The Denver Federal Center, pictured above, is already working to improve its energy efficiency by installing 35 acres of roof-mounted solar panels, enough to supply all of its electricity needs. Our guest blogger is Sean Pool, Special Assistant for the Energy Policy team at American Progress.
While a comprehensive clean energy air, clean energy jobs bill languishes in the Senate, the President is wielding his executive powers now to green the government itself, creating jobs and spurring investments in new technologies.
Yesterday the president announced that the nation’s largest consumer of energy -the Federal Government- will cut its emissions of global warming pollution by 28 percent by 2020.
This is a substantial reduction; much more aggressive than the economy-wide targets in pending legislation. Today’s announcement was made in accordance with Executive Order 13514 for “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.” Under the order, the President instructed each of the 35 federal agencies to perform a self-evaluation of their ability to reduce global warming pollution, and the target announced today is the aggregate of their commitments.
But there is more significance to this than meets the eye, and the benefits of EO 13514 are in fact a quadruple-whammy. First are the obvious benefits of becoming more efficient: lowering costs and reducing pollution. The White House projects that the government will save $8 to $11 billion in energy costs annually and conserve the equivalent of 205 million barrels of oil per year, which is like taking 17 million cars off the road.
Second, this order will also help build critical new capacity for the federal government to accurately measure, report, and reduce greenhouse gasses, something it has never had to learn how to do before. This expertise will be invaluable as the government moves to enact and enforce future laws limiting emissions in other sectors of the economy.
Third, “shift[ing] Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy” will spark new demand for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, driving investment, spurring clean energy business growth and creating clean energy jobs. According to the official press release:
“Agencies are already taking actions that will contribute towards achieving their targets, such as installing solar arrays at military installations, tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models.”
All of these actions will create work for America’s engineers, electricians, manufacturers, and construction workers producing, building, and retrofitting clean energy systems on the federal government’s many properties around the country. This will help smooth the transition to the clean energy economy by ensuring a stable source of demand for clean energy technologies, workers, and services for the next decade.
Fourth and finally, by moving forward now to invest in clean energy technologies, Obama has ensured that the Federal Government will lead by example, proving to the Congress and the world that it is possible to create jobs, save money, and reduce pollution all at the same time.
Here are a few specific examples of what some federal agencies are already doing to increase efficiency and reduce pollution:
- The Department of Health and Human Services has upgraded the energy management systems in several of its buildings, saving the agency $93,000
- The Department of Veterans Affairs will construct a wind turbine electricity system for its medical center at St. Cloud, Minnesota
- The Environmental Protection Agency will upgrade its vehicle fleet to increase fuel efficiency by 30 percent, reducing pollution by 25 percent
- The Denver Federal Center will install 35 acres of roof-mounted solar panels, which is enough to supply 100 percent of the facility’s electricity needs
- The Central Intelligence Agency’s two newest buildings will be LEED certified, reducing energy and water use by 20 and 40 percent, respectively
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Thanks, Sean, good summary.
I own a wholesale distributorship for a microprocessor/entry key based energy management company, http://www.entergize.com. The main market is hotel rooms- it’s similar to what is used throughout the world except here in the US. There are other applications too, though, in dorm rooms and offices, for example. It’s a very simple way to save energy, with rapid payback times, usually around 18 months- much faster than flourescents or boiler upgrades, for example.
The product is based on German technology, but is manufactured here in the US, and has been around for 6 years. It would stimulate the economy via both manufacturing and installation. It’s RF based, more reliable than infrared systems, and is the US leader in this technology. Any help with navigating the USG bid process from you or anyone else would be appreciated. I can be reached at greenframe@aol.com.
This would be a classic win-win for everyone, and the government could finally set an example.
Moving the NOAA Pacific fleet much farther south from its most common destination does not seem to comport very well with this objective.
Increased vessel fuel costs won’t be the half of it, either. Access to Newport, Oregon for equipment, scientific staff and itinerant crew will not only be logistically more expensive and cumbersome but will also impose a continuing, endless massive increase in C02 emissions when compared to the current base.
A scientist I know who spends a lot of time on Pacific fleet NOAA vessels is baffled by this move; it makes no sense at all to many NOAA staffers. He also says as far as he knows there was no attention paid to the incoherency of the message being sent to the public by shifting the fleet.
For that matter, shifting to a port with inferior access– arguably dangerous in winter, see the Newport charts and the notorious reputation of the Oregon coast– as well as losing the maintenance benefits of freshwater mooring also seems inexplicable.
Disclaimer: I live in Seattle, but that does change the points I bring up.
Would love to hear from Leif on this.
The US Post Office, already heavily human-powered should investigate ways to take this to the logical extreme including hybrid human-electric.
The Post Office is saving hundreds of millions on fuel. Rhey are now using Fedex ground. That gives them less energy as a line item on reports.
“The USPS will pay the Memphis, TN-based FedEx approximately $6.3 billion over seven years for access to the FedEx national air transportation network. The pact will provide one integrated national air transportation network for the Postal Service. The agreement goes into effect in August.”
and even more:
The USPS will pay the Memphis, TN-based FedEx approximately $6.3 billion over seven years for access to the FedEx national air transportation network. The pact will provide one integrated national air transportation network for the Postal Service. The agreement goes into effect in August.
Doug Bostrom: I have not heard of this move but I fully agree with you on all your points. I used to live in Newport and as you mention just being able to tie up in fresh water is a big maintenance savings alone. Logistics of scientists and intermittent personal from Seattle to Newport is the better part of a day by car and air is problematic in the winter. The Newport Bar does indeed close down in the winter and can present challenges even when open. The list goes on but you have a good grasp in my view.
Leif says: January 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm
“The Newport Bar does indeed close down in the winter and can present challenges even when open.”
Wow, I had no idea. The chart shows a dredged channel, narrow and probably serious trouble if a vessel experiences a propulsion or steering failure while making a crossing in high seas. Broaching on a bar, a classic scenario and how many vessels and crews have died on the Pacific coast. No such possibility transiting the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Great move, NOAA.
As far as I can tell, this affair is mostly about a tantrum on NOAA’s part when Seattle did not cough up enough money to help with restoring the Lake Union base after it burned. They’ve been operating from their enormous facility on Lake Washington at the old Sand Point Naval Air Station, which adds a tiny amount of steaming time to reach the Ballard locks and the Sound.
I’m not sure what is so horrible about the Lake Washington dock that should compel a titanic upheaval and rearrangement of numerous lives. In the face of all the disadvantages this seems more likely to be some administrator’s means of payback to Seattle.
Plus of course Oregonians are not going to say “no”, quite the opposite! Bully for them, too bad for everybody else.
Anyway, if the whole thing strikes you as insane, maybe worth a letter connecting the administration’s announcement with NOAA’s mystery as an example of conflicted purpose.
Doug Bostrom — Sees to be a good use for Sand Point to me. I recommend writing to your two senators as well as the NOAA administrator.
At first I was elated, thinking it called for a 30% reduction this year! Then I realized, “nope! more of the same”. Actually, Obama has accomplished a lot this year. AT LEAST WE’RE DEFINITELY IN TRANSITION FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO CLEAN ENERGY, and I think we have to give him credit for that!
But with the population spike forcast for the near future, I’m wondering if this order will accomplish that much after all– maybe just a drop in the bucket. The fact that he is using his powers of executive order to do what needs to be done sounds good to me. However, I think he should have required this to be accomplished in a much shorter time span!
David B. Benson says: January 30, 2010 at 9:08 pm
“I recommend writing to your two senators as well as the NOAA administrator.”
Done, with emphasis on messaging incoherency of NOAA’s choice versus carbon reduction. “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration”, not “Atmospheric MisAdministration”, after all…
Apologies to anybody living in Newport. It’s a great little town, just the wrong choice for NOAA for many reasons.
I just checked a google map of the entrance. It is not a marine chart but shore to shore is
~ 1000 feet. Leaving 100 feet on each shore for slope you have about 800 feet to work with. Not a chance in hell of turning around or even correction room for a broach assuming a 200 foot vessel coming down the center.
Of course no time for help to arrive given the Jetty is less than 30 seconds away should problems arise. Strait of Juan de Fuca, ~ 10 miles wide! What would happen is you would sit outside the bar until things settled down. Of course this means disrupted schedules and extra wages doing nothing but jogging.
Sean,
What about number 5: the tax payers save money on energy bills? I sure hope that this, at least, is done by issuing federal debt since it will be a great return on investment. The sooner the better.
Have enough experience is this sort of a thing. Spend enormous amounts of money under the cover of saving on electricity bill money. Create ‘jobs’ out of nowhere installing solar panels which generate energy for systems which had this same energy to begin with.
Like in the third world where you tear down existing infrastructure and rebuild it – to create jobs and ‘use’ allotted money.
And hey – all federal property belongs to Obama right? Solar is cheap for manufacturers to get into, is it cheap for consumers? How is it cheap for the fed if it subsidizes the manufacturers from tax money, and lets them use its own property to do installation?
The next big market is the military bases. Seen all of this before.
Regards
Anand
Anand said:
“Spend enormous amounts of money under the cover of saving on electricity bill money.”
Hopefully the main goal is to reduce the Federal Government’s ‘carbon footprint’ (i.e. burning less fossil fuel). Any other benefits are welcome but secondary. It should be done even if there were no other benefits.
thanks
Per #12, the federal government already massively subsidizes the fossil fuel industry with enormous tax breaks, and the blind eye it turn toward the real scale of the polution caused by the mining, manufacture, and delivery of such energy. So it is less than obvious to me why anyone should be upset if they choose, in turn, to subsidize an industry that has substantially less of a carbon footprint in both the short and the long term.
In addition, these “subsidies” will create market forces that will help drive down the price of solar panels for the consumers. So, again, the purpose and justification of your complaint is less than obvious.
re:”the Federal Government– will cut its emissions of global warming pollution by 28 percent by 2020″
This is probably a low figure as reports of efficiency improvements during the 1970s energy crisis were something like 40% (per James Hansen and others.)
“And hey – all federal property belongs to Obama right? ”
Oops, there went your credibility, right out the window. Tsk.
While trying to make some ground somewhere on carbon reduction is laudable, it is frustrating to see Obama’s administration continue to muddy the waters by using a variety of benchmarks for carbon reductions. The rest of the world uses 1990 as a baseline year for measurement. The US government has used 2005 and now 2008, thus creating an impression of a larger reduction than is actually the case. The agreement on using 1990 as a baseline was precisely to avoid this kind of confusion and spin. Can we please have all other claims consistently translated into 1990 levels so that we can see how serious this action is?
The top production for solar is 25-48 KWH per acre. 1,400 kwh for Denver is tops on 35 acres. Is that enough for a 3,000 square foot office?