higher energy efficiency standards. Agencies pay for these improvements
in several ways; for example, they may use upfront funding to pay for
the improvements outright or they may rely on alternative financing
mechanisms, such as contracts with private companies that pay for
energy improvements to begin with and then receive compensation from
the agencies over time from the monetary savings they realize from
these projects.
In this context, you asked us to determine the extent to which (1)
federal agencies met energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emission, and
renewable energy goals in fiscal year 2007; (2) federal agencies have
made progress in each of these areas in the recent past; and (3)
selected agencies are poised to meet energy goals into the future. We
plan to report in fall 2008 on energy efforts related to the federal
government's vehicle fleets.
To determine the extent to which agencies met energy efficiency,
greenhouse gas, and renewable energy goals, we analyzed data on
agencies' performance, as reported in DOE's annual reports to Congress
for fiscal year 2005, and draft data from fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for our purpose,
which was to convey what the agencies reported to DOE about the status
of meeting the energy goals. To assess the agencies' progress in each
of these areas in recent years, we reviewed energy efficiency,
greenhouse gas, and renewable energy goals in current and previous
statutes and executive orders. We also met with officials from DOE,
OFEE, and OMB to gain their perspective on the goals. To determine the
extent to which the agencies are poised to meet future energy goals, we
selected six agencies on the basis of several factors, such as the
agencies' combined energy consumption as a percentage of the federal
government's consumption (nearly 94 percent in fiscal year 2005).
Because these six agencies accounted for nearly 94 percent of the
energy consumed in standard buildings in fiscal year 2005, our findings
for these agencies may have great implications for the federal
government as a whole. The selected agencies are the Departments of
Defense (DOD)--Air Force, Army, and the Department of Navy--Energy, and
Veterans Affairs (VA); GSA; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). We obtained
documentation and met with headquarters officials from these six
agencies. We visited a minimum of two sites per agency to determine
their efforts toward meeting energy goals at the local level. We also
met with officials from the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), a nonprofit
organization recognized for its work on energy issues. Appendix I
contains a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. We
conducted this performance audit from May 2007 through September 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Most of the 22 agencies reporting to DOE for fiscal year 2007 met their
energy-related goals, according to draft data supplied by the agencies.
All but 1 agency met the energy efficiency goal of a 6 percent
reduction in energy intensity from a 2003 baseline. Because the
greenhouse gas emission direction is tied to the energy efficiency
goal, all but 1 agency also met the greenhouse gas emissions goal of a
6 percent reduction in energy intensity from a 2003 baseline. Three
agencies used renewable energy purchase or source energy credits to
meet the goals and would not have met the goals through reductions in
energy intensity alone. Seventeen of the 22 agencies met the renewable
energy goal of having 3 percent of their electricity consumption from
renewable resources, with at least half of this amount from renewable
sources placed into service after January 1, 1999.
Assessing the extent to which agencies have made progress over time
toward the goals of increasing energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, or increasing the use of renewable energy is problematic
due to key changes in the energy goals and how the goals are measured-
-as specified in statute and executive order. For example, before 2006,
buildings subject to the energy efficiency goal were divided into two
categories--one for standard buildings measured against a 1985 baseline
and one for industrial and laboratory buildings measured against a 1990
baseline--but the goal for 2006 onward is based only on one building
category measured against a 2003 baseline. As a result, comparing
agency performance in meeting the goal before and after 2006 is
problematic and does not meaningfully describe energy efficiency
progress toward the goal over time. In the case of greenhouse gas
emissions, measurement is even more complex. The 2007 executive order
not only changed the baseline year but also fundamentally changed what
is being measured. Before 2007, the greenhouse gas emissions goal, set
in 1999 by executive order, was to reduce the amount of emissions,
which is significantly different from the energy-intensity-based goal
for 2007 onward. In fact, the goal the administration established in
the executive order may not accurately reflect progress toward the goal
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is, energy intensity is not
always a good proxy for emissions depending on, among other things, the
energy sources used. For example, if an agency's square footage and
energy consumption remain constant while the agency switches to sources
with greater greenhouse gas emissions, its energy intensity remains
constant while the greenhouse gas emissions increase. In fact, we found
instances in which agencies' energy intensity decreased while their
greenhouse gas emissions increased. While an energy-intensity-based
goal, such as the current goal under the 2007 executive order, does not
always indicate progress toward the goal of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, there is no consensus on a best measure at present; however,
there are alternative measures that may better track agencies'
greenhouse gas emissions than the current measure based on energy
intensity.
The prospects for meeting energy goals into the future for the six
agencies we examined depend largely on addressing four key challenges:
(1) lack of key elements in long-term plans that would help provide
agency direction, (2) budget constraints for energy projects, (3)
measurement and data reliability issues, and (4) lack of expertise and
dedicated energy management staff. However, agencies are planning to
meet energy goals by undertaking several activities to address these
four challenges.
* Long-term plans lack key elements. Long-term plans can help clarify
organizational priorities and unify agency staff in the pursuit of
shared goals. As previous GAO work has shown, such plans should, among
other things, outline agency strategies that are linked to goals and
provide a framework for aligning agency activities, processes, and
resources to attain the goals of the plan; identify the resources
needed; and provide for reliable performance data needed to set goals,
evaluate results, and improve performance.[Footnote 9] The long-term
plans for the six agencies we reviewed lack many of these key elements.
Furthermore, four of the six agencies have not updated their plans to
reflect the goals set out by E.O. 13423. DOE has drafted guidance for
agencies on developing long-term plans that addresses most of the key
elements we identified. This guidance will be published in final form
upon completion of DOE internal review and reconciliation with new
planning requirements in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA 2007). In the absence of long-term plans, agency officials
reported using several tools to meet energy goals, including short-term
plans for energy improvements, as well as energy audits to identify and
plan future energy projects. However, these tools do not focus on
efforts to meet the energy goals through fiscal year 2015 and may not
ensure that agencies will meet these goals.
* Constrained budgets limit energy projects. According to agency
officials, meeting long-term energy goals will require major initial
capital investment, but such investments must compete with other budget
priorities. To overcome budget constraints, and, partly in response to
administration guidance, officials are increasingly turning to
alternative financing mechanisms that primarily rely on third parties
to fund projects, with the promise that the agency will repay the third
parties from energy savings. This approach offers benefits and presents
challenges. For example, according to DOD officials, the department
needs these mechanisms to achieve long-term energy goals, but these
mechanisms can take a long time to implement and require contracting
and oversight expertise not always available on-site. In addition, as
previous GAO work has shown, agencies entering into these contracts
could not always verify whether money saved from using less energy was
greater than projected costs and may yield lower savings than if
timely, full, and upfront appropriations had been used.[Footnote 10]
Some agencies are undertaking initiatives, such as centralizing the
contracting process for energy projects, to overcome challenges
associated with alternative financing.
* Measurement and data reliability issues. Reliable data are essential
to making decisions. Currently, however, some agencies estimate energy
use from monthly bills, handwritten ledgers, or other sources that may
not be reliable. To address this challenge, agencies have and are
pursuing some mechanisms to improve data reliability. For example, all
of the six agencies we met with plan to install advanced electrical
meters on buildings by 2012, as required by EPAct 2005.
* Some sites lack expertise and dedicated energy management staff.
Complex energy projects may require high levels of expertise and
dedicated energy management staff. However, according to officials at
several of the sites we visited, they do not have a full-time energy
manager and lack staff with expertise in negotiating and overseeing
alternative financing mechanisms, both of which hinder their efforts to
meet energy goals. In addition, several sites have had difficulty
retaining qualified and experienced personnel to manage energy
efficiency projects. To make up for this loss of expertise, agency
officials reported taking steps such as having staff attend training
courses to learn about a variety of energy topics, including
alternative financing contracts.
Because the change to an energy-intensity-based metric does not always
accurately reflect greenhouse gas emissions, we are recommending that
the Secretary of Energy, in conjunction with the Federal Environmental
Executive and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, re-
evaluate the current measure for greenhouse gas emissions and establish
one that more accurately reflects agencies' performance in reducing
these emissions. We also are recommending that the Secretary of Energy
finalize and issue guidance for agencies' use in developing long-term
plans that contains key elements for meeting current and future energy
goals.
In commenting on a draft of this report, NASA and USPS generally agreed
with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations and provided
written comments included as appendixes II and III, respectively. GSA
responded by e-mail on September 8, 2008, stating that it concurred
with our report. VA neither agreed nor disagreed with our report and
provided written comments included as appendix IV. The Council on
Environmental Quality, DOD, DOE, and OMB did not provide any comments
on our draft. For those agencies who submitted technical and clarifying
comments, we incorporated those as appropriate.
Background:
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2007, agencies were to meet the
energy goals established by two executive orders and a statute as shown
in figure 2.
Figure 2: Timeline of Statute and Executive Orders with Energy Goals,
Fiscal Years 2000-2007:
This figure is a timeline of statute and executive orders with energy
goals, fiscal years 2000-2007.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EPAct 2005 and EOs 13123 and 13423 addressing
federal energy conservation and uses; Art Explosion (clip art).
Note: The figure displays the energy goals that the agencies were to
meet for a particular fiscal year. The dotted lines represent goals
that are currently still in effect.
[End of figure]
Using energy data that agencies submit, DOE reports to Congress on
agencies' performance toward meeting these energy goals. According to
DOE, for fiscal year 2007, the buildings subject to these energy goals
consumed approximately one-third of the energy consumed by the federal
government as a whole.[Footnote 11] Federal buildings obtain this
energy from a number of different energy types, as shown in figure 3.
Figure 3: Energy Consumed in Federal Buildings by Energy Type, Fiscal
Year 2007:
This is a pie chart of energy consumed in federal buildings by energy
type, fiscal year 2007.
Electricity: 47.9%;
Natural gas: 34.4%;
Fuel oil: 7.8%;
Other: 5.1%;
Coal: 4.9%.
Source: DOE draft data.
Notes: This information is for federal buildings subject to the energy
goals in EPAct 2005 and E.O. 13423 and does not factor in renewable or
source energy credits agencies received.
[End of figure]
According to 2007 national data from DOE's Energy Information
Administration, electricity generation consists of coal (49 percent),
natural gas (21 percent), nuclear electric power (19 percent),
hydroelectric power (6 percent), and other (5 percent).
Carbon dioxide and certain other gases trap some of the sun's heat in
the earth's atmosphere and prevent it from returning to space. The
trapped heat warms the earth's climate, much like the process that
occurs in a greenhouse. Hence, the gases that cause this effect are
often referred to as greenhouse gases. Fuel types vary in the amount of
greenhouse gases that they emit. For example, the burning of coal and
oil emits greater quantities of greenhouse gases during energy use than
other fossil fuels, such as natural gas. Renewable energy is produced
from sources that cannot be depleted and, unlike fossil fuels, most
renewable sources do not directly emit greenhouse gases.
DOE Reports That Most Federal Agencies Met Fiscal Year 2007 Energy
Goals:
According to draft data agencies provide to DOE, most of the 22 federal
agencies reporting in fiscal year 2007 met the energy efficiency,
greenhouse gas emission, and renewable energy goals. Some agencies used
credits to meet the goals and would not have met the goals through
reductions in energy intensity alone. Figure 4 shows the energy
consumed, measured at the site where it is consumed rather than the
source of the energy, in buildings that are subject to the energy
goals, for 10 agencies with the highest energy consumption, in addition
to the other 12 agencies reporting to DOE in fiscal year 2007. The
other 12 agencies consumed a combined total of only about 4 percent of
total site-delivered energy.
Figure 4: Site Energy Consumed in Buildings Not Excluded from Energy
Goals, Fiscal Year 2007:
This figure is a pie chart showing site energy consumed in buildings
not excluded from energy goals, fiscal year 2007.
DOD: 58%;
VA: 8%;
USPS: 8%;
DOE: 6%;
Justice: 5%;
Other: 4%;
GSA: 4%;
Health and Human Services: 3%;
NASA: 2%;
Interior: 1%;
Homeland Security: 1%.
Source: DOE draft data.
[End of figure]
Energy efficiency. As figure 5 shows, all but one agency met the 2007
energy efficiency goal laid out in E.O. 13423, which calls for a 6
percent reduction in energy intensity from a 2003 baseline. Among the
agencies held to the goal, only the Railroad Retirement Board missed
it, reducing energy intensity by 5.8 percent from its 2003 baseline.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reduced energy intensity by
63.8 percent from a 2003 baseline, which was the largest reduction
among the agencies. As a whole, the 22 agencies met the energy
efficiency goal, with agencies cumulatively reducing energy intensity
by 11 percent from 2003 levels.
Figure 5: Reduction in Energy Intensity from a Fiscal Year 2003
Baseline, Fiscal Year 2007:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing reduction in energy
intensity from a fiscal year 2003 baseline, fiscal year 2007. One bar
represents the reduction in energy intensity, and the other represents
the reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and
source energy credits. The X axis represents FY 2007 Btu/square foot
reduction from FY 2003 in percent.
Agency: EPA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 12;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 51.8.
Agency: DOI;
Reduction in energy intensity: 16.9;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 6.5.
Agency: DOC;
Reduction in energy intensity: 22;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 0.3.
Agency: DOT;
Reduction in energy intensity: 4.8;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 17.1.
Agency: HHS;
Reduction in energy intensity: 9.1;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 11.4.
Agency: DHS;
Reduction in energy intensity: 17.2;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 1.9.
Agency: NARA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 16.7;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 2.
Agency: USDA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 14.2;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 4.
Agency: ST;
Reduction in energy intensity: 16.1;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 1.8.
Agency: NASA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 7.5;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 9.96.
Agency: HUD;
Reduction in energy intensity: 15.4;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 1.9.
Agency: DOJ;
Reduction in energy intensity: 17.1;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 0.1.
Agency: DOE;
Reduction in energy intensity: 13.2;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 3.
Agency: USPS;
Reduction in energy intensity: 12.4;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 0.
Agency: TRSY;
Reduction in energy intensity: 9.4;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 2.7.
Agency: Total reporting agencies;
Reduction in energy intensity: 7.4;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 3.6.
Agency: DOD;
Reduction in energy intensity: 6.7;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 3.4.
Agency: GSA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 3.3;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 6.1.
Agency: DOL;
Reduction in energy intensity: 7.1;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 1.2.
Agency: VA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 3.7;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 4.
Agency: TVA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 6.7;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 0.7.
Agency: SSA;
Reduction in energy intensity: 6.6;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 0.4.
Agency: RRB;
Reduction in energy intensity: 4;
Reduction attributable to renewable energy purchase credits and source
energy credits: 1.7.
[See PDF for image]
Source: DOE draft data.
[End of figure]
Use of credits for the purchase of renewable energy and source energy
was common among agencies in 2007. USPS was the only agency that did
not use any credits. Of the 21 agencies that used credits, 3 that met
the energy efficiency goal with the credits would not have met the goal
without them. EPA achieved the greatest percentage of its energy
intensity reduction using credits--81.2 percent of its overall
reduction in energy intensity came from the use of credits--
representing about 5 percent of the total credits the federal
government used. In contrast, about a third of DOD's reduction in
energy intensity came from credits, but this reduction accounted for
over half of all the credits the federal government used because DOD is
overwhelmingly the largest consumer of energy in the government. Almost
one-third of the total reduction in energy intensity reported by
agencies is attributable to the use of credits.
Most agencies--21 of 22--used renewable energy purchase credits in
fiscal year 2007. Five agencies also used source energy credits. For
all agencies, renewable energy purchase credits accounted for about two-
thirds of all credits used. Both types of credits were established
under E.O. 13123. Source credits were aimed at helping the federal
government reduce total energy use at the source of generation.
According to DOE, renewable energy purchase credits were established to
support the renewable energy industry. Although the credits were
established to support federal energy policies, they do not reflect
actual decreases in energy intensity.
Greenhouse gas emissions. The same 21 of 22 agencies met the 2007
greenhouse gas emissions goal under E.O. 13423, which holds agencies to
the same standard as the energy efficiency goal--a 6 percent reduction
in energy intensity from a 2003 baseline. The same renewable energy
purchase and source energy credits that count toward the energy
efficiency goal also count toward the greenhouse gas emissions goal.
Renewable energy. Seventeen of the 22 agencies met the fiscal year 2007
renewable energy goal, as figure 6 shows. This goal requires that at
least 3 percent of total electric energy consumption come from
renewable energy sources, with at least half of the required renewable
energy an agency consumes coming from resources put into service after
January 1, 1999. The departments of Health and Human Services, Justice,
and State; the Social Security Administration; and USPS missed the
goal.[Footnote 12] EPA achieved the greatest percentage of total
electric consumption from renewable sources, with 153.5 percent. EPA
was able to count more than 100 percent of its electricity consumption
as renewable because it bought renewable energy certificates that
exceeded the electricity it used, and because it received a small bonus
for renewable energy generated on federal or Indian land.[Footnote 13]
As a whole, the federal government met the renewable energy goal, with
4.9 percent of its electricity use coming from renewable sources and at
least half of this energy coming from newer renewable sources; only
about 3 percent of the renewable energy total is attributable to
bonuses.
Figure 6: Renewable Electric Energy Use as a Percentage of Total
Electricity Use, Fiscal Year 2007:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing renewable electrical
energy use as a percentage of total electricity use, fiscal year 2007.
The X axis represents the renewable electric energy as a percentage of
total electricity use, and the Y axis represents the agency. One bar
represents the renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus
for renewable energy from federal or Indian land), and the other bar
represents renewable energy from sources put into service before
January 1, 1999.
Agency: EPA;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 153.5;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: Interior;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 11.1;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
7.1.
Agency: USDA;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 10.3;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.2.
Agency: GSA;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 7.8;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: DOD;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 3.3;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
2.3.
Agency: Total government;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 3.5;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
1.4.
Agency: Archives;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 4.7;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: Treasury;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 3.8;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.7.
Agency: DOE;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 4.2;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.1.
Agency: RRb;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 4;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: DHS;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 2.9;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
1.1.
Agency: DOT;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 4;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: TVA;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 3.1;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.8.
Agency: NASA;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 3.5;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: VA;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 1.8;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
1.6.
Agency: Commerce;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 2.7;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.3.
Agency: HUD;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 3;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: Labor;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 3;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: State;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 2.2;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: HHS;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 0.4;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
1.5.
Agency: SSA;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 0.7;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
Agency: Justice;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 0.1;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.2.
Agency: USPS;
Renewable energy after January 1, 1999 (including bonus for renewable
energy from federal or Indian land): 0;
Renewable energy from sources put into service before January 1, 1999:
0.
[See PDF for image]
Source: DOE draft data.
[End of figure]
Assessing Progress Toward the Goals Over Time Is Problematic Due to Key
Changes in the Goals and How Performance Is Measured:
Determining the extent to which agencies have made progress toward the
goals over time is problematic due to key changes in the goals--as
specified in statute and executive order--and how performance is
measured. Performance can be compared across years when the way a goal
is measured remains unchanged. After substantial change, however, there
is no consistent measure against which to compare long-term progress
toward the goals.
Energy efficiency. Key changes in the energy efficiency goal since 2005
illustrate the difficulty in making comparisons. As figure 7 shows,
EPAct 2005 made key changes in both building categories and baseline
years, and also changed the percentage reduction and the year by which
agencies should have reduced energy intensity by that percentage.
Figure 7: Changes in How the Energy Efficiency Goal Is Measured:
This figure is a table with an illustration showing changes in how the
energy efficiency goal is measured.
E.O. 13123;
Building categories: Standard;
Baseline fiscal year[A]: 1985;
Energy intensity reduction percentage: 35;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2010.
E.O. 13123;
Building categories: Industrial and laboratory;
Baseline fiscal year[A]: 1990;
Energy intensity reduction percentage: 25;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2010.
EPAct 2005;
Building categories: All buildings;
Baseline fiscal year[A]: 2003;
Energy intensity reduction percentage: 20;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2015.
E.O. 13423;
Building categories: All buildings;
Baseline fiscal year[A]: 2003;
Energy intensity reduction percentage: 20;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2015.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EPAct 2005 and EOs 12123 and 13423; Art
Explosion (clip art).
Note: Buildings meeting certain criteria--such as those with a national
security function--may be excluded from meeting the energy goals.
[A] Progress is determined by comparing the most recent data with the
data for the baseline year.
[End of figure]
These key changes make it problematic to compare agency performance
against the goal before and after EPAct 2005 took effect. Although all
but 1 of 22 agencies met the single energy efficiency goal in 2007 for
buildings subject to the goal, according to draft DOE data, this
performance cannot be directly compared with performance in 2005. In
that year, only 8 of 17 agencies met the goal for standard buildings
and 8 of 12 agencies met the goal for industrial and laboratory
buildings.[Footnote 14] Difficulty in comparing agency performance
against the goal mainly resulted because of the key changes in building
categories and baselines. The change from two building categories--
standard and industrial and laboratory--to only one category changed
the total square footage included in the energy intensity
calculation.[Footnote 15]
Data on NASA's performance against the energy efficiency goal in 2005
and 2007 show the difficulty in gauging progress after a key change to
a goal. In 2005, the agency met the standard building goal by reducing
energy intensity for those buildings by 30.4 percent against a 1985
baseline, exceeding the goal of 30 percent. It missed the industrial
and laboratory building goal, reducing energy intensity for those
buildings by 16.1 percent against a 1990 baseline, short of the goal of
20 percent. In 2007, NASA exceeded the goal for all buildings subject
to the goal by reducing energy intensity by 17.6 percent against a 2003
baseline, well over the goal of a 6 percent reduction. However, because
of changes in the baseline year and building categories, NASA's
performance against the goal in 2007 cannot be directly compared with
its performance in 2005 or earlier.
While we focused on how changes to measurement of the energy efficiency
goal make assessing progress toward meeting the goal problematic, DOE
also maintains actual energy intensity data for reporting agencies
dating back to 1985. According to the data, agencies decreased energy
intensity in all their buildings from 1985 to 2007 by approximately
14.3 percent. However, these data do not reflect the evolution of the
energy efficiency goal during that period. For example, buildings that
are excluded under the executive orders and EPAct 2005 are included in
these totals.
Greenhouse gas emissions. Similar comparative difficulties show up in
examining progress toward the goal of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Before 2007, under E.O. 13123, the goal called for reducing
the amount of emissions by 30 percent by 2010 compared to a 1990
baseline. E.O. 13423 significantly changed how the federal government
measures progress toward this goal. Now, the greenhouse gas emissions
direction is measured using energy intensity against a 2003 baseline.
Figure 8 shows the details of these changes.
Figure 8: Changes in How the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goal Is Measured:
This figure is a table with illustration showing changes in how the
greenhouse gas emissions goal is measured.
E.O. 13123;
Measure: Greenhouse gas emissions;
Baselines fiscal year[A]: 1990;
Reduction percentage: 30;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2010.
E.O. 13423;
Measure: Energy intensity;
Baselines fiscal year[A]: 2003;
Reduction percentage: 30;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2015.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOs and 13123 and 13423; Art Explosion (clip
art).
[A] Progress is determined by comparing the most recent data with the
data for the baseline year.
[End of figure]
Performance against the greenhouse gas emissions goal may be compared
from 2000 to 2006, when E.O. 13123 remained in place and the goal was
measured in the same way. However, the key change in E.O. 13423 from
greenhouse gas emissions to energy intensity means that it is
problematic to compare agency performance in 2007--when all but 1
agency met the greenhouse gas emissions goal--with performance in 2005-
-when only 7 of 21 agencies were on track to meet the goal. For
example, VA actually increased its greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 by
20.3 percent from its 1990 level, and was far from meeting the
greenhouse gas emissions goal of a 30 percent reduction by 2010. In
2007, however, it met the emissions goal because it exceeded the energy
efficiency goal.
E.O. 13423 states that agencies are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by reducing energy intensity. However, a reduction in energy intensity
does not track directly with lower greenhouse gas emissions for two
reasons. First, if an agency's energy consumption increases but square
footage increases at a greater rate, then energy intensity is reduced
while greenhouse gas emissions will increase, assuming all else remains
unchanged. Second, the level of greenhouse gas emissions depends on the
type of fuel used to generate energy. However, energy intensity does
not account for different fuel types. Rates of carbon intensity vary by
energy type per Btu delivered, especially for electricity, depending on
whether it is generated from a fossil fuel, nuclear, or renewable
source. Consequently, if an agency's square footage and energy
consumption remain constant but the agency switches to sources that
emit more greenhouse gases, such as switching from natural gas to coal,
its energy intensity remains constant while greenhouse gas emissions
increase. Conversely, switching from fossil-generated electricity to
renewable electricity virtually eliminates greenhouse gas emissions.
Although E.O. 13423 changed the measure for greenhouse gas emissions,
DOE still estimates and reports greenhouse gas emissions by considering
the sources used to produce energy and agency energy consumption.
The imperfect relationship between energy intensity and greenhouse gas
emissions shows up in DOE data: we found cases in which energy
intensity decreased over time, but greenhouse gas emissions increased.
According to draft DOE data, at the Department of Commerce, for
example, from 2003 to 2007, energy intensity decreased by 22.3 percent
while greenhouse gas emissions increased by 2.4 percent. Similarly, the
National Archives and Records Administration's energy intensity
decreased by 18.7 percent over the period but greenhouse gas emissions
increased by 21.5 percent. Although the National Archives and Records
Administration's and the Department of Commerce's greenhouse gas
emissions increased while energy intensity decreased, mostly
attributable to increases in square footage of their building
inventories, for the government as a whole greenhouse gas emissions
decreased by 9.4 percent from 2003 to 2007 while energy intensity
decreased by 11 percent.
It is not clear why the administration changed from an absolute
emissions measure to one tied to energy intensity. When we asked about
using energy intensity as a proxy for greenhouse gases, an official
with OFEE told us that it is the administration's policy not to tie
greenhouse gas emissions to a specific measure. Rather, it is the
administration's policy to encourage agencies to voluntarily partner
with other groups to reduce emissions, and the administration believes
emissions will decline without a quantifiable goal.
Although energy intensity is an imperfect measure of greenhouse gas
emissions, there is no scientific consensus on the best measure. Some
organizations, such as the Energy Information Administration, a
statistical agency of DOE which provides data, forecasts, and analyses,
and the World Resources Institute,[Footnote 16] have used or proposed
several alternatives for measuring greenhouse gas emissions. Such
measures include reporting total emissions, as was the case for the
previous greenhouse gas emissions goal under E.O. 13123, and using
greenhouse gas intensity measures. Some greenhouse gas measures, like
the current energy intensity measure based on square footage, attempt
to account for expanding or shrinking production or mission. Other
proposed measures have included calculating greenhouse gas intensity by
dividing total greenhouse gas emissions by building square footage or
by units of performance or output, such as million dollars of gross
domestic product or economic output, kilowatt hour, customer, or dollar
of revenue. DOE, in its annual reports to Congress, estimates emissions
from energy use in buildings that are subject to the goal, and presents
annual emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and in
terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per gross square
foot.
None of the measures is perfect. For example, one agency official noted
that an absolute emissions goal--as was used to measure emissions prior
to the current measure--does not account for the fact that an agency
may change its energy consumption or square footage to support its
expanded or contracted work resulting from a change in mission.
However, this absolute emissions measure allowed agencies to more
easily track progress in reducing their total emissions. Imperfect
metrics also are an issue at the international level. For example, one
measure currently used by the Energy Information Administration is
"emissions intensity," measured in emissions in a given year divided by
the economic output for that year, which accounts for changes in
national output. As past GAO work has shown, a decrease in this
intensity-based measure may result in increased greenhouse gas
emissions.[Footnote 17]
Renewable energy. Key changes in the renewable energy goal since 2005
also make comparisons over time problematic. While both EPAct 2005 and
E.O. 13423 specified different ages of renewable sources counted toward
meeting the energy goal, E.O. 13423 did not change the percentage
required or time frames required of the agencies, as figure 9 shows.
Further, forms of nonelectric renewable energy such as solar thermal,
geothermal, and biomass gas do not count toward the EPAct 2005 goal.
E.O. 13123 did count these forms of renewable energy toward its goal.
Figure 9: Changes in How the Renewable Energy Goal Is Measured:
This figure is a table with illustration showing changes in how the
renewable energy goal is measured.
E.O. 13123;
Percent renewable use required: 2.5;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2005;
Age of source to be counted: All electric energy must come from
projects built after 1990.
EPAct 2005;
Percent renewable use required: 3;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2007-2009;
Age of source to be counted: Sources may have been placed in service in
any year.
EPAct 2005;
Percent renewable use required: 5;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2010-2012;
Age of source to be counted: Sources may have been placed in service in
any year.
EPAct 2005;
Percent renewable use required: 7.5;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2013- and beyond;
Age of source to be counted: Sources may have been placed in service in
any year.
E.O. 13423;
Percent renewable use required: 3;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2007-2009;
Age of source to be counted: One half of required renewable energy must
come from sources placed in service from 1999 or later.
E.O. 13423;
Percent renewable use required: 5;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2010-2012;
Age of source to be counted: One half of required renewable energy must
come from sources placed in service from 1999 or later.
E.O. 13423;
Percent renewable use required: 7.5;
Final fiscal year by which agencies must meet goal: 2013- and beyond;
Age of source to be counted: One half of required renewable energy must
come from sources placed in service from 1999 or later.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EPAct 2005 and EOs 13123 and 13423; Art
Explosion (clip art).
[End of figure]
Performance against the renewable energy goal may be compared from 2000
to 2006, when the goal remained unchanged. But the change in the age
requirement for renewable sources makes it problematic to compare
performance in 2007 with previous years. For example, although 17 of 22
agencies met the goal in 2007 and 10 of 20 met the goal in 2005,
comparing performance in these 2 years is problematic because, with the
2007 goal, half of renewable energy came from sources in service from
1999 or later, but there is no source age specification for the other
half. However, with the 2005 goal, all of the renewable energy came
from energy sources in service in 1990 or later. Also, thermal
renewable energy used in 2005 was not eligible to be counted toward the
2007 goal.
Data on VA's performance illustrate the difficulty in making
comparisons when the age requirement for renewable energy sources has
changed. In 2005, VA exceeded the goal of having 2.5 percent of its
electricity consumption from renewable sources put into service since
January 1, 1990, with 2.9 percent of its electricity consumption from
these sources. In 2007, VA exceeded the new 3 percent goal, with 3.4
percent of its electricity from renewable sources, 1.8 percent from new
sources put into service since 1999, and 1.6 percent from older
eligible sources. Although VA increased its total renewable energy use,
it is not clear whether its use from sources put into service since
January 1, 1990, has increased or decreased, thereby making comparisons
across the goals problematic.
Agencies' Prospects for Meeting Energy Goals in the Future Depend on
Addressing Four Challenges:
The prospects for meeting the energy goals in the future for the
agencies we reviewed depend largely on overcoming four key
challenges.[Footnote 18] First, long-term plans can help clarify
priorities and help agency staff pursue shared goals, but the six
agencies we reviewed had long-term plans for achieving energy goals
that lacked several of the key elements that we have identified in our
prior work that make such plans effective. Second, achieving long-term
energy goals will require major initial capital investments, but it is
difficult for such investments to compete with other budget priorities.
To address this problem, federal officials increasingly rely on
alternative financing mechanisms; while these mechanisms provide
benefits, they also present challenges. Third, agencies we reviewed
face challenges in obtaining sufficiently reliable data on energy
consumption; however, most agencies have tools for ensuring data are
reliable and have plans to more accurately capture energy data.
Finally, sites may lack staff dedicated to energy management, and also
may find it difficult to retain staff with sufficient energy
expertise;[Footnote 19] lack of expertise could make it difficult to
undertake alternative financing projects. Federal officials are
participating in energy-related training courses and undertaking
initiatives to hire, support, and reward energy management personnel.
Agencies' Planning Documents We Reviewed Lack Key Elements Needed to
Guide Achievement of Long-term Energy Goals:
Long-term plans can help clarify organizational priorities and unify
agency staff in the pursuit of shared goals. These plans also must be
updated to reflect changing circumstances, and according to our
previous work, plans should include a number of key elements, including
(1) approaches or strategies for achieving long-term goals; (2)
strategies that are linked to goals and provide a framework for
aligning agency activities, processes, and resources to attain the
goals of the plan; (3) identification of the resources needed; (4)
strategies that properly reflect and address external factors; and (5)
reliable performance data needed to set goals, evaluate results, and
improve performance.[Footnote 20] Long-term plans with these elements
help an agency define what it seeks to accomplish, identify the
strategies it will use to achieve results, and determine how well it
succeeds in achieving results and objectives.
While none of the six agencies we reviewed could provide us with what
we considered to be a comprehensive, long-term energy plan, agency
officials did provide numerous planning documents, including budget
documents, strategies for improving energy efficiency, energy program
guidance, and agencywide energy policies for sites. For the purposes of
our review, we considered any of these planning documents, if they
discussed actions to be taken beyond 12 months, as long-term energy
plans. However, we determined that the long-term energy plans for one
or more of the six agencies lacked some of the following key elements
for effective long-term energy planning:
* approaches or strategies for achieving long-term energy goals;
* strategies that linked energy goals and provide a framework for
aligning agency activities, processes, and resources to attain the
goals of the plan;
* identification of the required resources needed to achieve long-term
energy goals;
* strategies that properly reflect and address external factors; and:
* provisions for obtaining reliable performance data needed to set
goals, evaluate results, and improve performance.
Moreover, four of the six agencies' long-term plans were not updated to
reflect E.O. 13423, although two of these agencies noted that they are
in the process of updating these plans. In addition, in April 2008, the
USPS Inspector General's office reported on the value of long-term
energy plans and determined that USPS does not have a long-term energy
management plan, and that without one USPS cannot effectively maximize
its energy conservation efforts. The USPS Inspector General recommended
the Postal Service develop and publish a National Energy Management
Plan. This plan is expected to be published in early fiscal year 2009.
While long-term planning generally is recognized as an important tool
in achieving goals, federal agencies have not been required to have
long-term plans for energy goals. To close this gap, DOE is drafting
guidance for agencies to follow as they develop multiyear plans and
long-term strategies for assessing the level of investment necessary to
meet energy goals, their progress in meeting these goals, and the
likelihood that they will achieve these goals by 2015. Our preliminary
review of the draft guidance found that it appears to address all of
the key elements we identified. According to DOE officials, this
guidance will be published in final form upon completion of DOE
internal review, as well as analysis and reconciliation with new
planning requirements in the EISA 2007.
In the interim, the six agencies are addressing long-term energy
planning deficiencies in two ways. First, in recent years officials in
agencies' headquarters have used short-term plans to achieve energy
goals in the near term. All of the agencies that reported to DOE were
required to provide annual plans under E.O. 13123 that included
guidance on energy requirements and strategies each agency is taking
over the next year to meet these requirements. However, E.O. 13423 does
not require agencies to provide these annual plans. Agencies also used
other planning tools to achieve energy goals in the short term. For
example, GSA sets annual regional targets and requires each region to
submit plans on how it will achieve these targets.[Footnote 21]
Agencies also submit budgetary documents requesting funds for specific
energy projects.
Officials at the sites we visited had used a number of short-term plans
to achieve energy improvements, but did not know how they would meet
long-term energy goals. In several cases, these officials stated, they
are planning to meet future energy goals by completing individual
projects in the near term. For example, officials at one GSA site
reported that they typically plan energy projects on a year-to-year
basis, depending on the available funds, and did not have a long-term
energy plan. At one USPS site, officials said they have not yet
documented a comprehensive, long-term plan highlighting the steps they
have taken or intend to take to ensure they reach energy goals. In
addition, officials at a DOE site stated that it is difficult to plan a
long-term approach for achieving energy goals because the site's
mission is constantly evolving. Moreover, most military installations
we visited did not have a long-term plan to achieve energy savings into
the future and were instead developing individual projects to improve
the energy efficiency in existing structures.
Second, agencies are using energy audits as a way to identify potential
energy savings and meet long-term goals. In the past, we have reported
that energy audits are a key strategy for identifying and evaluating
future energy projects,[Footnote 22] and officials at all the agencies
we spoke with reported undertaking energy audits as a tool to identify
and plan future energy projects.
Since 1998, NASA has conducted reviews at each of its centers every 3
years to assess their energy and water management programs. The review
requires center staff to participate in a self-assessment by responding
to a set list of questions, confer with headquarters officials during a
week-long site visit, and discuss review findings including
recommendations.
USPS currently is conducting energy audits for 60 million square feet
of its 310 million square feet of facility space, which will identify
close to 2 trillion Btus of potential savings upon completion.
In 2007, VA conducted energy and water audits covering six regions and
a total of 64 sites, or a total of 20 percent of its sites. During
2008, VA officials expect to audit 30 percent of its sites, which
include 116 sites in seven regions.
Energy audits are part of the Air Force's energy program and were
undertaken to identify additional energy-related projects, and act as
measures of how to reduce energy consumption.
While short-term planning and energy audits help guide agencies'
efforts toward meeting their goals in the near term, they do not
address how the agencies will meet the goals through 2015.
Constrained Budgets Limit Agencies' Ability to Undertake Energy
Projects, and Agencies Are Turning to Alternative Financing:
Meeting long-term energy goals will require major initial capital
investment. According to DOE, to meet the energy goals under E.O.
13423, the federal government would have to invest approximately $1.1
billion annually (beginning in fiscal year 2008, based on fiscal year
2007 performance) through 2015 on energy-related projects. In addition,
in June 2007, ASE reported that meeting federal energy goals will
require an investment of approximately $11 billion from 2009 through
2015, or $1.5 billion annually.[Footnote 23]
Paying for this investment up front with appropriated funds may be
difficult for agencies because energy projects compete with other
budget priorities. As figure 10 shows, from fiscal years 2000 through
2007, upfront funding ranged from approximately $121 million to $335
million annually--well below the $1.1 billion level of investment
needed annually to meet future energy goals, according to DOE's
estimate. Furthermore, according to draft DOE data for fiscal year
2007, federal agencies will face an estimated $5.3 billion gap in
appropriated funding for energy investment from fiscal year 2008
through 2015.
Figure 10: Approximate Upfront Funding for Energy Projects, Fiscal
Years 2000-2007:
This figure is a shaded line graph showing approximate upfront funding
for energy projects, fiscal years 2000-2007. The X axis represents the
fiscal year, and the Y axis represents the dollars (in millions).
Fiscal year: 2000;
Direct appropriations: 121.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Direct appropriations: 112.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Direct appropriations: 121.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Direct appropriations: 167.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Direct appropriations: 174.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Direct appropriations: 91.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Direct appropriations: 281.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Direct appropriations: 335.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data for 2000-2005 and draft data for 2006
and 2007.
[End of figure]
Officials from all six agencies we reviewed cited budget constraints as
a challenge to meeting future energy goals. For example, only 4 of the
10 military installations we visited have received upfront funding from
DOD's Energy Conservation Investment Program since 2003.[Footnote 24]
Furthermore, several DOD installation officials told us that they no
longer request funding for energy improvements because they do not
believe upfront funding will be made available. In our previous work we
similarly noted that agency officials had stopped requesting such
funding. We also noted that paying for energy efficiency improvements
with upfront funding is generally the most cost-effective means of
acquiring them.[Footnote 25]
Because the total amount of upfront funding is limited, federal
officials increasingly rely on alternative financing mechanisms--such
as contracts with private companies that initially pay for energy
improvements and then receive compensation from the agencies over time
from the monetary savings they realize from these projects-- to meet
energy goals. Seven of the 11 civilian sites and 9 of the 10 military
installations we visited have used, are currently using, or are
planning to use alternative financing to implement energy projects.
Furthermore, in an August 2007 memo, the White House Council on
Environmental Quality directed agency heads to enter into energy
savings performance contracts (ESPC) and utility energy savings
contracts (UESC) for at least 10 percent of annual energy costs to
accomplish energy-related goals.[Footnote 26] It further directed them
to report on progress toward finding and developing alternatively
financed projects.[Footnote 27] Figure 11 shows the total amount of
funding agencies received from upfront funding and alternative
financing for UESCs and for ESPCs. As discussed earlier, most agencies
met their fiscal year 2007 goals. However, for 2008 onward, if funding
stays at the current level, there is an apparent gap between the amount
received and the amount estimated to meet energy goals.
Figure 11: Total Funding for Energy Projects by Funding Mechanism,
Fiscal Years 2000-2007:
This figure is a combination shaded line graph showing total funding
for energy projects by funding mechanism, fiscal years 2000-2007. THe X
axis represents the fiscal year, and the Y axis represents the dollars
(in millions). The shading represents UESC, ESPC, and Upfront funding.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Upfront funding: 121;
ESPC: 286;
UESC: 191.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Upfront funding: 112;
ESPC: 298;
UESC: 239.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Upfront funding: 121;
ESPC: 292;
UESC: 111.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Upfront funding: 167;
ESPC: 429;
UESC: 122.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Upfront funding: 174;
ESPC: 36;
UESC: 54.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Upfront funding: 291;
ESPC: 123;
UESC: 92.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Upfront funding: 281;
ESPC: 314;
UESC: 70.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Upfront funding: 335;
ESPC: 166;
UESC: 139.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data for 2000-2005, and draft data for 2006
and 2007.
Note: This figure shows the primary sources of funding. Agencies also
may use other funding sources, such as operating and maintenance
funding. ESPC authority lapsed on October 1, 2003, and was reinstated
in October 2004.
[End of figure]
According to agency officials, alternative financing mechanisms offer
benefits but also present challenges. In terms of benefits, these
mechanisms can be used to complete energy projects and meet federal
energy reduction goals when upfront funding is not available. For
example, DOD officials stated that alternative financing mechanisms are
necessary for DOD to meet future energy goals and, in March 2008
testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness, House Committee on
Armed Services, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations
and Environment stated that ESPCs typically account for more than half
of all site energy savings.[Footnote 28] Furthermore, according to DOD,
the agency fell short of meeting past energy efficiency goals owing to
a lapse in ESPC authority from October 2003 to October 2004. In
addition, DOE officials noted that alternative financing mechanisms
provide large energy savings per dollar spent and estimated that ESPC
project savings generally exceed guaranteed energy savings by about 10
percent. In 2005, we reported that agencies cited other benefits from
alternatively financed projects, such as improved reliability of the
newer equipment over the aging equipment it replaced, environmental
improvements, and additional energy and financial savings once the
contracts have been paid for.[Footnote 29]
Agency officials also noted several challenges associated with such
projects. For example, VA officials noted that development, execution,
and ongoing administration of alternative financing contracts add
overhead costs that increase the total cost of the contract.
Furthermore, according to DOD officials, overseeing these contracts
requires a level of expertise not always available at individual
installations, and such contracts often take a long time to implement.
In addition, officials at a number of civilian sites commented that
developing alternatively financed projects requires a steep learning
curve and the process for developing a contract can be time consuming.
Finally, officials at a few agencies noted that in using these
alternative financing mechanisms, it is difficult to measure and verify
energy savings and to manage contracts with lengthy payback periods.
Our June 2005 report also showed that agencies entering into these
alternative finance contracts could not always verify whether energy
savings were greater than project costs and may yield lower dollar
savings than if timely, full, and upfront appropriations had been used.
In addition, in our December 2004 report, DOD officials commented that
the costs of using such contracts was 25 percent to 35 percent above
what costs would have been in using upfront funds for certain energy
projects.
Some agencies are undertaking initiatives to overcome the challenges
associated with alternative financing.
* VA has created a central contracting center for energy projects,
including alternatively financed projects. VA officials believe the
center will offer a number of benefits, including the development of
alternative financing expertise, increased accountability, greater
agencywide awareness of these financing mechanisms, and standardization
of the alternative financing process across VA.
* The Air Force, Army, and the Department of Navy have already
centralized some functions in the process. The Air Force is working to
further centralize these activities in order to decrease the number of
staff needed to implement these contracts, and to review and approve
all parts of the process in one location.
Furthermore, DOE's Federal Energy Management Program provides technical
and design assistance to support the implementation of energy projects,
including project facilitators who can guide site officials through the
process of developing, awarding, and verifying savings from
alternatively financed projects.
Agencies Face Measurement and Data Reliability Challenges but Are
Taking Steps to Address Them:
Collecting and reporting reliable energy data is critical for agencies
to assess their progress toward their goals and identify opportunities
for improvement. According to DOE officials responsible for overseeing
the collection and reporting of energy information for the federal
government, there are no federal energy measurement or data collection
standards, and each agency gathers information differently, using its
financial systems data and estimating data when necessary through other
means. For example, NASA and USPS officials reported that their
agencies use utility payment information to measure and report energy
use.[Footnote 30] Moreover, DOE officials stated that each site manager
may use different means to measure and collect energy consumption,
conservation, and cost data, including handwritten ledger sheets,
software, cost averaging, and estimation techniques.
Measuring data at federal buildings is difficult if individual
buildings do not have meters. Sometimes an entire site is metered by
the local utility for usage and billing purposes, but not all of the
buildings on the site are metered individually. Accordingly, energy
managers cannot always reliably determine the usage in a specific
building or group of buildings. Without meters, energy teams may be
unable to pinpoint buildings or areas that need to be improved or
identify which energy projects have effectively achieved energy
savings.
In some instances, agencies' federal energy data have not been
reliable. DOE officials responsible for annually reporting to Congress
on agencies' progress toward energy goals acknowledge as much but
stated that past year data are updated to correct inaccuracies
discovered by the agencies.
* In April 2008, the USPS Office of Inspector General reported that
USPS may be inaccurately reporting energy consumption data to DOE, and
therefore cannot accurately determine its progress toward meeting the
energy goals. Among other things, the Inspector General reported that
USPS did not have a clear process for reporting data on sites' square
footage and was calculating energy consumption by dividing billed cost
by an estimated or average cost per kilowatt-hour, which can differ
significantly from actual consumption.
* In 2006, a NASA energy management review reported that one of its
sites had in some cases entered incomplete and erroneous data into the
database the agency uses to track its progress toward energy
goals.[Footnote 31]
* A 2005 report from the VA Office of the Inspector General stated that
the agency's energy data were not reliable because staff inaccurately
reported sites' energy consumption and square footage. According to VA
officials, VA implemented all of the recommendations in the report,
including those addressing data reliability and, in September 2007, the
VA Office of the Inspector General closed the report.
* Air Force officials stated that a thorough data review revealed data
entry errors at approximately 5 percent of installations.
Agencies use a variety of mechanisms to verify energy data. For
example, according to the DOE official who compiles agency data for the
annual report to Congress, agency data reports are checked for any
obvious problems by comparing the agency's energy information with
their data from previous years to identify outliers. He also
communicates with energy coordinators and compares unit price
information with a site's recorded energy costs to determine if the
reported costs appear reasonable. Beyond these checks, DOE relies on
agencies' headquarters officials and the energy coordinators at sites
to enter energy information for the sites and verify its accuracy. Many
officials reported using quality control mechanisms to verify that
current data match up with past records. These mechanisms include
automatic database alerts, which notify officials of data that are
outside specific ranges and thus could be errors.
Under EPAct 2005, agencies are required to install advanced electrical
meters by 2012, whenever practical, to help ensure more reliable
information. Advanced meters are capable of providing real-time data
that feed directly into an agency's metering database, verifying
savings from energy projects, and helping site officials to identify
potential energy savings opportunities. According to the most recent
OMB energy management scorecards, all six agencies we met with are
meeting the milestones toward metering all appropriate sites by
2012.[Footnote 32]
Some Sites Lack Expertise and Dedicated Energy Management Staff to
Ensure Adherence to Goals, but Officials Are Taking Steps to Address
These Challenges:
To advance energy goals, it is important to have dedicated,
knowledgeable, energy efficiency staff to plan and carry out energy
projects. Moreover, according to a June 2007 ASE report, such staff can
focus on identifying and implementing efficiency projects. However,
some sites we visited did not have a full-time energy manager. Instead,
staff members were often assigned part-time responsibility for
performing energy-related duties in addition to duties unrelated to
energy management, such as managing site maintenance and providing
technical support and mechanical design assistance for a site. For
example, at one DOE site, six to seven different officials have part-
time energy management responsibilities. At other sites, a GSA building
manager stated that he spends approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of
his time on energy goals, and a NASA energy manager reported devoting
approximately one-third of his time. Finally, officials at a Navy
installation reported that there is no on-site, dedicated energy
manager and that the installation needs one if it intends to meet the
energy goals. In visiting military installations, we found that full-
time energy managers tended to engage in multiple energy reduction
activities, while other installations without full-time or experienced
energy managers tended not to have robust energy reduction programs.
Furthermore, lack of expertise in energy management and high staff
turnover may create challenges for negotiating and overseeing
alternative financing mechanisms. Energy projects funded through
alternative financing often require a high level of expertise in
complex areas such as procurement, energy efficiency technology, and
federal contracting rules. Many agencies told us that without
experienced personnel, they face challenges in undertaking contracts
that are necessary to meet energy goals. Officials from multiple
agencies commented that high turnover rates exacerbate the difficulties
associated with alternative financing.
To address these challenges, VA officials stated that they recently
hired almost 90 permanent facility-level energy managers who will cover
all VA facilities and focus solely on energy issues. DOD officials also
reported using resource efficiency managers--contractors that work on-
site at federal facilities to meet resource efficiency objectives with
the goal of meeting or exceeding their salaries in energy savings. In
addition, federal officials are taking part in energy-related training
courses and undertaking initiatives to reward and support energy
management personnel. Many agencies reported receiving training on ways
to improve energy efficiency from a variety of sources, including
agency-offered internal training, training provided by DOE's Federal
Energy Management Program, and energy conferences. From fiscal years
2002 to 2006, agencies reported spending approximately $12.5 million to
train more than 27,000 personnel in energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and water conservation. In addition to training, the Federal
Energy Management Program also recognizes outstanding accomplishments
in energy efficiency and water conservation in the federal sector
through an annual awards program. Furthermore, the White House annually
honors federal agency energy management teams through the Presidential
Awards for Leadership in Energy Management. Since 2000, these awards
have recognized such teams for their efforts to promote and improve
federal energy management and conservation and demonstrate leadership.
Conclusions:
The current metric for greenhouse gas emissions--one based on energy
intensity--is not a satisfactory proxy for assessing agencies' progress
toward reducing these emissions. There is no consensus on a best
measure at present; however, there are alternative measures that may
better track agencies' greenhouse gas emissions than the current
measure based on energy intensity. Although the previous metric--one
based on emissions--had limitations, it was more clearly linked to
emissions and made it easier to assess progress toward reducing those
emissions. The closer a metric is to approximating the level of
emissions, the better agencies will be able to determine their progress
in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, although the ability
of agencies to use renewable energy purchase and source energy credits
towards the goals may further certain federal energy policy objectives,
it also may enable agencies to achieve compliance with the energy goals
without actually changing agencies' on-site energy use.
Although most agencies were able to meet their energy goals for 2007,
without a strong plan of action agencies may not be well positioned to
continue to achieve energy goals over the long term, especially in
light of budget constraints and the $1.1 billion that DOE has estimated
that agencies will need each year to achieve future energy goals.
Furthermore, they face challenges with having reliable data and
retaining dedicated and experienced energy personnel and have not
adequately planned how to address these challenges in the long term.
Without guidance from DOE that clearly outlines the key elements for
effective, long-term energy planning identified in this report that
could address these challenges, agencies do not have the foundation
they need to develop plans that will continually adapt to a changing
energy environment. As a result, agencies are likely to find it
increasingly difficult to ensure that they will meet energy goals in
the future.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Energy take the following two
actions.
* In conjunction with the Federal Environmental Executive and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, re-evaluate the
current measure for greenhouse gas emissions and establish one that
more accurately reflects agencies' performance in reducing these
emissions to help determine whether agencies are making progress over
time.
* To help agencies address the challenges they face in meeting energy
goals into the future, finalize and issue guidance that instructs
agencies in developing long-term energy plans that consider the key
elements of effective plans identified in this report.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the CEQ, DOD, DOE, GSA, NASA,
OMB, USPS, and VA for their review and comment. In commenting on a
draft of this report, NASA and USPS generally agreed with our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations and provided written comments included
as appendixes II and III, respectively. GSA responded by e-mail on
September 8, 2008, stating that it concurred with our report. VA
neither agreed nor disagreed with our report and provided written
comments included as appendix IV. The Council on Environmental Quality,
DOD, DOE, and OMB did not provide any comments on our draft. For those
agencies who submitted technical and clarifying comments, we
incorporated those as appropriate.
In addition, VA expressed concern that it was not afforded the
opportunity for an exit conference. However, we note that we offered
the opportunity for such a meeting to the Office of Asset Enterprise
Management, the office within VA responsible for energy management and
designated by VA at the outset of our engagement as the main point of
contact. Furthermore, the Office of Asset Enterprise Management
provided written comments on a preliminary draft that we incorporated
into the subsequent draft, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and Members of Congress and the Chairman of CEQ; the
Administrators of GSA and NASA; the Director of OMB; the Postmaster
General and Chief Executive Officer of USPS; and the Secretaries of
Defense, Energy, and VA. We also will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact
Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov, or Terrell Dorn
at (202) 512-2834 or dornt@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Mark Gaffigan Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by:
Terrell G. Dorn Director, Physical Infrastructure:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which agencies met energy efficiency,
greenhouse gas emission, and renewable energy goals, we analyzed data
on agencies' performance in meeting these goals using draft agency
energy data, as of July 2008, for fiscal year 2007, which were reported
by the agencies to the Department of Energy (DOE) for use in DOE's
Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and
Conservation Programs. We considered agencies to have met the energy
efficiency goal for fiscal year 2007 if they reduced energy intensity
by at least 6 percent from the 2003 baseline. We also met with
officials from DOE to understand how the data are developed.
To assess the agencies' progress in each of these areas in recent
years, we reviewed energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emission, and
renewable energy goals, as established in current and previous statute
and executive orders--the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order
13123, and Executive Order 13423. We also analyzed data on agencies'
performance in meeting the goals, as reported in DOE's annual report to
Congress for fiscal year 2005. Furthermore, we analyzed draft data from
these annual reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In addition, we
met with officials from DOE, the Office of the Federal Environmental
Executive, and the Office of Management and Budget to gain their
perspective on the goals and an understanding of their roles in
overseeing the statue and executive orders. In assessing agencies'
performance for 2007 and progress in recent years, we determined these
data from DOE's annual reports to be sufficiently reliable for our
purpose, which was to convey what the agencies reported to DOE about
the status of meeting the energy goals.
To determine the extent to which the agencies are poised to meet future
energy goals, we selected six agencies on the basis of several
criteria, including the following: (1) energy consumed: of the agencies
reporting energy data to DOE, these six agencies together accounted for
nearly 94 percent of the energy consumed in standard buildings in
fiscal year 2005; (2) level of investment in energy and utility savings
performance contracts; (3) amount of renewable energy purchased, and
self-generated; and (4) estimated carbon emissions. Because these six
agencies accounted for nearly 94 percent of the energy consumed in
standard buildings in fiscal year 2005, our findings for these agencies
may have great implications for the federal government as a whole. We
visited a minimum of two sites per agency to understand efforts toward
meeting energy goals at the local level.
To ensure that we had a variety of sites, we selected the sites on the
basis of both high and low reductions in energy intensity from 2003 to
2006, geographic location, site size, and agency recommendation, among
other criteria. The six agencies and the sites we visited are listed in
table 1.
Table 1: Agencies and Site Visits Included within Scope of Engagement:
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Air Force;
Site visit and location: Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Air Force;
Site visit and location: McChord Air Force Base, Wash.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Air Force;
Site visit and location: Offutt Air Force Base, Neb.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Army;
Site visit and location: Fort Benning, Ga.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Army;
Site visit and location: Fort Lewis, Wash.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Army;
Site visit and location: Fort McPherson, Ga.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Army;
Site visit and location: Fort Stewart, Ga.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Department of
Navy;
Site visit and location: Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Wash.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Department of
Navy;
Site visit and location: Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Defense: Department of
Navy;
Site visit and location: Naval Submarine Base New London, Conn.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Energy;
Site visit and location: Forrestal and Germantown Buildings,
Washington, D.C., and Germantown, Md.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Energy;
Site visit and location: Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,
N.Mex.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Site visit and location: VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach,
Calif.
Agency and service, as applicable: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Site visit and location: Perry Point VA Medical Center, Perry Point,
Md.
Agency and service, as applicable: General Services Administration;
Site visit and location: Lafayette Building, Washington, D.C.
Agency and service, as applicable: General Services Administration;
Site visit and location: Department of Veterans Affairs Administration
Building, Washington, D.C.
Agency and service, as applicable: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
Site visit and location: Dryden Flight Research Center, Calif.
Agency and service, as applicable: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
Site visit and location: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Agency and service, as applicable: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
Site visit and location: Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.
Agency and service, as applicable: U.S. Postal Service;
Site visit and location: Curseen-Morris Processing and Distribution
Center, Washington, D.C.
Agency and service, as applicable: U.S. Postal Service;
Site visit and location: Columbia Processing and Distribution Center,
Columbia, S.C.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We obtained and analyzed documentation and met with headquarters
officials and officials responsible for energy management at the sites
from the six agencies. In addition, we systematically reviewed these
interviews to determine what primary challenges agencies face and the
tools they use to meet energy goals. We used general modifiers (i.e.,
most, several, some, and a few) to characterize the extent to which
agencies were facing and addressing the challenges we found. We used
the following method to assign these modifiers to our statements:
"most" and "many" represents four to five agencies, "several" and
"some" represents three agencies, and "a few" represents two agencies.
We also systematically reviewed documents and interviews to determine
whether agencies' long-term plans contained key elements as identified
by our past work.[Footnote 33] For our review of agencies' long-term
energy plans, we reviewed planning documents obtained from agency
officials that laid out agencies' efforts to achieve the energy goals
beyond 1 year. We also met with officials from the Alliance to Save
Energy to get their perspective on challenges facing the federal
government. Finally, we participated in DOE's Webcast training on
energy savings performance contracts offered by DOE and attended
GovEnergy, an energy training workshop and exposition for federal
agencies.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 through September
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
NASA:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Headquarters:
Washington, DC 20546-0001:
September 11, 2008:
Reply to Attention of:
Office of Infrastructure and Administration:
Mr. Mark Gaffigan:
Director, Natural Resources Division:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Mr. Terrell G. Dorn:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Messrs. Gaffigan and Dorn:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) appreciates
the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled, Federal
Energy Management: Addressing Challenges Through Better Plans and
Clarifying the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure Will Help Meet Long-
term Goals for Buildings (GAO-08-977).
Overall, NASA finds the draft report to be thorough, objective, and
helpful in addressing one of our top Agency activities, energy
management. We are pleased with your recognition of our positive steps
and progress in this area, and we generally support the conclusion you
have reached. If you have any question or require additional
information, please contact Mr. James Leatherwood, Director of the
Environmental Management Division, at 202-358-3608 or Mr. Wayne
Thalasinos, NASA's Energy Manager, at 202-358-3811.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Olga M. Dominguez:
Assistant Administrator:
Office of Infrastructure and Administration:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the United States Postal Service:
Samuel M. Pulcrano:
Vice President, Sustainability:
475 L'Enfant Plaza Sw Room 10647:
Washington Dc 20260-4232:
(202) 268-2067:
[hyperlink, http://www.USPS.com]:
United States Postal Service:
September 12, 2008:
Mr. Mark Gaffigan:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548-0001:
Mr. Terry Dorn:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
441 G Street, NW:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548-0001:
Dear Mr. Gaffigan and Mr. Dorn:
The U.S. Postal Service would like to take this opportunity to formally
comment on the findings in the draft report entitled, Federal Energy
Management: Addressing Challenges Through Better Plans and Clarifying
the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure Will Help Meet Long-term Goals for
Buildings (GAO-08-977).
We generally agree with the findings contained in the draft report
about the Postal Service efforts to reduce energy consumption and
increase renewable energy use, however, we need to re-emphasize our
position on specific issues. The Postal Service is reducing its energy
consumption by focusing on those opportunities that provide a strong
return on investment (ROI). Our objective is to be as energy efficient
as is life cycle cost effective for both new construction and our
existing buildings. In regard to renewable energy, given the current
economics associated with the technologies, energy conservation is
quite often a far better investment of financial resources. We are
continuing to install and evaluate renewable technologies and will
implement in those applications that are most financially viable.
By focusing on energy conservation and those opportunities that provide
a strong ROI, the Postal Service is on target to meet the federal
energy reduction objectives in its portfolio of 34,000 buildings
without the use of outside financing or the purchase of credits. In
addition, a national energy management plan is being reviewed by Postal
Service leadership, identifying goals and standards for energy
reduction and consumption for facility energy management, fleet
management, fuel use and energy consumption. This plan will be released
in the next 30 days.
If you or your staff wishes to discuss any of these comments further, I
am available at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Samuel M. Pulcrano:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
The Deputy Secretary Of Veterans Affairs:
Washington:
September 16, 2008:
Mr. Mark Gaffigan:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U. S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Gaffigan:
The Department of Veterans Affairs has reviewed your draft report,
Federal Energy Management: Addressing Challenges Through Better Plans
and Clarifying the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure Will Help Meet Long-
term Goals for Buildings (GAO-08-977). While we appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the draft report, we were surprised that the
Department was not afforded the opportunity of an exit conference with
GAO.
Although the recommendations were not directed to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, we have provided comments in the enclosure.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Gordon H. Mansfield:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mark Gaffigan, (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov Terrell Dorn, (202)
512-2834 or dornt@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Karla Springer, Assistant
Director; Alisha Chugh; Matt Cook; Elizabeth Curda; Kasea Hamar; Carol
Henn; Michael Kennedy; Brian Lepore; Marietta Mayfield; Jim Melton;
Mehrzad Nadji; Ellery Scott; Jeremy Sebest; Rebecca Shea; Ben Shouse;
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; Barbara Timmerman; and Lisa Vojta made
significant contributions to this report.
We also would like to pay special tribute to our much-missed friend,
colleague, and the analyst-in-charge of this engagement, Marcia Brouns
McWreath, who passed away after a long illness. Even when not at full
strength, Marcia continued to lead her team throughout the course of
the job. While we miss Marcia for her leadership, kindness,
selflessness, and sharp wit, we continue to be thankful that we had her
with us during her more than 30-year career at GAO.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Carbon dioxide is overwhelmingly the largest component of
greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. Most carbon dioxide emissions
in the United States result from the combustion of fossil fuels, the
source of most of the electricity consumed in the United States.
[2] Renewable energy is produced from sources that cannot be depleted;
such energy includes solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal.
[3] For ease of presentation, we refer to the greenhouse gas emission
direction as an energy goal.
[4] Using DOE-determined criteria, certain sites and equipment may be
exempted or excluded from having to meet the energy efficiency goals.
[5] Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(Pub. L. No. 110-140) in December 2007, which expanded the energy
efficiency goal of EPAct 2005 and ultimately matched the goal of E.O.
13423 through fiscal year 2015. However, it was silent on specific
greenhouse gas emission and renewable energy goals for federal
agencies. We did not include the new law in the scope of our study
because the law was passed in fiscal year 2008, which is beyond the
time frame covered in our report.
[6] According to the U.S. Postal Service, while the agency is subject
to the energy efficiency goal as laid out in EPAct 2005, it is neither
subject to the act's renewable energy goal, nor is it subject to the
energy goals laid out in the executive orders. However, it tries to
comply with the spirit and intent of the energy goals.
[7] Small on-site, renewable energy generation projects that do not
incur fuel costs, are unmetered, and are located on the customer side
of a site's energy meter energy conservation project are not included
in the total Btu-per-gross-square-foot calculations used for energy
efficiency goals.
[8] Our work focused on the energy components of these goals, not on
cost components. Although agencies are directed to achieve these goals
with cost-effective or economically sound measures, cost savings is not
the objective of these goals.
[9] GAO, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May
1997).
[10] GAO, Energy Savings: Performance Contracts Offer Benefits, but
Vigilance Is Needed to Protect Government Interests, GAO-05-340
(Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2005).
[11] Vehicles/equipment and sites not subject to the statute and
executive orders account for approximately 64 percent and 4 percent,
respectively, of the energy used in fiscal year 2007.
[12] According to USPS, the agency is not subject to EPAct 2005's
renewable energy goal. However, it tries to comply with the spirit and
intent of the goal.
[13] Renewable energy can be purchased as renewable energy certificates
(REC), which provide credit for the technological and environmental
benefits of using electricity generated from renewable sources. A
certificate can be sold separately from the underlying electricity with
which it is associated. Once the REC is sold separately from the
underlying electricity, the electricity is no longer considered
renewable. Buyers of RECs can claim the credit for the renewable energy
and may offset a percentage of their annual electricity use when green
power products may not be available locally.
[14] Not all agencies have industrial and laboratory buildings.
[15] Agencies may apply to DOE for exclusion of certain buildings from
the energy efficiency goal for a number of reasons, such as if a
building is crucial to an agency's national security function. With the
change from E.O. 13123 to EPAct 2005, the criteria for exclusions
changed; as a result, the number of buildings meeting these new
criteria and therefore eligible to be excluded also changed, resulting
in corresponding changes to the buildings included in the energy
intensity calculation.
[16] The World Resources Institute is an environmental think tank whose
stated goal is to find practical ways to protect the earth and improve
people's lives.
[17] GAO, Climate Change: Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Emissions Intensity in the United States and Other High-Emitting
Nations, GAO-04-146R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2003).
[18] While EISA 2007 is outside the scope of our engagement, it may
help agencies address some of the challenges we identified. For
example, the act requires agencies to have an energy manager
responsible for overseeing energy efficiency criteria that covers, at a
minimum, federal sites constituting at least 75 percent of site energy
use at each agency.
[19] Sites may include more than one building.
[20] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June
1996); GAO/GGD-10.1.16.
[21] GSA is responsible for meeting the energy goals for those
buildings for which it pays utilities.
[22] GAO, Legislative Branch: Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, GAO-07-516 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
25, 2007).
[23] Loper, Joe; Capanna, Steve; and Harris, Jeffrey, Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions In Federal Buildings, Facilities and Vehicles,
Alliance to Save Energy (June 2007). The $1.5 billion annual figure is
based on the average cost of savings for super Energy Savings
Performance Contracts - contracts for which DOE has negotiated with
energy services companies that have been prequalified via a competitive
process - that the federal government has awarded since 1998. The
figure assumes there is no inflation in cost per energy unit saved
through 2015.
[24] The Energy Conservation Investment Program is a centrally managed,
project-oriented, DOD-wide account which is programmed annually and
represents the only direct DOD investment in conservation. The program
is funded strictly through appropriations and requires congressional
notification prior to project execution and periodic update of
execution status.
[25] GAO, Capital Financing: Partnerships and Energy Savings
Performance Contracts Raise Budgeting and Monitoring Concerns, GAO-05-
55 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2004).
[26] ESPCs differ from UESCs in that ESPCs are contracts with private
energy savings companies whereas UESCs are contracts with a utility
provider. While there are other alternative financing mechanisms
available to agencies, ESPCs and UESCs are the primary mechanisms the
agencies use.
[27] The Council on Environmental Quality coordinates federal
environmental efforts and works with agencies and other White House
offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.
The Council reports annually to the President on the state of the
environment, oversees federal agency implementation of the
environmental impact assessment process, and acts as a referee when
agencies disagree over the adequacy of such assessments. James L.
Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, Substantially
Increasing Federal Agency Use of Energy Savings Performance Contracting
(Aug. 3, 2007).
[28] Statement of Mr. Wayne Arny, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment), House Armed Services Committee,
Readiness Subcommittee (Mar. 13, 2008).
[29] GAO, Energy Savings: Performance Contracts Offer Benefits, but
Vigilance Is Needed to Protect Government Interests, GAO-05-340
(Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2005).
[30] USPS is in the process of developing and implementing two new
systems that will allow officials to collect and track actual
consumption data. According to USPS officials, the Enterprise Energy
Management System will enable USPS to locally and remotely monitor
energy usage and demand, as well as consolidate energy-related data
from existing applications and facilities into a centralized location.
The Utility Management System will uniformly collect actual utility
energy cost and consumption data.
[31] NASA headquarters conducts reviews of each of its sites' energy
management programs every 3 years.
[32] OMB reports progress toward creating a results-oriented government
through scorecards, which are used to track how well departments and
agencies are performing and where they stand at a given point in time
against the overall standards for success.
[33] GAO, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May
1997).
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: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
