Energy Management and
Conservation Program
Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Management and Conservation Program
Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report
February 20, 2008
For questions, please contact EPA 's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch at
202/564-6371
-------
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Management and Administration 6
Energy Management Infrastructure 6
Management Tools 6
Training and Education 8
Showcase Facilities 10
Implementation Strategies 12
Overall Strategy 12
Facility-Specific Energy Reductions 13
Advanced Electricity Metering 14
Industrial Facility Improvements 16
Energy Savings Performance Contracts 21
Green Power 22
Water Conservation 24
Stormwater Management 25
Sustainable Design and Construction 26
Sustainable Master Planning 30
Pollution Prevention and Recycling 31
Appendices
Appendix A: FY 2007 Data Report
Appendix B: Project-Specific Calculations for Source Energy Reductions
Appendix C: Summary of Adjustments to FY 2003-06 Energy Consumption
Data for RTP Campus
Appendix D: EPA's Revised FY 2003 Energy Baseline
Appendix E: EPA Facility Inventory
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Signed on January 26, 2007, Executive Order (E.O.) 13423, Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management brought a new federal commitment to
efficiency and sustainability. To encourage energy conservation efforts, E.O. 13423 further
strengthened the federal energy reduction goals previously established by the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and reinforced fiscal year (FY) 2003 as the baseline year against which
energy conservation progress is measured. The new executive order also mandates annual water
reductions in federal facilities and established FY 2007 as the baseline for water savings.
During FY 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued to improve its
energy and water performance and reduce its environmental footprint. The Agency refined its
"ConservE" energy management strategy, improved management's focus on energy and
environmental performance, and targeted mechanical improvements. At the end of FY 2007,
EPA is pleased to report a significant decline in energy intensity and water use. The Agency also
continued to offset 100 percent of the emissions associated with its electricity use. Most
significantly, EPA has far exceeded its FY 2007 E.O. 13423 energy reduction goal, relative to
the FY 2003 baseline, through a combination of recommissioning, mechanical improvements,
improved reporting procedures, and other strategic efforts.
In FY 2007, EPA instituted a new quarterly management reporting system to brief management
every three months on the energy performance status at all its reporting laboratories. Facility
managers, laboratory directors, program administrators, and other key senior management are
apprised of their facilities' progress on a "rolling four quarters" basis, in order to assess targeted
projects and reprioritize efforts as needed.
As a result of numerous projects undertaken in FY 2007, EPA reduced its actual energy intensity
by 4.04 percent compared to FY 2006. Compared to the FY 2003 baseline established by EPAct
2005 and E.O. 13423, EPA reduced its actual energy intensity by 12.02 percent. EPA reduced its
energy in British thermal units per gross square foot (Btu/GSF) from 359,020 Btu/GSF in FY
2003 to 315,859 Btu/GSF in FY 2007. Please note that the FY 2003 baseline has been adjusted
from the number EPA reported in previous years, as described below.
During FY 2007, EPA performed a comprehensive analysis of the historically reported energy
consumption data for its Research Triangle Park (RTF), North Carolina, facilities, which
represent 46.5 percent of EPA's reported annual energy consumption. During this analysis, EPA
discovered that the Agency had used several inconsistent methodologies for reporting energy
consumption at its Main Laboratory and National Computer Center facilities during FY 2003
through FY 2006. To make the reporting consistent, EPA synchronized the FY 2003 through FY
2006 energy consumption data for its RTF facilities using a consistent set of methodologies. In
doing so, EPA revised its Agencywide FY 2003 baseline energy intensity from 346,518 Btu/GSF
to 359,020 Btu/GSF (see Appendix C, Summary of Adjustments to FY 2003-06 Energy
Consumption Data for RTF Campus, for more background and details about this baseline
adjustment and Appendix D, EPA 's Revised FY 2003 Energy Baseline}.
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT
2/20/2008
In FY 2007, the Agency also offset the emissions associated with its energy use by continuing to
purchase green power/renewable energy certificates (RECs) equal to 100 percent of its electricity
consumption, in both its reporting facilities where EPA pays the utilities as well as in all regional
offices, Headquarters, and satellite buildings where electricity is paid by the U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA) or private building owners. Accounting for EPA's extensive
green power purchases and source energy savings credit, EPA reduced its "reportable" energy
intensity by 63.8 percent in FY 2007 compared to the Agency's revised FY 2003 baseline;
although green power purchases are currently allowed to be counted according to the executive
order, EPA far exceeded E.O. 13423 requirements without counting these purchases.
EPA Energy Intensity Compared to EPAct and E.O. 13423 Goals
(0
l
a
400,000
360,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150.000
100,000
50,000
Btu/GSF
Bta/GSF [green power end source
energy sevings credits]
— EPAc' Goals
E.O. 13423 Goals
Most importantly, EPA continued to reduce energy use at its largest facility, the New Main
building in RTF, which has been one of the Agency's most energy-intensive laboratories since it
came online in FY2003. Significant strides were made in FY 2007 to reduce energy use at New
Main, including laboratory recommissioning, vivarium recommissioning, stabilization and
improvement of the building control system, and other projects. This work helped contribute to
an 8.1 percent reduction in energy use in FY 2007 over FY 2006. The NCC in RTF also reduced
its energy use by 19.7 percent in the past year.
Another EPA facility that achieved significant energy use reductions in FY 2007 was the A.W.
Breidenbach Environmental Research Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, which accounts for 11.8
percent of the Agency's total Btus and reduced its energy intensity more than 6.5 percent in FY
2007.
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
The Agency also showed its leadership in green buildings; in January 2007, EPA moved into a
new 250,000 square foot regional office building in Denver, Colorado, that has achieved Gold
certification through the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED®) program. In addition to furthering other sustainable construction
and renovation projects in FY 2007, the Agency established its first Sustainable Buildings
Implementation Plan, designed to assess each facility for sustainable progress and opportunities.
This plan was called for in the instructions for E.O. 13423 Section X, Sustainable Design/High
Performance Buildings.
EPA continued to make progress in its water conservation program, completing and signing two
water management plans and reducing its water use by 23.9 percent (on a gallons per square foot
basis) from last year, while establishing its FY 2007 water use baseline. EPA completed
pollution prevention/recycling audits at 10 major laboratories in FY 2007, compiling best
practices found at each location and initiating steps to develop baseline metrics for recycling
across the Agency.
As EPA looks ahead to FY 2008 and beyond, there are several objectives the Agency will be
focusing on to meet the challenges of E.O. 13423 and EPAct 2005. Programmatically, EPA will
be striving to implement its energy conservation and green building principles across the
Agency's facility portfolio. However, implementation of strategic priorities at EPA's highest
energy-using facilities also will intensify, as federal requirements for energy reductions become
more aggressive.
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
I. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Prior to EPAct 2005 and E.O. 13423, EPA's energy management infrastructure was designed to
meet federal energy use reduction requirements by focusing on projects at the facility level.
Facilities identified energy savings opportunities and received support and technical assistance
from EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch (SFPB), but individual facilities were not
assigned specific reductions each year. With more stringent annual reduction requirements for
energy, EPA has adopted an Agencywide approach and specific targets for each facility where
the Agency pays utility bills, through a strategic planning process known as "ConservE."
Energy Management Infrastructure
EPA's senior environmental official is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Luis A. Luna. In October 2007, EPA
named a Senior Energy Advisor in OARM, whose responsibilities include national energy
strategy management, reporting oversight, and liaison to coordinate energy-related issues among
all of the Agency's interested program office partners. In addition, SFPB in the Office of
Administration works to implement EPA's energy strategy in Agency facilities across the nation.
For example, over the past year, SFPB developed the first draft of a Sustainable Buildings
Implementation Plan in August 2007 and initiated in-house training this year for all of its facility
staff on key EPAct 2005 and E.O. 13423 provisions, to give all affected employees the tools and
knowledge needed to meet these new requirements.
As it implements ConservE, EPA is fostering more focused senior management attention on
energy performance, especially at the Agency's most energy-intensive facilities. SFPB remains
the main collection point for energy data and continues to serve as a key advisor on
improvements within the various facilities, but the primary responsibility for implementing
reductions has shifted to the facility energy managers. Further, performance metrics have been
made available on a quarterly basis to senior management personnel, ensuring accountability and
cooperation in the effort to reduce energy use Agencywide. A list of site energy managers can be
found in Appendix E.
Management Tools
EPA employs a variety of incentives to motivate employees to undertake energy reduction
initiatives. Annual performance evaluations are tied to and monitor progress on specific
performance goals that correspond to the requirements under EPAct 2005 and E.O. 13423.
Awards and Incentives
Each year, EPA also recognizes its employees' commitment to energy reduction and
sustainability goals through incentive programs, including awards. EPA's internal "Sustainability
Champion" awards are given to facilities and programmatic staff annually to recognize their
efforts in water efficiency, pollution prevention, and energy conservation. In FY 2007, awards in
10 different categories were distributed to recognize facility managers, building
design/maintenance personnel, and other EPA staff who demonstrated exceptional effort and
achievement in energy and water efficiency and other sustainability areas:
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Btu Buster Award
• Rick Dreisch, Environmental Science Center Laboratory in Fort Meade, Maryland
• Rodney Booth, Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota
Energy Partner of the Year-Field Award
• Steve Dorer, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan
Green Thumb Award
• Mid-Continent Ecology Division Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota
HiOverachiever Award
• Linda Donahue, Region 10 Laboratory in Manchester, Washington
• Robert Manos, Region 10 Laboratory in Manchester, Washington
• Stephanie Bailey, Region 10 Laboratory in Manchester, Washington
• Bob Beane, Region 1 Laboratory in Chelmsford, Massachusetts
Leading Edge Award
• Russ Ahlgren, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode Island
• Mark Tagliabue, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode Island
• Chet McLaughlin, Region 7 Office in Kansas City, Kansas
• Region 7 Emergency Response Facility Relocation Team in Kansas City, Kansas
Lifetime Achievement Award
• Gail Miller Wray, Office of Solid Waste and SFPB at EPA Headquarters
Pollution Prevention Partner of the Year Award
• Ruth Schenk, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Dorothy Branham, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan
Reporter of the Year Award
• Fred Childers, National Exposure Research Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada
• Art Zimmerman, Office of Research and Development Laboratory in Athens, Georgia
Senior Management Advocate for Sustainability Award
• Chris Grundler, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan
• Martha Cuppy, Region 7 Office in Kansas City, Kansas
Sustainable Partner of the Year Award
• Cathy Berlow, Architectural, Engineering, and Asset Management Branch at EPA
Headquarters
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
For more details about the 2006 winners, visit .
In addition to internal awards, EPA actively participates in the White House Closing the Circle
Awards, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Federal Energy and Water Management
Awards and Federal Energy Saver Showcase Awards, the Presidential Awards for Energy
Management Success, the GSA Real Property Management Awards, and other opportunities for
professional recognition. In FY 2007, EPA received: three Closing the Circle Awards; the
Presidential Award for Energy Management Success for its Labs21 program; the Federal Energy
Saver Showcase Award for its Region 8 office and One and Two Potomac Yard Headquarters
offices; and GSA's Real Property Management Award for a low impact development project at
EPA Headquarters. Steve Dorer of EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in
Ann Arbor, Michigan, also received an individual exceptional service award as part of the 2007
Federal Energy and Water Management Awards. Awardees are recognized in EPA's internal
newsletter, Energizing EPA, and on the Office of Administration Web site, found at
.
Training and Education
To educate EPA employees on the requirements of EPAct 2005 and E.G. 13423, EPA's SFPB
developed several internal energy and green buildings training sessions in FY 2007. These
training sessions also meet a specific goal of E.O. 13423, which mandates that agencies establish
an internal environmental training program that will provide initial awareness and review of the
executive order goals and related instructions, including the environmental impacts of
employees' actions. In addition to two sessions dedicated to meeting the requirements of E.O.
13423 and EPAct 2005, presentations were made on ASHRAE 90.1-2004, as it applies to
laboratories, and facility commissioning. Nearly 100 EPA employees attended. These sessions
will continue in FY 2008 with presentations on water conservation, green building ratings and
requirements, life-cycle costing, advanced metering, renewable energy, energy savings
performance contracts, emissions, green leases, and operations and maintenance.
Labs21
Labs21 is a voluntary partnership program dedicated to improving the environmental
performance of U.S. laboratories. Co-sponsored by EPA and DOE, the program is committed to
helping build sustainable, high-performing, and low-energy laboratories.
With eight new partners joining the program in FY 2007, there are now 48 federal and private
sector organizations committed to support sustainable laboratory design and operations. Among
the current Labs21 partners are eight federal agencies that receive information and technical
assistance for more than 40 federal facilities. The success of the Labs21 Partnership Program
was demonstrated in FY 2007 as two partners received LEED Platinum certification. The
National Renewable Energy Laboratory's new Science and Technology Center (S&TC) and the
Tahoe Center for Environmental Sciences are, respectively, the second and third laboratories in
the world to receive USGBC's highest level of certification. Additionally, S&TC is the first
federal facility to achieve LEED Platinum.
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
As of October 2007, 5,975 industry professionals were involved in Labs21 through the Labs21
Network, which provides monthly updates on the various program components, including an
annual conference, partnership and supporter programs, and a tool kit of technical resources.
In FY 2007, Labs21 held its largest conference to date. From October 17 to 19, 2006, 565
architects, engineers, federal employees, facility managers, and other laboratory professionals—
including 37 EPA employees—convened in San Antonio, Texas, to discuss the latest trends in
sustainable laboratory design and construction. The International Institute for Sustainable
Laboratories (I2SL), the second nonprofit co-sponsor of the Labs21 conference, provided
logistical and technology fair support. In 2007, EPA and DOE welcomed I2SL back as the non-
federal Labs21 Conference co-sponsor for 2007 and 2008.12SL also helped coordinate the
Labs21 2007 Annual Conference from October 2 to 4, 2007, in North Charleston, South
Carolina, and the Labs21 Design Courses held in 2007. Labs21 introductory and advanced
courses trained more than 500 people in nine different locations across the country in FY 2007.
During FY 2007, Labs21 also completed three new case studies and one best practices guide as
part of its tool kit of resources in support of sustainable design, construction, and operation of
high-performance laboratories. In addition, the program released two new technical bulletins as
the start of a new line of resources included in the tool kit. In just a few pages, the bulletins
provide readers with a concise and valuable overview of a particular laboratory design issue,
outlining the problem and the Labs21 recommended approach to solving it.
The success of the Labs21 program is tracked through various measures, such as attendance at
the Labs21 Annual Conference and training courses, as well as the use of the Labs21
Environmental Performance Criteria—a rating system developed specifically for laboratories—
and use of the Labs21 benchmarking tool—a Web-based database tool that allows users to
compare the energy performance of their laboratory facilities to similar facilities.
The most valuable measure of the program's success, however, is the energy (Btu per square
foot), emissions, and dollar savings achieved from Labs21 partner projects. EPA calculates that
the 19 currently reporting Labs21 Partner projects have:
• Reduced their annual energy use by 533,442,000,000 Btu—equal to the average annual
electricity use of more than 14,500 U.S. homes.1
• Reduced their annual carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 242,560,504 pounds—the
amount emitted by nearly 21,000 cars over the course of a year.2
• Saved $17,858,952 per year on their energy bills.
The Labs21 Web site (www.labs21century.gov) provides additional information on the program,
including regularly updated conference details, opportunities to join the program as a partner or
supporter, and access to the online tool kit.
1 According to the Energy Information Administration, the average annual electricity consumption by one U.S.
home in 2001 was 10,656 kWh, (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html). 1 kWh
= 3,413 Btu.
According to ENERGY STAR, on average across the United States:
• One kWh of electricity emits 1.55 pounds of carbon dioxide.
• Amount of carbon dioxide emitted by one passenger car over the course of a year is 11,560 pounds.
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Energizing EPA Newsletter
In an effort to educate all of its employees on the importance of environmental performance,
EPA produces Energizing EPA, a quarterly, online newsletter that highlights the Agency's
efforts to demonstrate sustainability, including energy and water efficiency, at its facilities.
Office of Administration Web Site
EPA's Office of Administration also continues to maintain and enhance its public Web site on
sustainability efforts at the Agency (www.epa.gov/greeningepa). The Web site is a central source
of information about energy efficiency approaches and projects, renewable energy procurement,
and green buildings developed by and for EPA. The site also provides information on the
mechanical improvements, energy and water consumption data, LEED certification, and green
building highlights for the major facilities EPA occupies. In FY 2007, the Web site received
1,457,738 "hits" from interested viewers, or an average of 121,478 visits to the site per month.
Showcase Facilities
Two new EPA office buildings received "Showcase Facility" designation from the Federal
Energy Management Program (FEMP) in FY 2007.
In July 2006, EPA held grand opening ceremonies for its new office buildings at One and Two
Potomac Yard in Arlington, Virginia. Potomac Yard consists of two connecting office towers
containing 650,000 square feet of office space and 6,000 square feet of retail and public space.
The structure received LEED Gold certification for new construction, with Building One earning
44 of 69 possible points and Building Two earning 43 out of 69 possible points. Building One
also received the ENERGY STAR label in August 2007 for performing in the top 25 percent of
similar office buildings.
In addition to its DOE Showcase Facility designation, in May 2007, EPA's Potomac Yard
facility won a 2007 White House Closing the Circle Award for its sustainable design and energy-
and water-saving features. These features include low-flow, high-efficiency plumbing products,
and a drought-resistant landscaping scheme. Kitchen appliances such as microwaves and
refrigerators are ENERGY STAR-labeled, and the majority of the facility's roof is made with
ENERGY STAR labeled materials that are designed to reduce the amount of solar heat absorbed,
thereby reducing the building's cooling requirements.
Potomac Yard was also a finalist in the commercial design category of Environmental Design +
Construction magazine's Excellence in Design Awards. In January 2007, Davis Carter Scott, a
Potomac Yard One and Two architecture firm, received a Best Building, Environmentally
Responsible—Green Construction Award of Merit from the Northern Virginia Chapter of the
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties for its work on the facility's design.
EPA also received a Showcase Facility designation for its new Denver, Colorado, Region 8
office, which opened in January 2007 and received LEED Gold certification in September 2007,
through a concerted effort among EPA, GSA, and the facility's development team (see page 28).
10
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
High Performance Buildings Database
DOE's High Performance Building Database seeks to improve the methods used to measure
building performance by collecting data on various factors that affect a building's performance,
such as energy, materials, and land use. As part of work to promote sustainable buildings, EPA
ensures that building data for its new facilities are entered into the High Performance Federal
Buildings Database. In FY 2007, as required by E.O. 13423, EPA submitted its One and Two
Potomac Yard facility in Arlington, Virginia, and Region 8 office in Denver, Colorado, for
inclusion in the federal version of the database.
EPA facilities now featured in this database include Potomac Yard One and Two; the New
England Regional Laboratory in Chelmsford, Massachusetts; Region 7 Headquarters and Science
and Technology Center in Kansas City, Kansas; and three entries from the RTF campus.
Although data for the Region 8 office in Denver were submitted in FY 2007, the data have not
yet appeared in the database.
11
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
EPA has consistently reduced its reportable energy intensity and associated environmental
impact over the past several years, as a result of a targeted effort to improve existing facilities'
energy performance and by ensuring that all new facilities in the building inventory perform to
EPA's sustainability requirements. In addition to the strategic approach to facility improvements
described below, EPA continues to purchase green power to offset its reported electricity use.
EPA never intended to fully rely on green power purchases to meet energy conservation goals,
but in the past did rely on green power to offset energy use. Based on the fact that DOE is
beginning to transition away from counting green power purchase toward federal energy
reduction requirements, EPA is ready for the challenge of meeting energy efficiency goals
without green power, as outlined below.
Overall Strategy
Based on the success the Agency has achieved in the past several years with energy reduction,
EPA will continue to implement the following overall energy strategy in FY 2007:
• Promoting sustainable, energy-efficient design in new buildings. Commissioning of new
buildings, which EPA began requiring in 2004, ensures that planned and future facilities
perform to the rigorous design standards EPA has set to ensure efficient energy use.
• Improving the operation of existing buildings. Based on the success of the "Top 10
O&M" operations and maintenance education (O&M) program initiated in FY 2006,
EPA is working towards institutionalizing O&M assessments as a component of the
national energy management program (pending funding).
• Designing and constructing mechanical system changes. Whether they are maj or proj ects
such as the Infrastructure Replacement Project slated for one of EPA's largest
laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio, or smaller heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) improvements, EPA commissions all mechanical system upgrade projects.
• Concentrating efforts on the best opportunities. EPA has prioritized its largest, most
energy-intensive facilities for attention; regardless of size, however, the Agency will
implement energy conservation at smaller laboratories where funding, local management,
and local staff support are in place.
• Allocating energy reductions across facilities. As described in EPA's ConservE strategy
below, the Agency requires all of the buildings for which it pays the utilities to share in
the effort to reduce Agencywide energy use. Every facility has an annual energy
reduction goal as part of the nationwide strategy; the specific goals are derived from the
projects performed each year and the energy impacts anticipated for each project.
• Sustainable Master Planning: EPA continues to work to expand the scope of its master
planning process, from its traditional focus on space needs and building locations to
considering long-term mechanical system performance and other sustainable issues.
12
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Facility-Specific Energy Reductions
The signing of EPAct 2005 introduced a new set of aggressive, annual energy reduction
requirements for federal facilities in FY 2006. To meet the challenges associated with this new
legislation, EPA's OARM initiated the ConservE Program. This Agencywide effort represented
a new paradigm for energy conservation at EPA. In past years, the Agency has focused on
individual facilities to reduce energy consumption and help the Agency meet its mandated
energy savings. ConservE embodies a fundamental shift from voluntary actions to required
savings by all facilities. Under this new framework, the Agency assigns annual energy reductions
to each reporting facility, tailored to historical energy trends and assumed energy savings from
funded energy projects. This approach helps EPA strategically disburse the Agencywide burden
among all facilities and ensures EPA's continued success in meeting its required annual energy
savings.
In January 2007, President George W. Bush signed E.O. 13423, which introduced even more
stringent energy reduction requirements and renewable energy guidance for federal facilities.
This guidance includes a requirement that renewable energy be purchased from "new" sources
and will eventually not allow credit for green power purchases towards energy reduction
requirements. With these new tougher requirements in place, EPA's ConservE Program
continues to serve as an important management and planning tool for EPA in FY 2007 and
beyond.
As in FY 2006, SFPB began FY 2007 by assigning each EPA reporting facility a "ConservE
target"—a mandatory 2 percent reduction in energy consumption below FY 2006 consumption
levels—as a starting point. EPA anticipated that each facility would be able to meet this goal
through continued implementation of a variety of "Top 10 O&M" measures, which SFPB
identified in FY 2006 and subsequently asked all facilities to complete. From this starting point,
SFPB tailored each facility's respective ConservE target based on funded energy projects
included in EPA's energy master planning framework. For facilities with energy projects that
anticipated energy savings of more than 2 percent to be realized in F Y 2007, SFPB used the
estimated savings in place of the required minimum target. In developing FY 2007 ConservE
targets, SFPB also accounted for facilities that failed to perform well the previous year. For those
facilities that increased energy consumption in FY 2006, SFPB made the FY 2007 ConservE
targets more stringent to help make up for lost ground in previous years.
To track and communicate ConservE progress in FY 2007, SFPB continued to develop and
distribute a quarterly ConservE update for all facility managers and senior management. With a
red/yellow/green rating system—similar to the one used in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Energy Management Scorecard—SFPB assigned each facility a quarterly
progress rating to communicate year-to-date progress achieved relative to the site-specific FY
2007 ConservE target.
In FY 2007, SFPB continued Phase II of its energy master planning project, whereby SFPB
collaborated with DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a consulting engineer to
examine each planned energy savings project. During this iterative process, the team refined
estimates of energy savings and identified new opportunities for additional energy-saving
13
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
projects. As an outcome of EPA' s continued work to refine the energy
master plan, SFPB completed an update to its Energy Conservation
Plan — Strategic Review report in May 2007, which includes:
• A summary of EPA' s energy savings potential through FY
2015.
• A comprehensive list of funded and unfunded energy savings
proj ects through F Y 2015.
• EPA's FY 2006 year-end OMB Energy Management
Scorecard.
• Future projections of Agency wide annual energy consumption
and cost figures. ^••••••••1
• EPA's buildings and facilities major spending plan through FY 2015.
• A summary of potential energy savings performance contract projects.
EPA uses this comprehensive report to inform senior management of the Agency's progress in
meeting energy reduction requirements and the economic implications of continued success in
terms of both invested and avoided costs.
Advanced Electricity Metering
To improve energy management and promote the use of demand -response incentives in the
federal sector, EPAct 2005 requires that federal agencies install advanced metering in all federal
facilities, where economically practicable, by October 1, 2012. While EPAct 2005 only requires
agencies to install advanced metering for electricity, EPA plans to meet or exceed EPAct 2005
requirements with advanced metering of other utilities in all of its reporting facilities.
Additionally, EPA plans to integrate all metered energy data from different facilities into a
single, Web-based "clearinghouse" of EPA's Agencywide energy consumption data. EPA
anticipates that this new integrated nationwide metering system will replace the Agency's
existing practice of manually tracking and entering energy consumption data, thus improving
accuracy and saving time. The system will also provide facility staff and senior management
instant access to valuable data at the click of a mouse, which will provide EPA an additional
management tool to continue energy conservation efforts across its inventory of facilities.
EPA met 100 percent of its advanced metering goals in FY 2007. In November 2006, SFPB
hosted an Agencywide teleconference, which introduced all facility managers and information
technology staff to the advanced metering requirements included in EPAct 2005. During this
teleconference, SFPB also announced a plan for visiting each facility over the next year to meet
individually with staff and develop site-specific advanced metering implementation plans. In
December 2006, SFPB conducted follow-up site-specific calls with each individual facility to
review existing metering inventories, discuss plans for submetering, answer any technical
questions, and schedule dates for follow-up site visits.
Within the next year, EPA had visited all 20 of its nationwide campuses to start developing
advanced metering plans. During each site visit, EPA's advanced metering team met with the
facility manager and information technology staff to review advanced metering goals and
14
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
logistics. The team also conducted discussions with utility company representatives to learn
about existing utility meter specifications and capabilities, as well as existing rate incentive
programs, such as demand-response, peak load shedding, and real-time pricing. After the initial
kickoff meeting, the team performed a comprehensive review of the facility's mechanical
systems and information technology (IT) infrastructure to develop a tailored strategy for
installing appropriate advanced metering hardware and software components.
Following each site visit, SFPB prepared a site-specific advanced metering implementation plan,
which serves as a documented path forward or "blueprint" for bringing each facility online to
EPA's national advanced metering network. Each plan includes the following components:
• Proposed utility-level metering and submetering.
• Technical approach for connecting all hardware to the national software system.
• Discussion of software security and other data considerations.
• Detailed estimates of all hardware and software costs.
• Comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis.
In spring 2007, SFPB completed development of both the advanced metering hardware and
software performance specifications. The hardware specification fully identifies the technical
requirements of any metering hardware procured and installed for an EPA facility. EPA's RTF
campus in North Carolina completed the installation of a Web-based advanced metering system
for the New Main building and the National Computer Center in December 2005. In developing
EPA's software performance specification for the Agency's new nationwide advanced metering
software platform, SFPB studied the lessons learned from the RTF procurement and
implementation. Based on an interview with the lead of the RTF advanced metering
implementation team, as well as extensive market research, SFPB developed EPA's advanced
metering software performance specification. Included in this specification is a comprehensive
requirements matrix scorecard, which will eventually allow EPA to systematically evaluate
potential software packages against a set of specific performance requirements. Both the
hardware and software specifications will be crucial to ensuring a seamless and successful
implementation of advanced metering across EPA's reporting facilities over the next several
years.
While EPA's pilot advanced metering system (ION system) in RTF has been in place for nearly
two years, the Agency is not yet fully reliant on its new data stream. After identifying suspicious
high-temperature hot water consumption trends reported by the ION system in November 2006,
SFPB hired a consulting engineer to examine the issue in more detail. In November 2006, EPA
discovered that a temperature sensor in New Main was originally placed in a location that caused
the ION system to return erroneous data. In June 2007, EPA performed a weekend shutdown of
New Main and relocated the hot water sensor in an effort to obtain more accurate readings of hot
water energy consumption. Initial fourth quarter FY 2007 data from the ION system indicates
that the repair has led to more reliable data collection.
Prior to the FY 2008 procurement of a nationwide advanced metering software system, in
August 2007 SFPB initiated a comprehensive analysis of several commercially available
packages. This process involved a multi-phase evaluation of each system's ability to meet EPA's
15
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
performance requirements, as well as an assessment of each option's lifetime costs and potential
risks. In addition to this evaluation of commercially available systems, EPA's IT staff also
developed an in-house proof of concept, representing an additional option that SFPB plans to
evaluate in FY 2008.
In FY 2008, EPA plans to make additional progress towards Agencywide implementation of
advanced metering. Based on the results of the software systems analysis, EPA plans to procure
a software package that will serve as the Agency's nationwide advanced metering software
platform. To continue developing the infrastructure necessary for advanced metering data
collection, transfer, and analysis, EPA also plans to procure a new host server dedicated to the
nationwide metering network, as well as integrate the newly procured system into EPA's existing
Agencywide IT/communications infrastructure. Finally, by the end of FY 2008, EPA will
procure and install new advanced metering hardware in several targeted facilities, starting with
laboratories in RTF and Cincinnati.
Industrial Facility Improvements
In FY 2008, EPA will continue implementing and commissioning HVAC and other mechanical
upgrades at several facilities to help attain the required conditions for supply air while reducing
annual energy consumption. Key recommissioning activities and HVAC improvements at
particularly energy-intensive facilities include the following:
RTF, North Carolina
RTF New Main Laboratory
With more than 1 million square feet of laboratory and office space, EPA's New Main
Laboratory accounts for 29.8 percent of the Agency's overall annual energy use. Compared to
FY 2006, New Main has reduced energy use by 30.9 billion Btu, or 8.1 percent. These energy
savings resulted in more than $1.5 million of avoided energy costs. Many of EPA's efforts to
improve facility efficiencies in FY 2007, therefore, continued to focus on RTF's New Main
laboratory and the central utility plant that serves both New Main and EPA's National Computer
Center. Over the past four years, a team of EPA employees from RTF and Headquarters has been
developing and implementing extensive recommissioning projects to improve the performance
and efficiency of critical building heating, cooling, ventilation, and controls systems.
At New Main, the team completed three significant energy-saving projects for RTF's laboratory
space and vivariums (animal research) wing: the Laboratory Controls Optimization Project
(LCOP), the Vivarium Controls Optimization Project (VCOP), and phases II and III of the Static
Pressure Optimization and Reduction Test (SPORT), which were completed in August 2007. The
LCOP and VCOP projects calculated and reconfirmed safe nighttime and daytime (occupied and
unoccupied) supply and exhaust requirements for each laboratory module based on the fume
hood sash position (open or closed). LCOP and VCOP also tested the ability of the control
systems to reliably and consistently adjust to fume hood sash position and occupancy changes,
replaced or repaired defective sensors and controllers, and verified congruency of the building
automation system (BAS) reported flows and performance against actual flows and performance.
16
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Through LCOP and VCOP, New Main achieved annual airflow reductions of 38 percent over
baseline levels, resulting in more than $1.3 million in avoided energy costs annually. Following
LCOP and VCOP, the team was also able to modify the operation of the air handling units
(AHUs) and reduce static pressure throughout the system as part of the SPORT project, resulting
in additional annual savings of more than 3.7 million kWh and energy cost avoidance of
$160,000. All three of these projects were completed by August 2007.
As a follow-up to this extensive recommissioning, EPA compiled a Laboratory Ventilation
Management Plan, which provides RTF's O&M contractors with a consolidated record of the
lessons learned during LCOP, VCOP, and SPORT. In addition to providing O&M staff with a
record of all the recently completed commissioning work, the plan contains screen shots from the
BAS and other helpful information that will facilitate continuous commissioning and encourage
continued energy savings.
In addition to improving energy efficiency in laboratory space and vivariums in FY 2007, EPA
also completed the first two phases of a multi-phase project to optimize air handling in the
facility's office wings. As part of this project, EPA completed upgrades to the air handling
system and began optimizing the downstream air handling distribution network. The Agency is
currently implementing a pilot project on one AHU to study the overall impacts and payback of
the downstream recommissioning. EPA also started the design of office tower recommissioning
work and provided funding for the project. In FY 2008, EPA expects to finish the design of the
commissioning project and begin the implementation of the pilot.
EPA also completed implementation of the third year of a multi-year controls master plan in FY
2007. The focus this fiscal year was to improve the data transmission, data retention, and overall
data quality of the BAS by reducing data overloads and data transit times on various sections of
the building control system. The system has been significantly strengthened with the addition of
an Ethernet backbone and by reorganizing controllers into smaller groups. For FY 2008, EPA
will continue to optimize data flow in order to make the facility's automation system more
reliable, consistent, and accurate.
In FY 2007 EPA funded and initiated work on several projects to improve the campus' chilled
and hot water distribution system. In July 2007, EPA reprogrammed the facility's hot and chilled
water pumps and added new controls for high-temperature hot water differential pressure
sensors. EPA also funded revalving for the chilled water supply to the National Computer Center
and added an additional chilled water meter at the central utility plant to help better assess the
plant's energy efficiency.
National Computer Center
In FY 2007, EPA's National Computer Center (NCC) in RTF accounted for nearly 3.4 percent of
EPA's reportable energy use. Through recommissioning and numerous energy saving projects in
NCC's computer wing, the facility was able to save 9.7 billion Btu (BBtu) in FY 2007 compared
to FY 2006, a reduction of 19.7 percent. An extensive, third-party review of the data center's
operating conditions resulted in EPA shutting off six of the facility's 13 computer room air
conditioners units, while still meeting the sensitive cooling needs of the computer equipment.
EPA also optimized and diversified the location of energy-intensive equipment to better match
17
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
heat loads and cooling capacity. These projects helped reduce NCC's annual energy
consumption by more than 7 percent compared to FY 2006 energy use. This energy savings
resulted in annual cost savings of more than $111,000.
Central Utility Plant
In FY 2007, EPA recommissioned the RTF central utility plant's (CUP's) chillers, doubling their
efficiency. EPA partnered with the National Institutes of Health, which owns the CUP and shares
its output with EPA on a conceptual design for an upgrade of pipes and controls for the chilled
water distribution system, which serves both RTF New Main and NCC. As an option to fund this
project, EPA also worked with NIHES to produce an initial proposal for an energy savings
performance contract in November 2007. Moreover, EPA contractors performed a hot and
chilled water load analysis of New Main. EPA anticipates this will improve the coordination of
CUP water output to better match New Main's heating and cooling needs.
Human Studies Facility
In FY 2007, the RTF Human Studies facility accounted for 8.1 percent of EPA's reportable
energy use. In May 2007, EPA completed designs for upgrades to AHU #1 and AHU #2, the two
largest air handling systems in the building. Although the estimate was too high to fund the
project, EPA is considering an energy savings performance contract with the University of North
Carolina to fund this project in FY 2008. Human Studies' energy use fell by nearly 4.2 percent in
FY 2007 compared to FY 2006. EPA's continued emphasis on preventative maintenance at
Human Studies contributed to the facility's energy savings realized in FY 2007.
Cincinnati, Ohio
The Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center (AWBERC), EPA's second
largest research facility and second largest energy consumer, uses 11.8 percent of EPA's annual
reported energy. AWBERC will continue a series of upgrades as part of a multi-year, multi-
phase Infrastructure Replacement Project. During the project, EPA will institute mechanical
upgrades to replace AWBERC's 40-year-old HVAC system, including all air handlers, vertical
and horizontal supply ductwork, control systems, exhaust systems, and associated equipment, as
well as renovate 12 laboratory modules. EPA will install high-performance variable air volume
(VAV) fume hoods, which use 30 to 40 percent less energy than conventional fume hoods, and
replace single-pass supply air with a combination of return air and required outside air. EPA will
also install a heat recovery system to recapture heating and cooling energy from the exhaust
system, as well as install new building controls with nighttime setbacks. Phase I designs were
completed in FY 2007, and EPA also awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quality contract
for project construction in FY 2007. Phase I construction began in FY 2008; the projected
completion date is late FY 2008.
Fort Meade, Maryland
EPA's Environmental Science Center (ESC) in Fort Meade, Maryland, accounts for 4.9 percent
of the Agency's reportable energy use. In FY 2006, an extensive audit of the facility's ventilation
system and laboratory and non-lab oratory space was conducted and baseline airflow data
collected. Following the audit, a comprehensive report was developed to document all existing
exhaust devices in the laboratory, as well as a list of those devices that the laboratory staff was
either not using or using inappropriately. This Phase I report also identified potential air flow
18
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
reductions, as well as opportunities to further segregate laboratory and non-laboratory activities
to reduce operational requirements and further save energy. Results from Phase I of this project
indicated that EPA is utilizing its ventilation system quite efficiently; however, the results also
identified several problems with the calibration and accuracy of the HVAC controls.
During Phase II of this project, which was completed in FY 2007, EPA developed a revised
ventilation plan that established new set points to meet the reduced air flow demand. Also as part
of Phase II, EPA completed a pilot that implemented the ventilation plan in 20 percent of the
facility's laboratory modules. In Phase III, which is expected to be completed in FY 2008, EPA
will complete a full-scale implementation of the ventilation plan and recommission the HVAC
system and controls to ensure optimum efficiency and continued employee safety and comfort.
Although ESC's energy use rose slightly in FY 2007, EPA expects the implementation of the
project to reduce annual energy consumption at ESC by approximately 10 percent in FY 2008.
Manchester, Washington
After completing a new wing with VAV fume hoods at the Region 10 Laboratory in May 2003,
EPA implemented a multi-stage renovation project for VAV upgrades for existing wings. A
construction contract was awarded in September 2006 for Phase II/Stage 2 of the project, and
renovations were completed in September 2007. Pending funding, EPA will award a construction
contract for Phase II Stage 3, the completion of the project. When all phases of the laboratory
renovations are completed, EPA expects to reduce the facility's overall energy use by more than
15 percent compared to an FY 2005 baseline.
Ann Arbor, Michigan
From FY 2004 through FY 2006, EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
(NVFEL), in Ann Arbor, Michigan, added several new, energy-intensive pump motors and
laboratory analysis equipment to the facility's dynamometer and laboratory modules. With these
additions, NVFEL's cooling load significantly increased, forcing EPA to investigate methods for
increasing the laboratory's cooling capacity. In FY 2007, EPA entered into negotiations with the
energy services company (ESCO) that provided the Ann Arbor facility with its ESPC. EPA
hoped to modify its existing ESPC in an effort to increase NVFEL's cooling capacity; however
negotiations stalled as the project was not financially viable for the ESCO.
Following the stalled negotiations, EPA worked to develop an alternative plan for continuing
routine and safe laboratory operations during the 2007 summer cooling season. To address the
summer heat and newly increased cooling loads of the facility, in spring 2007, SFPB developed
an innovative load shedding tool, which allows the NVFEL facility manager and O&M staff to
input forecasted wet bulb temperatures into an interactive database. The user can also specify
which of the facility's rooftop AHUs must remain in operation. The database then returns to the
user all possible combinations of AHUs that can operate together, given the input boundary
conditions, without exceeding the building's maximum cooling capacity. This tool has enabled
NVFEL's staff to anticipate upcoming hot and humid weather conditions and seamlessly adjust
research activities within specific test cells of the laboratory, while ensuring continued optimum
and safe operating conditions. Although NVFEL's energy use did not decrease in FY 2007, the
amount it rose was negligible, and EPA was also able to avoid investing more than $1 million of
taxpayers' money for a new chiller.
19
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Duluth, Minnesota
EPA completed designs for the first phase of a large-scale VAV upgrade in FY 2006.
Unfortunately, resource constraints in FY 2007 have caused the project to be postponed. In July
2007, however, EPA met with an ESCO regarding the funding of a proposed ESPC for the VAV
project and will work to finalize the project's plans in FY 2008. If funding is provided, EPA
expects this project to result in energy savings of 20 percent below the facility's current
consumption.
Additionally, in FY 2007, Duluth completed a water recycling project to reduce the amount of
water that was discharged into the facility's sewage system after having been drawn from Lake
Superior and used for laboratory processes. Approximately half of the 94 million gallons of
water used annually for cooling and aquatic research is cleaned and returned to the lake, reducing
the facility's annual sewer charges. The addition of a water filtration project in FY 2008 is
expected to increase the facility's water recycling rate to 95 percent.
Athens, Georgia
The Science and Ecosystems Support Division (SESD) Laboratory will undergo modifications to
building controls, installation of an isolated HVAC unit, and transition from constant volume to
variable frequency drive AHUs as part of an overall facility improvement. The design for the
modification was completed in FY 2006, and GSA is currently evaluating proposals for the
construction work. The projected completion date for the upgrade is mid-FY 2009. EPA
anticipates reducing energy use at the SESD Laboratory by approximately 5 percent as compared
to an F Y 2005 baseline, with an estimated payback of less than five years.
Richmond, California
In October 2005, EPA's Region 9 Laboratory in Richmond, California, completed installation
and formally began operation of a new, 60-kilowatt (kW) cogeneration unit. Using a separate
dedicated natural gas line, this new cogeneration unit generates electricity on site for use by the
facility and captures the associated waste heat for use by the laboratory's boilers. In theory, the
captured waste heat reduces the need for natural gas to generate hot water, thus reducing site
energy consumption. Because EPA observed trends of increased energy use beginning in FY
2006, the Agency initiated a joint study with DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to
investigate possible reasons for the trend. Normal operations of the cogeneration unit resumed in
F Y 2007, and SFPB assigned the Region 9 Laboratory a ConservE target of returning to its "pre-
upgrade" FY 2005 energy consumption, which translates into a 13.7 percent reduction from FY
2006 use. In FY 2007, however, the Richmond laboratory's energy use increased by more than 4
percent.
20
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Energy Savings Performance Contracts
EPA has historically used energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) as one of many tools
employed to increase the Agency's energy efficiency and reduce its environmental impact. The
Agency's first ESPC was at its NVFEL in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and resulted in an initial energy
reduction of more than 42 percent. EPA's second ESPC in Ada, Oklahoma, helped contribute to
the Agency's first carbon-neutral laboratory. In order to increase the use of ESPCs to accomplish
the Agency's energy reduction goals, EPA has identified three potential ESPC opportunities that
could lead to significant energy savings. EPA undertook feasibility studies in FY 2007 and is
currently in the initial proposal phase of developing potential ESPC projects for the following
locations:
Main Laboratory—RTF, North Carolina
As part of a series of mechanical improvements, EPA is examining heat recovery system projects
at several of the RTF New Main campus laboratory buildings and the high bay as significant
sources of potential energy savings. Through this ESPC, EPA anticipates installing heat recovery
systems in Buildings B, D, E, and the high bay, and completing additional energy conservation
measures as determined by the energy services company.
The heat recovery system alone could save 16.4 BBtu per year. On a percentage basis of EPA's
reported energy use (based on FY 2007 figures), this project could provide annual savings of
nearly 1.4 percent of Agencywide energy use, or 3.8 percent of the facility's FY 2006 energy
use. The project is still in its exploratory phase, with an initial proposal presented to EPA in
November 2007.
Central Utility Plant—RTF, North Carolina
EPA has also identified numerous upgrades to the CUP that serves the New Main Laboratory
and NCC in RTF as significant sources of potential energy savings. Because EPA's New Main
facility and NCC share the CUP's chilled water output with the NIH National Institute of
Environmental Health Science Laboratory, the proposed ESPC will be a joint, interagency effort
between EPA and NIH. Through improvements to the CUP's controls and other significant
mechanical upgrades, EPA anticipates improved efficiency at the utility plant. The initial
proposal was delivered to EPA and NIH in early FY 2008.
Mid-Continent Ecology Division Laboratory—Duluth, Minnesota
As part of a multi-year assessment process, EPA has identified VAV and heat recovery projects
as significant sources of potential energy savings at its Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota. The VAV portion of this project is expected to result in annual
energy savings of 5.3 BBtu (which represents 0.45 percent of the Agency's annual energy use).
EPA completed an onsite brainstorming session in July 2007 and is researching initial proposal
options.
21
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Green Power
On September 1, 2006, EPA became the first major federal agency to purchase green power
equivalent to 100 percent of its annual electricity use. In FY 2007, EPA purchased 330 million
kWh3 of green power. Reaching this milestone is a testament to EPA's dedication to "walk the
talk" and improve the Agency's own environmental performance through an ever-expanding
green power procurement program. The largest single purchase of green power by EPA to date, a
contract for 110 million kWh that went into effect September 1, 2006, includes major EPA
facilities not previously covered by green power contracts through FY 2007. In FY 2008, EPA's
blanket green power purchase increased to 135 million kWh and went into effect in October
2007. The experience gained through the procurement of the blanket contract has helped EPA
develop extensive expertise in green power procurement and increase the federal government's
ability to buy renewable energy.
Since 1999, EPA has far exceeded its original green power purchasing expectations by buying
enough green power or RECs to offset the electricity use at all of its 190 facilities nationwide,
including the Agency's 34 reporting facilities, 10 regional offices, Headquarters complex in
Washington, D.C., and small and remote locations. In total, EPA's FY 2007 green power
purchases offset more than 673 million4 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions—the amount
emitted by nearly 58,000 cars5 over the course of a year. In addition, these purchases offset more
than 1.25 million6 pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOX), one of the main sources of ground level
ozone, and 1.5 million7 pounds of sulfur dioxide (802), the main cause of acid rain. In the future,
EPA plans to have a stronger focus on developing onsite renewable energy generation as part of
its long-term emissions reduction strategy.
While supporting the market for renewable energy, RECs are just one method the Agency uses to
procure green power. From its current onsite renewable energy projects, EPA generated more
than 117,800 kWh of solar electricity and nearly 9.2 BBtu of renewable thermal energy in FY
2007, by employing a variety of onsite renewable energy technologies. EPA continued to operate
numerous renewable energy self-generation technologies in FY 2007:
• Solar Arrays: The Agency continued to operate a 9-kW photovoltaic (PV) array installed
in 2004 at the Western Ecology Division Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon; a 100-kWPV
array installed in April 2002 on the roof of the NCC in RTF; a 10-kW solar array
installed on the roof of its Region 5 office in Chicago's Metcalfe Federal Building in
3 EPA's total FY 2007 green power purchases = 329,880,513 kWh .
4Total calculated according to eGRID location of renewable energy project that purchased RECs support = 673,279,921 pounds
CO2. All references to CO2 emission reductions resulting from EPA's green power purchases assume that all of EPA's purchased
green power produces zero carbon emissions (i.e., there is no distinction made between the carbon emissions associated with
electricity generated from wind and other renewable energy sources such as landfill gas and biomass).
U.S. average annual car emissions = 11,450 pounds CO2. EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
.
6 Total calculated according to eGRID location of renewable energy project that RECs support = 1,254,408 pounds NOX.
7 Total calculated according to eGRID location of renewable energy project that RECs support = 1,511,453 pounds SO2.
22
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
2000; and, as part of the new regional office building in Denver, a new 48-panel, 10-kW
PV array on the building's eighth floor.
• PV Lighting: EPA's campus in RTF includes solar streetlights that have served the
entrance road and parking lot facilities since FY 2002. The Agency asserts this is the
largest solar road lighting project in the United States.
• Solar Water-Heating Systems: In FY 2004, the Agency installed a solar water-heating
system at the Region 9 Child Care and Fitness Center in San Francisco, California. EPA's
Region 2 laboratory in Edison, New Jersey, utilizes three solar water-heating systems that
have been the primary source of hot water in their respective facilities since 1998. Each
system helps augment its respective facility's energy use by reducing the need for
electricity and natural gas.
• Solar Power Awnings: EPA's New England Regional Laboratory in Chelmsford,
Massachusetts, has operated a PV awning system since September 2001. The 2-kW
capacity awnings feed the regional electric grid and reduce cooling needs by providing
shade for the facility's office windows.
• Solar Wall: EPA Region 8 Laboratory's transpired solar collector has augmented the
Golden, Colorado, facility's heating and cooling system since March 2002, generating
approximately 1.38 MMBtu of solar power annually.
• Ground-Source Heat Pump: A geothermal heat pump was installed as part of the Robert
S. Kerr Environmental Research Station's ESPC upgrade in Ada, Oklahoma, in June
2004. This heat pump generates approximately 7,800 million Btu (MMBtu) annually and
reduces EPA's need for primary fuels (electric and gas) accordingly.
• Lake Cooling Water: EPA's Mid-Continent Ecology Division Laboratory in Duluth,
Minnesota, uses water from nearby Lake Superior as non-contact cooling water for
building air conditioning and other mechanical equipment, reducing energy and water
costs. In FY 2007, the facility used about 94 million gallons of lake water for cooling.
Having met its 100 percent green power goal, EPA is now working to improve the benefits from
the green power procured. The Agency enlisted members of its Office of Research and
Development, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, to study the opportunities to
improve the environmental benefits of EPA's future green power purchases. The resulting report,
The Impact of EPA 's Green Power Purchases (EPA/600/R-07/019), examined:
• Various emissions associated with each type of green power. For example, the report
found that wind power emits zero emissions; however landfill gas, which uses internal
combustion energy, releases a small amount of emissions.
• Estimated greenhouse gas emissions from conventional generation that are displaced
by new green power sources. Research revealed that emissions can vary depending on
23
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
which section of the grid is being examined. For example, renewable energy sources in a
certain section of the grid will displace older, coal-fired generation, while they may
displace new, cleaner, coal-fired generation or natural gas generation in another section.
• Identified areas in the national electric grid with the highest emissions from
conventional generating sources. EPA will be able to examine these areas and focus on
developing more green power sources in the high emitting areas so that the use of
electricity produced from conventional generating sources can be reduced.
It is clear that EPA's green power purchases are beneficial to the environment. They have also
provided other federal agencies lessons learned and valuable technical support, as indicated by
the many federal agencies that have consulted EPA and the Agency's green power partners when
making their own green power purchases.
Water Conservation
At the beginning of FY 2007, EPA's voluntary Agencywide water conservation goal was to
reduce water consumption by 15 percent in FY 2010; now, under E.O. 13423, EPA will be
pursuing facility-specific water consumption goals to reduce water use 16 percent by FY 2015
below its FY 2007 baseline. Overall, EPA's laboratories used 168.1 million gallons of water in
FY 2007, or 45.2 gallons per square foot, a 23.9 percent reduction from FY 2006 (59.3 gallons
per GSF).
Over the past year, EPA worked to restructure the water conservation program and establish a
new FY 2007 water consumption baseline (per E.O. 13423 requirements), while continuing to
conduct water assessments, undertake conservation measures, implement water management best
practices, and manage stormwater runoff. The Agency completed three laboratory water
assessments in FY 2007 and signed two water management plans by the end of the fiscal year.
Highlights are included below.
Gulf Breeze, Florida
EPA completed and signed a water management plan for the Gulf Ecology Division (GED)
Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida, in September 2007. GED's environmental management
system (EMS) established an objective of reducing fresh water use, among other objectives;
GED plans to reduce consumption by 2 percent per year (relative to its FY 2007 baseline). The
laboratory plans to achieve this goal by implementing a number of strategies, including: reducing
heating and cooling demands in buildings with cooling towers; employing alternative cooling
technologies (e.g., saltwater); installing high-efficiency appliances; and forming a Water
Consumption Advisory Committee to discuss progress toward meeting water consumption
objectives.
GED has also adopted best management practices in seven of the 10 areas identified by FEMP.
For example, water consumption data are closely tracked and shared with the staff; resource
conservation topics appear in the facility's Greening GED newsletter; and the landscape is
composed of native, self-sustaining vegetation that does not require landscape irrigation.
24
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Combined with an initiative to eliminate the use of single-pass cooling water, an adjustment to
the cooling tower set points in May 2007 should significantly reduce overall facility water use.
To further improve water efficiency in the future, GED has included a rainwater capture and
reuse system in the design for a new building on the laboratory campus.
Montgomery, Alabama
In August 2007, EPA completed a draft of a water management plan at the Montgomery,
Alabama, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL). No landscape
irrigation water is used at the laboratory, as grasses and shrubs are climate-appropriate and
survive on natural rainfall. NAREL has also eliminated all forms of single-pass equipment
cooling.
The laboratory is currently constructing a new central chiller plant. Historically, cooling towers
have been maintained by a cooling tower maintenance contractor that performs monthly quality,
performance, and water chemistry reviews of cooling tower operation. The laboratory plans to
regularly test the new towers, once they are operational, to achieve maximum water use savings.
Grosse He, Michigan
In September 2007, EPA completed and signed a water management plan for the Gross He,
Michigan, Large Lakes Research Station (LLRS). The facility maintains an aggressive program
to identify and respond to water leaks. A screening level system review was completed in July
2007, and known water uses account for more than 90 percent of water consumption. Facility
staff is trained to report leaks and malfunctioning water-using equipment to the onsite facilities
manager designee. The facility also makes use of an automatic leak detection system, based on
conductivity bridges ("water bugs") placed on the floor adjacent to water-using equipment.
LLRS also uses minimal water for landscape irrigation. Across most of the 3-acre site, grasses
and shrubs are climate-suitable and survive on natural rainfall. Some hand watering is
performed, as necessary, during especially dry periods of summer, but such watering is limited
and only applied to keep plants from dying off during dry conditions. LLRS is evaluating a
potential option to divert rainwater from a roof drain and store it in a cistern in the basement of
the main laboratory building for landscape irrigation.
Stormwater Management
In FY 2007, EPA continued to address the most common type of water pollution—stormwater
runoff—through various stormwater management projects. Better management of stormwater
through strategic site design, controlling the sources of runoff, and thoughtful landscape planning
helps the Agency decrease stormwater runoff at various facilities.
Washington, D. C.
In collaboration with GSA, EPA is demonstrating LID and sustainable stormwater management
practices in a landscape renovation project at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Initiated in
May 2001, this multi-year project involves three landscape retrofit projects at EPA's Federal
Triangle Headquarters complex.
25
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
The Federal Triangle complex's building roofs, sidewalks, courtyards, and parking areas make
the area approximately 95 percent impervious to rain. Through this green infrastructure project,
however, EPA is reducing the adverse impacts of stormwater flows from the 25-acre site. The
Agency also hopes to reduce the peak volume and pollutant load of its stormwater runoff and
serve as a model for urban LID projects nationwide.
Completed in December 2006, the 8,600-square-foot Ariel Rios South Courtyard, at the
southeast corner of the Federal Triangle, is the second and largest phase of the project.
Showcasing the sustainable strategy of addressing targeted watershed goals and objectives by
using LID stormwater management techniques, the courtyard demonstrates a wide range of
techniques in its 6,400 square feet of LID landscaping. Specifically, it includes two bioretention
cells that provide more than 400 cubic feet of stormwater storage volume and a 1,128-gallon
cistern to collect stormwater that is recycled for irrigation of the site.
Based on the rainfall in 2006, it is estimated that the LID components divert approximately 70
percent of the rainwater that falls on the courtyard throughout the year from the storm sewer. It is
also estimated that reusing the rainwater collected in the cistern for irrigation will, in turn, reduce
the need for potable water by approximately 30 percent.
The construction contract for the final phase of the project—an installation of six cisterns, with a
total capacity of 6,000 gallons, in the parking garage under the EPA West Building—was
awarded in August 2007. The cisterns are designed to collect runoff from the Federal Triangle
complex roofs and reuse it for irrigation of a portion of the rain gardens EPA placed along
Constitution Avenue as the first phase of the demonstration project (completed in FY 2006).
Athens, Georgia
As part of its National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) sustainable master plan, EPA is
creating a stormwater detention pond for the NERL facility in Athens, Georgia. The pond will
improve the laboratory's stormwater management and sediment control, and is expected to be
completed by the end of FY 2008.
Sustainable Design and Construction
EPA accomplishes its mission with approximately 26,000 employees and contractors working in
more than 9 million square feet of office buildings and laboratories located across the United
States. The Agency ensures that its own buildings and practices reflect its mission, and is also
committed to serving as a model of responsible environmental behavior, in order to help create a
framework within which the building industry can shift towards practices that promote
sustainable building design and construction.
EPA currently occupies three LEED Gold buildings and one LEED Silver building and
anticipates LEED certification at four additional facilities currently in the design or construction
phases or recently completed (an annex building in Cincinnati, Ohio; a renovated regional office
building in Boston; a child care center in RTF; and a replacement office building in Gulf Breeze,
Florida). While EPA uses the USGBC's LEED rating system as a way to promote sustainable
26
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
buildings, the Agency does not rely solely on LEED to ensure building performance in its new
acquisitions and renovation projects. For example, EPA requires all new buildings in its
inventory to achieve energy consumption levels that are at least 30 percent below those
established under ASHRAE 90.1-2004. No new building designs were started on EPA-owned
buildings in FY 2007, however. New office buildings must achieve the ENERGY STAR label
after 12 months of occupation. Currently, all major new construction projects are expected to
achieve LEED for New Construction Silver rating, although many achieve Gold. EPA also
pursues LEED, or other green building rating systems, for existing buildings and tenant fit-out
projects wherever practicable (e.g., Green Globes, LEED for Existing Buildings, and LEED for
Commercial Interiors).
On January 24, 2006, EPA was one of 21 agencies to sign the Federal Leadership in High
Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), committing to
federal leadership in implementing common strategies for planning, acquiring, siting, designing,
building, operating, and maintaining high-performance and sustainable buildings. The MOU
goals are to reduce the total ownership cost of facilities; improve energy efficiency and water
conservation; provide safe, healthy, and productive built environments; and promote sustainable
environmental stewardship. The MOU establishes a common set of guiding principles to:
• Employ integrated design principles.
• Optimize energy performance.
• Protect and conserve water.
• Enhance indoor environmental quality.
• Reduce environmental impact of materials.
Over the past several years, EPA has been working to "green" its facility acquisition and
procurement process. A few years ago, the Agency instituted "Green Architecture &
Engineering" and "Green Check" processes, whereby architects and engineering firms are
chosen with criteria that include energy and environmental performance experience. Internal
project management is required to ensure environmental and energy considerations are
incorporated into the acquisition process. EPA continued to formalize its commitment to green
acquisition with the development of a Sustainable Building Implementation Plan SFPB has been
working with its sister branch in Architecture, Engineering, and Real Estate to instill a sense of
organizational cooperation and ensure that sustainability is a priority throughout the projects' life
cycle.
Sustainable Building Implementation Plan
E.O. 13423 requires that federal agencies immediately implement the guiding principles with all
new construction and major renovation projects and with at least 15 percent of their existing
building inventory by 2015. To respond to this requirement, during 2007, EPA initiated
development of a Sustainable Building Implementation Plan outlining how EPA is implementing
and will continue to implement the guiding principles. EPA will update the plan annually to
ensure continuous improvement toward the goals.
This comprehensive plan details the Agency's implementation framework, applicable facilities,
performance targets, and tools and strategies for achieving them. It documents the facility
acquisition and master planning processes to implement sustainability and discusses training and
27
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
outreach needs to ensure that all responsible parties are onboard. It also sets forth reporting and
tracking procedures and schedules. Technical chapters include sections on integrated design
principles, optimizing energy performance, protecting and conserving water, enhancing indoor
environmental quality, and reducing the Agency's environmental impact, among others. EPA's
LEED, ASHRAE, ENERGY STAR, and other green building requirements are included as part
of the Agencywide implementation plan.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to focus on EPAct 2005 requirements that new buildings perform
30 percent better than ASHRAE standards. Although the Agency is not required to report in this
regard on the facilities it does not own, EPA will continue to work with GSA and building
developers on numerous sustainable design and building projects.
Denver, Colorado
After two and a half years of careful planning and construction in partnership with GSA, in
January 2007, EPA took occupancy of the new Region 8 office in Denver, Colorado. This state-
of-the-art, 418,000 GSF facility, which also includes retail space, received LEED Gold
certification in September 2007 and is on track to achieve the ENERGY STAR building label.
The facility incorporates an extensive daylighting scheme around the perimeter to allow for
maximum daylight penetration. Building design provides for natural light in 85 percent of floor
space. Dimming controls and occupancy sensors further reduce the amount of artificial light
being used when there is ample sunlight. Energy savings of approximately 9,600 Btu/GSF per
year come from several high-efficiency, building-wide systems, such as: a unique under-floor air
delivery system; an HVAC system that works at the lowest possible cooling loads during warmer
weather; and air side economizers that cool the building using the city's cooler air instead of
chillers, which saves energy and improves indoor air quality. Additionally, all mechanical and
electrical systems in the facility are systematically commissioned for quality assurance.
With a projected energy intensity of 46,500 Btu/GSF per year, EPA expects the building to yield
energy savings of nearly 12,000 Btu/GSF per year, or 40 percent more efficient than a base case
office building meeting the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999.
The building's 19,200-square-foot "green roof features a 3-inch to 4-inch soil layer and
drought-resistant plants that help reduce rooftop and building temperatures and filter pollution.
The green roof reduces stormwater runoff by approximately 27 percent, which will ease pressure
on the city's sewer system and reduce the water pollution associated with runoff. Also located on
the roof is a 48-panel, 10-kilowatt PV array, which, in conjunction with the 4.7 million kWh of
RECs EPA is purchasing annually for the office, helps support renewable energy and offset
emissions associated with the office's electricity use.
To promote water conservation, all plumbing fixtures installed in the facility are high-efficiency
devices, including faucet aerators and auto-closing faucets, waterless urinals in the men's
restrooms, and dual-flush toilets in the women's restrooms. Use of these plumbing fixtures will
provide water savings of 36 percent compared to the typical office building.
28
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
During construction, the builders used low volatile organic compound interior adhesives, paints,
sealants, and caulks, which improve indoor air quality. EPA also incorporated sustainable and
renewable resources into the building's construction, and 80 percent of the construction waste
was recycled rather than disposed of in a landfill. The building design also includes space for
ongoing recycling efforts.
Cincinnati, Ohio
A new, 42,400-square-foot Research Support Annex (Annex 2) was completed in October 2007.
Designed to achieve LEED Gold certification, the annex provides additional office space and
frees up office space in AWBERC, which will be converted to laboratory space. Staff began
moving into the Annex 2 space in September 2007, and the rest of the office space will be
occupied in FY 2008. Sustainable features include energy-efficient temperature controls, VAV
and water-side air economizers, under-floor ventilation, daylighting, a green roof, sustainable
landscaping, water-efficient plumbing fixtures, and an advanced metering system. EPA is also
offsetting 100 percent of the electricity used there with RECs.
Boston, Massachusetts
In September 2006, GSA awarded a renovation contract for the McCormick Post Office and
Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts, for EPA's Region 1 office. This historic 1930s structure
will be converted into office space, and EPA, occupying approximately 225,000 square feet, will
be the largest tenant. Besides major building envelope upgrades and mechanical system
improvements, the building will feature an accessible green roof, which will control stormwater
runoff and reduce the heat island effect. Construction completion is expected in April 2009. The
project is designed to achieve the ENERGY STAR label and LEED Silver certification.
Gulf Breeze, Florida
The 8,000-square-foot Gulf Breeze Replacement Office Building was completed in October
2007. The facility provides office space and computer laboratories for the Gulf Ecology Division
Laboratory and is slated to receive LEED Silver certification.
Best Practices in Lease Provisions
On June 15, 2007, EPA completed a draft version of "Best Practice Environmental Lease
Provisions" based on previous EPA/GSA build-to-suit lease procurements. This document
consists of EPA's modifications and additions to GSA's standard Solicitation for Offer (SFO)
template document, which is used for new lease solicitations as well as lease renewals. Additions
include provisions to pursue compliance with the Federal Leadership in High Performance and
Sustainable Buildings MOU, E.O. 13423, and EPAct 2005, and to obtain green building
certification for new and existing buildings. Several provisions in this document were adapted
from two of EPA's most recent SFOs, Potomac Yard One and Two and the Denver Region 8
office, where EPA used their lease requirements to ensure LEED certification and additional
EPA preferred sustainable building considerations.
This document will work as a menu of best practices that can be used in whole or in part,
depending on the project scope. EPA intends for the Best Practice Environmental Lease
Provisions to be a living document that applies a standardized lessons learned process to harvest
knowledge gained from completed projects to improve future projects.
29
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
EPA has also developed specific language to be used in GSA's construction source selection
plans that highlights the Agency's sustainable design priorities. Model lease submittals are still
under development. They will include the following example plans that can be used as templates
for SFO submittals:
• Indoor Air Quality Management Plan
• Green Housekeeping Plan
• Integrated Pest Management Plan
• Landscape Maintenance Plan
• Construction Period Recycling Plan
• Construction Phase Commissioning Plan
As a follow-on project to the lease provision effort, EPA will undertake a project to convert the
SFO environmental provisions to building construction guidelines for EPA-owned facilities. The
guidelines will become an addendum to the EPA Architectural and Engineering Guidelines.
Sustainable Master Planning
EPA continues to work to expand the scope of a traditional master planning process to include
considerations for stormwater management, landscaping, security, and other sustainable issues.
The Agency is developing or has developed multi-year plans to reduce the environmental impact
of the following facilities:
Corvallis, Oregon
EPA completed a sustainable master plan for the Western Ecology Division Laboratory in
September 2006. The 2006 master plan sets a path for a multi-year upgrade of aging HVAC
systems and renovation of existing laboratory facilities to more energy-efficient systems. The
Agency plans to incorporate stormwater management and security into the master plan and is
currently assessing funding, design, and construction options.
Athens, Georgia
EPA completed a facility master plan in May 2006 for the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. The plan represents major progress in the Agency's move
towards holistic master planning. The plan integrates space planning, building location planning,
long-term migration of existing mechanical systems to more energy-efficient systems, site
security, and stormwater management. EPA awarded a Phase I design contract, including
construction of perimeter security measures and a stormwater detention pond, HVAC upgrades,
and an energy-efficient roof in FY 2007; construction on perimeter security and the stormwater
detention pond is set to begin in FY 2008. Phase II projects will include construction of a stand-
alone central power plant and transition from constant volume to VAV ventilation systems.
Montgomery, Alabama
EPA awarded a design contract for a master plan at the National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory in FY 2006. The plan reviews perimeter security, mechanical
systems, space needs, stormwater management, and landscape conditions. EPA is planning to
upgrade the existing primary system. A construction contract was awarded in FY 2007, and the
projected completion date is scheduled for FY 2008.
30
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
RTF, North Carolina
EPA is studying and developing a plan for the possible move of its Reproductive Toxicology
Facility staff into the New Main facility. This move would eliminate a highly energy-intensive,
leased facility from EPA's inventory. Within this plan, EPA will develop a comprehensive
master plan, including stormwater management and security issues, for the consolidation. The
Agency will complete the review of the consolidation study by early FY 2008.
Pollution Prevention and Recycling
In FY 2007, EPA continued efforts to reduce its environmental footprint by conducting recycling
and pollution prevention assessments at 17 different facilities and conducted a follow-up
assessment of all Headquarters facilities in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The purpose
of these assessments is to understand the recycling efforts already in place, quantify the materials
recycled, and offer suggestions to further increase recycling at each facility.
As required by E.O. 13423, EPA has set an Agencywide waste diversion goal of 45 percent by
2010. EPA will calculate recycling rates for each facility, as well as an Agencywide recycling
rate each year to measure its progress toward this goal. EPA's Agencywide baseline recycling
rate for FY 2006 is 39 percent, based on data from 12 facilities. While most EPA facilities record
and track recycling tonnage, the recycling assessments have revealed that many facilities have
had difficulty obtaining trash tonnage figures. EPA has requested that each facility consider
renegotiating its trash hauling contract in order to capture trash figures. Each fiscal year, EPA
will require facilities to collect weights for both recyclables and trash, if they have access to the
data, to determine the Agency's progress toward the 2010 goal. Facilities that do not currently
have the proper infrastructure to collect trash and recycling data must develop a method for
collecting this information by FY 2010. Highlights from the 2007 recycling and pollution
prevention assessments are presented below.
Narragansett, Rhode Island
The Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) Laboratory is championing pollution prevention in various
ways, including requiring use of green cleaning supplies in its janitorial services contract. The
laboratory encourages green commuting with bike lockers for employees. When new security
barriers around the facility's perimeter were mandated, AED used boulders salvaged from a local
construction site. AED is also practicing sustainable landscaping and is chipping woody debris
into mulch.
Fort Meade, Maryland
The EMS is well established at Region 3's Environmental Science Center. An EMS logo and
mascot promote the program, along with a lobby showcase that displays the laboratory's various
environmental awards and achievements. EMS team members promote participation in the
program among employees and an EMS refresher course is conducted annually for all employees
and contractors.
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
Cincinnati, Ohio
EPA's Cincinnati facilities are supporting a number of charitable causes through recycling
activities. Employees donate old shoes for recycling into playground equipment. Proceeds from
an aluminum can pull-tab recycling program benefit the Ronald McDonald House. Surplus office
equipment and supplies are donated to local schools.
Richmond, California
The Central Regional Laboratory is preventing pollution and reducing waste by triple-rinsing
empty chemical stock bottles, which are then used to store the methylene chloride solvent that is
recycled on site. To ensure safe handling, each bottle is labeled clearly with an indication of the
number of times it has been reused. After 10 reuses, the bottle is rinsed and recycled. The
laboratory also participates in a chemical adoption program with local universities.
Electronics Stewardship
During 2007, EPA strengthened its commitment to electronics stewardship throughout the
Agency in response to E.O. 13423 and as a continuation of its existing efforts. In summer 2007,
the Agency completed an electronics stewardship implementation plan, signed by the Chief
Information Officer and the Assistant Administrator for OARM. Developed through a
collaborative effort among representatives from EPA's property management, information
technology, environmental management, and purchasing areas, the plan outlines a specific
framework for advancing progress in critical areas to meet the goals of E.O. 13423 and continue
to improve electronics stewardship within the Agency.
EPA uses the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) as a framework to help its numerous facilities
reduce the environmental footprint of their purchase, use, and disposal of electronic equipment.
FEC is a voluntary partnership program that supports federal agencies in purchasing electronics
with environmental attributes, reducing the impact of the operations and maintenance of
electronic products, and reusing or recycling equipment at the end of its useful life. As of 2007,
more than 90 percent of EPA's targeted facilities were participating in the FEC program.
Additionally, numerous regional and Headquarters offices were recognized for their
accomplishments. Nine EPA offices won FEC awards at the gold level; three at the silver level;
and three at the bronze level.
The Agency made great strides in purchasing more environmentally preferable electronic
equipment by incorporating language from the new Electronic Products Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT) into each of the new blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) for
computers and laptops awarded in March 2007. EPEAT is an EPA-funded tool launched in July
2006 to help purchasers in the public and private sectors evaluate high-performance,
environmentally friendly computer equipment. The EPEAT language incorporated into the BPAs
requires equipment to meet certain environmental specifications. For example, electronic
equipment purchased by the Agency must, to the extent possible: contain reduced hazardous
substances; bear the ENERGY STAR label; contain post-consumer recycled plastic or
renewable/biobased materials; be designed to facilitate end-of-life recycling; and be shipped with
documentation that educates the user about the unit's power management settings. Use of the
BPA will be mandatory for all EPA purchasers, which will help to ensure increased
environmental performance in all of EPA's electronics purchases.
32
-------
FY 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2/20/2008
For Earth Day 2007, EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., hosted recycling collections for
employees' home electronics. Nearly 200 employees donated more than seven pallets of
computers, televisions, stereos, printers, and other equipment. OARM issued a challenge to all
10 regions to meet or exceed (on a per employee basis) the amount that Headquarters employees
collected. Most regions participated in the recycling challenge, and several collected even more
per employee than Headquarters. The Region 8 office won the challenge, with more than 700
employees recycling more than 10,000 pounds of electronics. In total, EPA employees across the
country brought in more than 45,000 pounds of personal electronic equipment for recycling.
33
-------
Appendix A:
FY 2007 Data Report
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report
20 February 2008
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency FY 2007 Energy Management Performance Summary
Goal Performance
Energy Management Requirement
Reduction in energy intensity in facilities subject
to the EPACT and E.O. 13423 goals
FY 2003 Btu/GSF
359,020
FY 2007 Btu/GSF
129,841
Percent Change
2003 - 2007
-63.8%
FY 2007 Goal
Target
-6.0%
Renewable Energy Requirement
Eligible renewable electricity use as a
percentage of total electricity use
Renewable
Electricity Use
(MWH)
200,260.5
Total Electricity
Use
(MWH)
130,422.6
Percentage
153.5%
FY 2007 Goal
Target
3.0%
Water Intensity Reduction Goal
Reduction in potable water consumption
intensity
FY 2007
Gallon/GSF
45.2
FY 2007 Goal
Target
NA
Base Year
Baseline
Status
Final
Metering of Electricity Use
Standard Electricity Meters in FY 2007
Advanced Electricity Meters in FY 2007
Percentage of agency metering plan milestones
met in FY 2007:
Cumulative #
of Buildings
Metered
33
Reporting Begins
FY 2008
100%
Cumulative % of
Electricity
Metered
100.0%
Reporting Begins
FY 2008
FY 201 2 Goal
Target
100%
Maximum Extent
Practicable
Federal Building
Energy Efficiency Standards
Percent of new building designs started in
FY 2007 that are 30 percent more energy
efficient than relevant code, where life-cycle
cost effective:
Percent of
New Building
Designs
N/A
FY 2007 Goal
Target
100%
Investments in Energy and Water Management
Sources of Investment
Direct obligations for facility energy efficiency
improvements
Investment value of ESPC Task/Delivery
Orders awarded in fiscal year
Investment value of UESC Task/Delivery
Orders awarded in fiscal year
Total
Investment Value
(Thou. $)
$5,654.2
$0.0
$0.0
$5,654.2
Anticipated
Annual Savings
(Million Btu)
38,379.6
0.0
0.0
38,379.6
Total investment as a percentage of total facilty
energy costs
Financed (ESPC/UESC) investment as a
percentage of total facilty energy costs*
Percentage
28.5%
0.0%
* In response to the August 3, 2007 memorandum issued by the Council on Environmental Quality concerning the use of
energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) and utility energy savings contracts (UESCs), EPA submitted a response
outlining its commitment to the investment and implementation of these alternative financing mechanisms. While EPA did
not designate any FY 2007 funds for the implementation of any ESPCs/UESCs, the Agency identified two potential ESPC
opportunities that could lead to significant energy savings. During FY 2007, EPA conducted feasibility studies and is
currently in the initial proposal phase of developing two major ESPC projects on its largest energy-consuming campus in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Towards the end of FY 2007, EPA also began researching options for an initial
proposal for an ESPC at its Mid-Continent Ecology Division Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota.
-------
C "
o> E
Olto
rf c
**• o
c o
.21
n
Q. Q
75 i1
•£1
o> =
E5
C 2
O o>
.h ^
> "-
LJJ |
-s
3 «
c
o
^
u
D
^
to
c
0
o
S
cu
z
•D
CU
tu
a
E
o
o
c
.51
a
c
.0
IS
E
|
t3
^
a.
c
0
1
to
o
o
CU
z
0 < „
^ 5 ^ o
c O < H >
0 g* ^ o> .9!
"° "c -*- "2 "o
I/) 0 ^5 CD CD
£ 0 <. -0
B 2L| 1
is
0 ^ "0 ^
"CD jr; Q- n~
Q Tn E t-
5°
E OT 1 o o
^o LiJ s_ "0 g1
o UJ o a> ,0) *b
^ < o c — .>
t5 a: CN | w -5
CD I ' ^ ^ 0
_a> W "*"! .E CD U=
CD ^ CD CD "^
-g W -a E o
c ^ ^ P 0
— c 0 'o
ro IE it
« £ °
||| |
"0 — ^ en
-° LU 4 0
f I ? 'S
0 ~5 CD <"
o < -a E
Q^ W CD 0
i» =
a |
CO
C -*J
.Q JS
ro CO
o ^
O ^1
—
0
E
ro
^
en
T3
CD
Q
0
'o1
D_
O
O
z
o
CO
CD
b
— CD
CO r~
CD T3 i=
it; ^ ~o
=5 ^ J2
ro a. co
"- E S
of its owned
he agency coi
cause EPA in
>, *- CD
C CD -Q
C" — LO
§§^
c • ^
D) (/) J2
'CO CD CO
CD = r-
"° 1 E
^ .2 2
ro "- •=
^3 T3 *-
•^ CD Q.
is|
il-
< -D :£"
& 11
l^ o "7
8|l
^.-§K
CD CO 0
CM CD 0
i- T3 CM
o — ~>-
E c ^
C 1—
CD C
o "o ^
-^ *— —
mper on h
scilities wh
C, Annex
Chris Tre
sporting fc
i AWBER
| «!
a °- 2
1-0
.2 0 *--
co -s co
•— CO CD
7^ CD 1=
°*s
CD Q-
O C T3
E o ?>
CO o C
T3 ° 5
•5 co 0
™ 0 CO
0 £ =
^ m o
CD .2< CD
Q. T3 C
CO C O
||o
.^ < c
ro „, .°
1 S o
JS- g
£ fe 1
LJJ 0 0
* CM 0
— T3
>* .C CD
^ ° ° S
? - §--§
E t5 2? CD
| co „ u.
8 |^l
*= :§ CM »-
= t3 -^- O
O 'S CO m
•S T3
= CO = C
3 3 3 CO
-Q co o „
CD CD
T3 t3 X rn
CD C LJJ -a
CO CO ^^ ^
jjj CD J2 CD
— S T3 T3
< CO CD C
W E ~ <°
0 | g-c
a, ^ CD u
m CD •~' E
Q- 0) "
§§•% I5
CM J C CO
>- ^ S 2
C Q. CD °
•- S ^3 CD
CO CO C O
HP
nil
D) •£- -^ >,
.E 2 c ^
~o CD co -£^
1*1--
> ^ a; cr
CD fi § CD
^ !2 8>E
sS-| S
t O S CD
I!U
slit
•t 3 co "a
° « •§ n
<- CD S ^
^ tO CD
fe o>-g w
o .E co co
0X1 c - CD O m
^ E g E
O CD t c
— "o. E o
o E P >
'C — ^ r-
°-.E (J LJJ
"S co r^
•§-fi}l«
>- D) -C CM >
0 C >- ^
.2 Q. '-- U. C3
£ .co |- -a $
CD LJJ •§ CO B
CO • CO CD C
ro co CD >, CD
c §- 2 "S- 1
D) -QJ CD C .b:
'(7j > ^3 CD >
OJ OJ CD D) C
T3 T3 U. < LJJ
-------
a:
o
a.
UJ
a:
UJ
O
I
LU
r— c
O o
O "o
u«»
Ns
Sit
s
0) •£•
co m
LJJ
ll
P
y?
8
o
^
B
Annual Cost (Thou.
$)
,!
1 1
<1
o
|
E f
en D
g
O
^
LJJ H
O
8.
CO
LO
O
LO
1
p
o
LO
0, 422.6|
co
m
g
^
[Electricity
o
£
^
g
I1
CN
yi
yj
ai
o
"CD
_j
O
I—
6
«
LL
s
°
d
d
LL
o
t
0)
o
yj
p
0)
LL
1
O
o
1—
1
s
d
d
g
I1
p
^
CN
yj
-
"CD
_;
o
—
V
1
o
o
d
o
d
,2
E2
5
p
o
o
d
g
I—
CO
8
o
s
"
i-
a
^
s
T-
o
1
S
^
S
m
E
Q.
O
O
S
^
^
CD
^
p
O
3
S
m
oj
O
CO
£
CO
CN
CD
I
S
CD
CO
LL
CO
i
S
N- N-
1 i
CO CN
II j|
m CL go
$19,859.71
1
-£
°
g
cn "g
^ LL
^ 2^
d ™
m
cu en
'FT <"
i§
ll
X 0 5-
0 So
g I E
a
11
CO S
LJJ
!?
= =
9 ^
w
S
1
O
1
I
1—
"en
o ^
0 w
<
Annual
T sumption
0
O
1
Consump
Units
0) OJ
c [§•
LJJ
O
o
d
o
d
g
<£
5
p
O
yj
o
d
m
>•
.^
8
LJJ
O
o
d
o
d
|
I1
<£
s
p
O
yj
o
d
o
i5
w
LL
O
O
d
o
d
LL
O
t
<
^
p
o
yj
o
d
E
^
O
o
en
S
"ra
1
O
O
d
o
d
§
•I1
<
s
p
o
yj
o
d
o
0)
c
1
Q_
O
O
d
o
d
o
CO
<£
^z.
p
o
yj
o
d
g
CO
8
o
o
o
d
o
d
S
^
§
<£
^z.
p
o
yj
o
d
S
m
E
CO
Q.
O
d
o
d
^
a
s
<
S
p
o
yj
o
d
1
,_
0)
5
O
O
d
o
d
I
Si °
« S
LU Q.
^Z.
^Z.
LL
CO
i
s
< < § £
S 5 =a 1
^ i
^ _ •
O CO S
5 -^
s ° s
^ ^ .2 fco
z z "S "ro "2
co — o
M_ o) -Q
o _c _ro
i! t: o)
C 0 C
dJ Q.^
1 i =1
ii ji i|i y j
ll if i|i ll »
°^=c3 Ifel IS 1
» ° t & = ><
"i, ivj Si ^ en en —
g1 > i 1 .E ° o
LU 1 1 -^ 3 S> ^
o> OT ^i B-0 01 •£ ^
1= f= 'TJ E1 oj £ T: -1
| °f, «| || 5
p
o
yj
1
O
11! i^ ll s
cno'^ OJCT i-'S E°"
COU i- ^ O ^ oj^
^ CN CU " O •*- CDlJ Oco"S."S.cU
"- L? CD .!5 .C .!5
° C « >•>• >•
~ "S g CD CD S CD
i- £ > "*" "*" w "*"
8 S 5 ^ £ » ^
^ gj^ HI- gh-
* 0 E PrT an
-------
Il8
"« 'E ^
m
S
y?
In
O
^
=>
Annual Cost (Thou.
$)
g
^ E
O
g
£2
g
O
8
d
g
&
(D
p
yj
o
(D
C1)
_;
O
1
O
<
CO
T~
s
g
&
0
p
8
O
J)
C1)
o
3
1
in
B
O
o
d
g
&
o
o
d
g
&
z
1
T~
d iri
a
^
§
p p
0 ^
d 8
o
•8
m
OJ
0
| S
O LJ_
8 w
l^ W
0 <
fc «
1 ii
o ;:
-g J, »
2^ w u.
u) l- >
CD (0 -Q
* < -t-'
Si ""1
CD £ OJ
» - K
» •= .1
a 1|
^ a- c
° "8
t «i
° O if
t ° -
^ c 1
8 ro i
•^ c <
£ o -
<" "S. j^
f l>-
en O c
| « |
1 P
Q. ^ O
» Ii
S, "- b
« 4s
0 ^1
i it
* o ^.
g
m
5
O w
0 -
"CD ^
< "
g
g |
< |
O
§
1 =
1 =
|
S
S
d
p
o
o
d
O
LJJ
O
«
m
d
p
o
o
d
O
LJJ
O
5
d
p
o
yj
o
d
a
1
LJJ
d
p
o
o
d
O
LJJ
O
CO
LJJ
d
p
o
o
d
O
LJJ
O
OJ
1
C5
d
p
o
o
d
O
LJJ
O
£
f
d
p
o
yj
o
d
a
S
d
p
o
o
d
O
LJJ
O
Q_
d
p
o
o
d
O
LJJ
O
i
d d
p p
o o
o o
d d
LJJ LJJ
go
-------
S
Q
UJ
Z
1-
LJJ
CC
LJJ
W
a
cc
LJJ
CC
LJJ
X
Q en
Z cn
< ^
1 |
K ™
2l
S ^
UJ 5
si
0 "°
JEWABLE ENERGY GENERATED i
ewable energy is from projects place
LJJ £
"^ >
•^ S
T^- ?-
-a ^ -jg
|l|| >,
IHF
fi -E^
>,
l«
L1J ^
» 0
it
ol
"B
E
Z
^
-Q
O
°
fc
e energy project types in service during
ource
S en
ro -a
S c
c a,
a: i?
cq
£
cq
^
•*
E"
Q.
I
I
^
'C
8
LJJ
0
0
O
o
/from New Wind projects (MWH)
•o
B
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
/from A/ew Biomass projects (MWH
^
•c
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
x
5
/from A/ew Landfill Gas projects (M^
•o
B
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
x
CO
'o1
Q.
I
I
^
'C
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
E"
/from New Hydro/Ocean projects (l\
•o
B
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
E"
Q.
i
I
^
•^
8
LJJ
0
0
O
o
/from Old Wind projects (MWH)
•o
B
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
/from Old Biomass projects (MWH)
^
•c
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
E"
/from Old Landfill Gas projects (MW
•o
B
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
E"
CO
'o1
Q.
i
I
^
'C
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
x
/from Old Hydro/Ocean projects (M
•o
B
8
LJJ
p
p
O
o
_
iasfrom Landfill/Biomass (Million Bti
^
2
-3
z
•*
o
CO
^"
^
CO
N-
co
S
§
il
1
LJJ
E
CO
"§
CO
£
cr
p
p
o
o
S
m
§
il
8
LJJ
^
1
(T
.C
O
CO
£
CO
^
•*
^
g
^
1
Total New Renewable Electi
p
o
o
x
^
•c
8
LJJ
S
c
cr
T3
O
"S
^^
CO CN
N- CO
CO N-
S" S"
s s
.1.1
s s
Non-Electric Renewable Energy
rotal Renewable Energy Generation
1
! j
r
0
III
E -a =)
< o
ol
?
c
&
S
i
m |
cc -2
•icityin FY 2007.
MED BY THE GOVE
new RECs to qualify
8 f -
» ul 3
« o: c
0 ,_ «
•3 OS
2 z •=
d. [u >i
i < £
2 W S?
E K ^
a> K "CD
= Si °
c > >i
*c Z OJ
1 M
! M
=i Z a;
en UJ ^
- o s
1 SI
TJ ?= TJ
Q; LJJ >-
? si
£ m 1
1 s^
III
UJ "E
^ Q; 0
S UJ ™
1 S |
1 Ss
C *"
? 2 1
O
O
p
o
b
c >,
OJ 21
.Q C^
"5 cu
1 «
-C CD
O "1
)(New); 2) where RE
s data report; and 4)
srgygoal. (MWH)
1/1/199J
sre on thi
vable en«
0) -^ OJ
1 -2 1
« -e ^
C Q. CO
T3 ^ O
o C *-•
m projects: 1) pi
mount has not b
ythat is countinc
O CD O
iii
p fe S3
reported here c
/ernment; 3) wh
sn sold to anoth
c Q> "o
CD £ C
-^ ^ >
i » ™
IIS
cr 2^ cr
p
o
p
o
"o
c cu
> ~
11
LU * —
^ ^>
£ "H %
0) b ^
/1/1999(0ld);2)wh.
on this data report; £
:wable energy goal. (
£ £ £
111
-0 en £
a; a; -a
1 « i
S ol
•° = c
s s =
— ^3 =5
_-s 8
e from projects:
the amount has
her agency that
111
C CO" T3
reported here r
le government;
ive not been sol
||s
B 'i ^
| H> |
cu cu c
o: j^ aj
-------
£ S
81!
a
-«—
- LU "S
sil
°g
I €
ill
°g
i -e
S.3 I
roo
= 1
(5
'Si
<
o
s .2 ^
^ O 3
3**
E o _
z> o m
*f c ^ "5
i
if
.g, .| ^ g -a O
£|s=|>«^»
T31= O ^ 3 c c
Iliifilli
MOmg^-HIQ-Q-Q:
=
»JB1
?l
O •'
cc
z'a
•" s
I?
S o
'« 8
111
£? "b
• s 1
II
.E S
-------
z
liu
^ w
o ^
z
E(INCLUDI
.ECTRICIT1
(0
Zl
0
UJ
z ;
UJ
UJ
m
UJ
UJ
cc
—i
< !
"
lation only)
E
,0
b
I
•§
I
E
o
T3
-g
1
O,
„_
RE as a
Percentage
£ «
— -P
"5 ^
H UJ
OJ
^ ID
c p
cr c
5
^
Energy Us
157
o
CO "*
.1
CO
0)
5 CD
m
.1
m
UJ uj W
w w ^
GE OF
nput
3£:
O (/)
ra C^Z)
LU £ '^
o: o tj
OJ ^
Q. LU
>$
LL- ^ 5
H UJ
» 1
^3 — ' -— -
1 1 i.
o: i^
LU
^
LU
cr
i of Eligible
omponent:
O
LO
co
CM:
0
co
d
0
•§
ligible RE"
LU
CN
0
O
-— -
hout Bonu:
ew RE (wit
~z.
CO O
T3
Jj
c
b
"CD LU
oj ^
T3 T3
£o
» ^
^ .a
0 ^
CO LU
« i
If!
"1
8"cS
cu
III
st (Thou.
o ^
0 "*
§
<
g|
^ E (!)
O ^
— '
i
%
CM!
l§
co
N-
p
CO
^
tj
0^
1
1
11
C !_
T3 .£
1
s
s.
^
0
1
i t±
.1 1
^ o
£ E
C "ci)
1 1
8 i
i £
•a "£
of reports
cy water
0) ^
^>-
2 0)
-------
3 T3 «f CD
! -5 S. -M
I ° m S
(0
z
o
F
O
m
o
o
ECT AGEN
a:
5
1
,
'
a
g
S
_
1
1—
S
.1
ii
p
N-
CN
CD
0) ra
^ ^
>• C
= ~-
J5 "£
igations for
improveme
'veys/audit;
Direct obi
efficiency
facility sui
Lri
yj
CO
(D
5
0)
CO
T3
"S
;g
ro
a
.|
1 annual sa
lations
lEstimatec
[from oblic
ij-
z
UJ
f>j
fsl
g
.c
(number/T
en
'5 S
« g
1 i-
0
o
d
>
—
CD
jj
Amount
Orders £
p
o
T3
•a
CD
'f ESPCs
tending.
;t savings o
baseline sf
•a "o
CD -^
IS
2 "S
"5 |
0 .E
p
o
ll
= i
|l|
1 1 K
of ESPCs i
/ments for c
performani
1 ?!
ntract award \
m of contract*
id other negot
H " i 1
p
o
S
"^
1
1 ESPC con
o
yments made
Q.
a -1 » K
Si = = c £
S « c S.Q
>, -2 .21 E .E
21 « ™ S £•
a; E S ^ o
"5 ra S E o
co — ^ -Q
« ~ 8 ° g
^ ° "S a! •-
21 g £ oj g
I ! s £ >.
S E = » o
||||8
f t |i 1
°1 CL ° i
S c fS o 0
Hits
g « « 0 S
> •— Q. (J) "S
m » o UJ o
° ° -5 •§• [3
l|l!j
Illfl
"0 ~ < £ Q.
5> 0) OJ T3 —
S 1 r 1 1
1 o CO | ra
|j ^ ^ ^ ,0
i«S|?
-------
UJ
JTILITY ENERG
3
yj
g
1
|
'5 ffi
1 S
|i
**•
0
o
d
.
£• og en
.> CD >
6 "co S
erof UESCTasI
s awarded in fisc
il energy (MMBT
E % i
^ CD ra
p
yj
„,
T3
CD
>
Q
~%
1—
O
CO
LJJ
:ment value of Ul
led in fiscal year.
S co
p
yj
1
I
1
H
CO
LJJ
Z)
T3 ^j
•a >•
—
??
nt privately finan
s awarded in fisc
l-s
< CD
p
yj
_
1
^
"E
di
O ^
CO CD
LJJ Q.
"5 c
Si ^
lative cost savin;
elative to the ba;
1 1
p
yj
en a;
c "§
T3 "^
| I 1?
cn >• o
W a; aj
=> s •S
a> i_ aj
"ra t; ^
contract award v
sum of payment;
iated performanc
1 li1
p
yj
g
lt~
1
S
g
o
LJJ
^)
=
0
payments made
1 1
U-
•| > 'it, £
s >S »
|«||
||| |
1 1 ° d
c 2 LJJ "O
«• s i*-' 5
o "° g j_
co Q. ri B
LJJ LJJ £ 2
£ 1 ,| *
f »°|
o E ~ 'c
E" s >"! £
a; D) c en ;=
Q. .E 53 a; S
Pill
en o> c Q. "-1
>, -^ .5> E .E
0) -co « co -^
|J|i>f
•5 "® £ 'E o
0) en -a en co
|| 8 | 5
°> g ^ « :s
'1 is ^ £ ">,
S £ 1 «> j?
° 1 1 21 «
lloi|
fllti
| > 1 ri !
> — Q. CO CD
LJJ ^ 0 LJJ Q
| 1 = o ra
f 1 ='l 8
J3 U) 0) "OJ O"
» 01 « 1 °"
1 1 ^ •s 1
S 0 ? S m
g Q.O 8 c m
c g Q. Q. O |Jj
£ ^ QJ ° "Q. 13
ills!
ri E ° | "§
^ Q- ^ >• ^
< LJJ £ •£ CD
jlllf
fill! 3
•B
^
<
3
i
T3
co
1
° II fl«)
s >_\/L
> 1 l\\\"
pi|
llif
- = 1 I
p1^
1 1
'S «|8|8
p
3^
co co
Cumulative #
of Buildings
Metered
T3
OJ
>- 0 2*
LJ_ 0 Q
""§
CN
1
s
£
8
0
o
fc
1
c
S""
_
E
:y metering plar
ntage of ageni
^
Q.
"5 ™ ,n
>- "° c
p-s1
5 ^Q
Z«Q
CO
Q
CC
3
Z
s
>-
o
g
o
u.
LL.
Ul
>-
LDING ENERG
:EDERAL BUI
3
0
o
o
CN
LL
esigns started ii
T3
.a
^
•8
0
o
£ t
OJ OJ
§1
>- "c
~|
t =
ling designs sta
srgy efficient th£
nt of new builc
•cent more em
ve:
OJ OJ =
Q- co "a;
> °
•5 "1 ^ § E
f 1 1 1 1
"aj - £ >
™| r S. »
^f i«l
.55 aj 5J -S- a;
c o
^ < E to to
5" 6 -a "to a.
*< Q-; OJ 1) £
a> m « ^1 en
Sm S g 1
Pgll
« S § i 1
s « J! e 2
,2 = c
•=? I?-15
llflfl
5 £ U en ^ £
i « 1 1 S 1
•"-§<; E ° i^
0 •- OJ .i "c £
en t- ^3 >• S "O
TJ °> £ 2 = S u
1J .E "" LJJ CQ j^ Z
^ a; ^ "J to S 3
&||||| .?
„!
1
H
R
I
E
er of personne
&
E
~z.
-------
-------
-,.
--T-
'O
~V,
Appendix B:
Project-Specific Calculations for
Source Energy Reductions
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report
14 December 2007
-------
-------
Appendix B: Calculations for Project-Specific Source Energy Reductions
Project 1: Replacement of aging heat pumps with new, energy-efficient, gas-fired boilers
Oregon Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch Laboratory, Newport, OR
Project completed in FY06
Base Care (without Project)
Annual Source Energy Used
Annual Site energy Used
25,8
7,44
59 MMBtu
3 MMBtu
With Project
Annual Source Energy Used
17,7
Annual Site energy Used After Project 1 3,2
38 MMBtu
74 MMBtu
Annual Source Energy Saved After Project |8,071 |MMBtu
Annual Site Energy Increase After Project |5,829 |MMBtu
502(e) Adjustment to Annual Site Energy, per DOE guidance |5,747 |MMBtu
Annual electricity displaced as a
result of the project: |681,120 |kWh
Project 2: Installation of a natural gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) unit for electricity and hot watei
Region 9 Laboratory, Richmond CA
Project completed in FY06
Base Care (without Project)
Annual Source Energy Used
Annual Site energy Used
21,7
14,7
D7 MMBtu
39 MMBtu
With Project
Annual Source Energy Used
15,5
Annual Site energy Used After Project 1 7,6
30 MMBtu
35 MMBtu
Annual Source Energy Saved After Project |6,147 |MMBtu
Annual Site Energy Increase After Project |2,866 |MMBtu
502(e) Adjustment to Annual Site Energy, per DOE guidance |4,377 |MMBtu
Annual electricity displaced as a
result of the project: 518,
727 kWh
1 of 1
-------
-------
-,.
--T-
'O
~V,
Appendix C:
Summary of Adjustments to FY 2003-06
Energy Consumption Data for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
RTP, North Carolina, Campus
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report
14 December 2007
-------
-------
EPA 's Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report, Appendix C
BACKGROUND
To meet the energy and water reduction requirements included in Executive Order (E.O.) 13423,
Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for reporting energy and water consumption for 34 of its
nationwide facilities to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on an annual basis. Of these "reporting" facilities, EPA's Research Triangle Park (RTP), North
Carolina, campus accounts for nearly 47 percent of EPA's reported FY 2007 energy consumption. Table
1 shows that, in fiscal year (FY) 2007, EPA's RTP facilities accounted for the following percentages of
Agency wide reported energy consumption:
Table 1: RTP Facilities' Percentage of Agencywide Energy Consumption
RTP Facility
New Main
Human Studies
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory (NHEERL)
National Computer Center (NCC)
Incinerator/Waste Handling
Page Road
First Environments Early Learning Center
(Childcare)
Burden/Jenkins
Percent of FY 2007 Agencywide Reportable
Energy Consumption
29.8%
8.1%
4.4%
3.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.03%
Total 46.5
EPA maintains a comprehensive energy and water reporting framework to effectively manage the
Agency's energy and water consumption and meet its annual reporting requirements. Using this
framework, EPA collects and verifies quarterly energy and water consumption and cost data, as well as
corresponding utility invoices and fuel logs from all reporting facilities to ensure that all compiled and
reported data is of the highest possible quality. To meaningfully evaluate the Agency's energy and water
performance and progress in meeting federally mandated energy and water reduction requirements, it is
especially important that EPA have accurate and reliable baseline data (FY 2003 for energy reductions
and FY 2007 for water reductions).
Two EPA facilities on the RTP campus—the New Main building and the National Computer
Center (NCC)—share a central utility plant (CUP) with the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS). New Main and NCC both receive direct electricity and chilled water from the CUP,
and the New Main facility also receives high-temperature hot water from the CUP (see Figure 1 on the
following page). When EPA first occupied New Main and NCC in fiscal years (FY) 2002-03, EPA was
unable to accurately measure its portion of chilled and high-temperature hot water energy from the CUP
as a result of the inadequate energy metering system delivered by the construction contractor. As a result,
EPA's reported values of British thermal units (Btu) for chilled water and high-temperature hot water
from the shared CUP (which EPA has cumulatively reported in the "other" energy type category in FY
2003-06 Energy Management Data Reports) have historically been based on engineering estimates.
-------
EPA 's Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report, Appendix C
Figure 1: Line Diagram of Energy Flow From CUP to New Main and NCC
In December 2005, EPA completed the installation of a new, Web-based advanced metering
system at New Main and NCC in an effort to improve the quality of reported energy data and enhance
overall energy management. Instead of immediately transitioning to the new advanced metering data for
reporting purposes, EPA decided to take a phased approach in order to ensure the integrity of the new
data stream and to determine the most appropriate method for normalizing historical energy data
previously reported using engineering estimates. As a result, at the outset of FY 2006 EPA's Sustainable
Facilities Practices Branch (SFPB) and the RTP Energy Team agreed to continue to report energy
consumption for New Main and NCC using the engineering estimates used since FY 2003 until the new
advanced metering data was online for a full year. As part of its phased approach, EPA initiated a
comprehensive analysis and adjustment of historically reported FY 2003-06 energy consumption data for
the New Main and NCC facilities on the RTP campus. Following is a time line of recent events leading
up to this analysis:
• 2002 -EPA occupied NCC.
• 2002-03 - EPA occupied New Main facility.
-------
EPA 's Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report, Appendix C
* Beginning of FY 2006 - Energy reporting responsibilities within RTF Energy Team changed
hands.
• 4th Quarter, FY 2006 - RTF Energy Team unexpectedly reported a 10 percent increase in energy
consumption at New Main compared to 4th Quarter FY 2005, after three consecutive quarters of
reported energy savings.
• November 2006 - After closer review of 4th Quarter data, SFPB discovered that metered hot
water Btu consumption at New Main was alarmingly erratic, marked by inexplicable up and
down swings. SFPB immediately funded a consulting engineer to work with the RTF Energy
Team to examine the hot water issue in more detail and analyze their energy reporting process
during FY 2003-06.
• December 2006 - SFPB formally kicked-off the RTF Historical Data Analysis project.
• 1st Quarter, FY2007 - Following the reported 10 percent energy increase for New Main in 4th
Quarter FY 2006, the RTF Energy Team reported a 40 percent energy decrease for New Main in
1st Quarter FY 2007, reinforcing the need for an examination of previously reported energy
consumption data.
APPROACH TO HISTORICAL DATA ADJUSTMENT
After a thorough, independent review of RTF's historically reported energy data, SFPB's contractors
determined that EPA used numerous, inconsistent methodologies to report energy consumption data for
New Main and NCC throughout the FY 2003-06 period. SFPB decided to implement the following
phased approach for properly adjusting historic FY 2003-06 energy consumption data to more accurately
assess the energy performance of New Main and NCC, and EPA's Agencywide energy performance
relative to the mandated FY 2003 baseline.
Phase I Adjustment - June 2007
"Synchronize" historical energy consumption data using a single, consistent methodology for
each reported commodity during FY 2003-06 period. Submit revised Agencywide FY 2003
baseline energy intensity data to DOE/OMB with EPA's FY 2007 Annual Report.
Phase II Adjustment - Fall 2008
Normalize all "synchronized" FY 2003-06 data using one full year of new advanced metering
data. Submit subsequent revised Agencywide FY 2003 baseline energy intensity data to
DOE/OMB with EPA's FY 2008 Annual Report.
-------
EPA 's Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report, Appendix C
RESULTS OF PHASE I ADJUSTMENT
The Phase I "synchronization" of RTF's historic FY 2003-06 energy consumption data has resulted in the
following, rather significant changes to EPA's reported energy performance in FY 2006 compared to the
FY 2003 baseline:
Table 2: FY 2006 Energy Performance at RTF Facilities Compared to FY 2003
Based on Pre- and Post-Synchronized Energy Consumption Data
Facility/Quantity
New Main - Total energy consumption
NCC - Total energy consumption
RTP (All facilities) - Total energy
consumption
Agencywide - Energy intensity
As Originally Reported
+0.30%
-14.20%
+1.87%
-1.85%
After Phase I Adjustment
-18.43%
-5.08%
-11.02%
-8.32%
For more detail on EPA's adjusted Agencywide energy consumption data for FY 2003-06, see Tables 3-5
on the next page, as well as EPA's revised FY 2003 energy intensity baseline (attached separately as
Appendix F).
-------
Table 3: Old Methodology
New Main
BASELINE YEAR
FY2003
Btu
428,467,919,834
FY2004
Btu
479,176,617,593
FY2005
Btu
445,956,982,643
FY2006
Btu
Percent Difference
(FY 2006 vs. Baseline)
429,772,041,428
NCC
53,868,317,524
48,352,830,650
46,473,888,617
46,220,885,475
-14.20%
Incinerator/Waste Handling
0
0
0
0
N/A
RTF (Total)
621,569,639,456
678,206,349,841
666,069,708,763
633,173,188,131
1.87%
Agencywide
1,264,391,288,457
1,311,260,339,975
1,310,335,804,301
1,252,499,466,455
-0.94%
Table 4: Synchronized Methodology
New Main
BASELINE YEAR
FY2003
Btu
i,157,192,344
FY2004
Btu
488,319,401,713
FY2005
Btu
477,337,033,759
FY2006
Btu
Percent Difference
(FY 2006 vs. Baseline)
381,892,609,901
NCC
51,898,961,519
49,660,014,935
49,190,335,320
49,261,393,817
-5.08%
Incinerator/Waste Handling
7,897,377,043
7,993,370,150
4,416,600,927
5,315,372,674
-32.69%
RTF (Total)
667,186,933,005
696,649,688,397
704,582,807,510
593,649,637,621
-11.02%
Agencywide
1,310,008,582,005
1,329,703,678,530
1,346,902,020,051
1,212,109,498,599
-7.47%
Table 5: EPA's Progress Against EPAct and E.O. 13423 Energy Reduction Goals
EPAct Requirement
BASELINE YEAR
FY2003
Btu/GSF
FY2004
Btu/GSF
FY2005
Btu/GSF
FY2006
Btu/GSF
Percent Difference
(FY 2006 vs. Baseline)
-2.00%
E.O. 13423 Requirement
-3.00%
Agencywide GSF
3,648,847
3,654,427
3,658,680
3,682,608
Agencywide Btu/GSF - Old
Methodology
346,518
358,814
358,144
340,112
-1.85%
Agencywide Btu/GSF - Old
(Synchronized) Methodology
359,020
363,861
368,139
329,144
-8.32%
-------
EPA 's Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report, Appendix C
PRIMARY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
As Figure 2 further illustrates, the Phase I "synchronization" resulted in significantly improved FY 2006
energy performance for the RTP facilities and for EPA on an Agencywide basis, compared to the FY
2003 baseline.
Figure 2:
Agencywide Energy Intensity (FY 2003-06)
EPA's Agencywide Energy Intensity (FY 2003-06)
(Originally Reported Data vs. Phase 1 Adjusted Data)
>inn nnn
u_
\^} •ion nnn
_•_» i7n nnn
^ 360,000
^>
r1""1 7i\n nnn
(/) J3U»UUU
0 340,000
^~ oon nnn
"^s ion nnn
E?
TT i-in nnn
. inn nnn
/— Increased FY2003 baseline
/ __•
'. • ; — V
*" ^^^*^
\;j
/
/
Decreased FY 2006 energy consumption — '
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006
(BASE LINE YEAR)
-*- Originally Reported Data -"-Phase 1 Adjusted Data
There are three primary factors that contributed to these significant changes, which can be summarized as
follows:
Increased FY 2003 Baseline Energy Consumption
1. EPA incorrectly reported FY 2003 fuel oil consumption for New Main due to missing
consumption data from the CUP operator.
2. EPA significantly under-reported FY 2003 electricity consumption for New Main.
Decreased Year-End FY 2006 Energy Consumption
3. EPA significantly over-reported FY 2006 hot water Btu consumption for New Main.
-------
-,.
--T-
'O
~V,
Appendix D:
EPA's Revised FY 2003
Energy Baseline
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report
14 December 2007
-------
-------
CO
UJ
en
o
o
g
o
(D to
Z ~
OL 'o
O ro
Q. fe
UJ to
OL ?
c
g =5
0 =
CM 3
§ 1
>- 'E
O 3
ENERGY POLI
EPACT Goal-S
3
ffi
-D
0 --
0 O
> :=
"0 (5
Q "— '
0
CO
d
0
.c
to
O tn
0 w
"ro
c
c
c
0
Consumpt
ro
c
c
w
'E
Z)
c
o
Consump1
D) 0
CD
to
^~
00
fc
CN
CO
co"
CO
I
5
[Electricity
^.
en
en
CO
»
en
I
"ro
O
o
H
[Fuel Oil
CD
2
CO
r^
•^
g
8
en
d
8
$
^j
u_
0
O
o
H
[Natural Gas
en
o
CO
CO
CO
cri
"ro
O
o
H
| LPG/Propane
o
o
o
d
o
d
1
CO
"ro
o
O
^_
CO
CD
CN
in
CO
ffi
CO
[Purch. Steam
CO
CO
CO
CO
h-i
in
CN
»
CO
CO
ffi
CO
0
o
o
CO
T—
CO
•^
fS
CD"
yj.
J3
0
O
1
^
o
s
en"
CO
LL
CO
^
^
ffi
CO
CO
s
co"
0
)E £>
= 0
O 0
uildings/Fa
> Square Fi
CD 5,
— 0
IEPACT Goa
(Thou. Gr
Facilities
•Q
HI
EPACT Exclud
3
ffi
-D
0 ^
0 O
> :=
"0 (5
Q "— '
0
CO
d
0
to
O tn
0
"ro
c
c
c
0
Consumpt
ro
c
c
{/)
'E
Z)
c
o
Consump
O) 0
*- Q.
O
d
q
o
d
I
5
[Electricity
o
d
q
o
d
"ro
O
d
o
H
[Fuel Oil
o
d
q
o
d
^j
u_
0
O
d
o
H
[Natural Gas
o
d
q
o
d
"ro
O
d
o
H
| LPG/Propane
o
d
q
o
d
1
CO
"ro
o
O
o
d
q
o
d
ffi
CO
[Purch. Steam
o
d
q
o
d
ffi
CO
0
o
d
q
%
0
O
1
^
d
5
Q
=tt
LL
CO
O
ffi
o
d
tf> '~^-
0 0
^ ro
•S co
"o w
X 0
IEPACT E
(Thou. Gr
Q
UJ
m
o
Q
CO
UJ
~
lALL FACII
=
CO
0 O
> :=
"0 (J5
Q "—'
0
CO
d
0
.c
to ^
0 **
"ro
c
c
c
0
"o.
E
(f)
c
o
O
"ro
c
c
(f)
'E
Z)
c
o
Consump
D) 0
"- Q.
CD
LO
00
fe
CN
CO
co"
CO
I
5
[Electricity
•^-
en
en
CO
en
I
"ro
O
d
o
H
[Fuel Oil
CD
2
CO
r^
•^
g
8
en
d
8
£
.,_;
LJ_
o
O
d
o
H
tf)
5
"ro
"ro
en
o
CO
CO
CO
cri
"ro
O
d
o
H
0
c
[LPG/Prop:
o
o
o
d
o
d
1
CO
"ro
o
O
,-
CO
CD
CN
in
CO
ffi
CO
E
ro
0
CO
o
1
CO
CO
CO
CO
h-i
in
CN
»
CO
CO
ffi
CO
0
o
o
CO
CO
•^
fS
CD"
%
0
O
1
^
o
o
en"
in
CO
LL
CO
O
ffi
CO
CO
s
co"
Y>
0
0
0
m ra
1 W
£ u)
o
< 5
d
0
t
UJ
UJ
X
(O
*
a:
O
UJ
LJJ
S
m
o
a:
UJ
z
LJJ
CO
O
o
CM
T3
0
a s
CD ^
0. 0.
Q.
LJJ
a)
Q
CO
LJJ
CC
O
O
LJJ
^
O
o
z
P
a:
o S
n •—
ER 13123 REI
Idings/Facilit
Q =
ct co
O -o
EXECUTIVE
1-1. Standar
3
co
0 -O-
>_ C
0 O
> :=
"0 (J5
Q "~ '
0
CO
d
0
b
to ^
O
"ra
c
c
c
o
'S.
c
0
O
"ro
c
c
^
'E
^
c
o
Consumpti
1 |
Ul *~
o
d
o
d
o
d
I
5
[Electricity
o
d
o
d
o
d
"ro
O
d
o
H
[Fuel Oil
o
d
o
d
o
d
*->
u_
0
O
d
o
H
[Natural Gas
o
d
o
d
o
d
"ro
O
d
o
H
[LPG/Propane
o
d
o
d
o
d
1
CO
"ro
o
O
o
d
o
d
o
d
ffi
CO
[Purch. Steam
o
d
o
d
o
d
ffi
CO
0
o
d
o
d
io
o
O
o
1 —
g
5
Q
Btu/GSF:
o
d
m C"
ildings/Facilitii
s Square Fee
co 2
"E °
ro -j
ll
cilities
re
u_
HI
.2
to
c
_c
O)
c
UJ
b
£
o
•D
re
o
d)
to
boratory, Re
.j
"re
1-2. Industri
3
ffi
0 -O-
>_ C
0 O
> :=
"0 (J5
Q "—'
0
CO
d
0
b
to ^
O
"ro
c
c
c
o
"o.
c
0
O
"ro
c
c
^
'E
Z)
c
o
Consumpti
I |
UJ l~
CD
t£>
1
CN
CO
co"
CO
I
5
[Electricity
^.
$
en
CO
en
I
"ro
O
d
o
H
[Fuel Oil
CD
2
CO
1
CN"
en
d
8
£
*->
u_
0
O
d
o
H
[Natural Gas
en
d
CO
CO
CO
cri
"ro
O
d
o
H
| LPG/Propane
o
d
o
d
o
d
1
CO
"ro
o
O
,_
CO
CD
CN
in
CO
ffi
CO
[Purch. Steam
CO
g
CO
$5,257.8]
CO
CO
ffi
CO
0
o
d
CO
$16,764.8]
io
o
O
o
I —
o
o
en"
in
CO
Btu/GSF:
CO
CO
s
co"
nsive Facilitie:
s Square Fee
S o
•|_5
E? =
00
iS t
to
0)
'o
re
u.
'5.
HI
X
UJ
«?
T-
=
ffi
0 "^*
>_ c
0 O
> :=
"0 (5
Q *~"
0
CO
d
0
b
to ^^
O
"ra
c
c
c
o
'S.
E
c
0
O
"ro
c
c
^
'E
^
c
o
Consumpti
D) 0
*- Q.
Ul H
O
d
o
d
o
d
I
5
[Electricity
o
d
o
d
o
d
"ro
O
d
o
H
[Fuel Oil
o
d
o
d
o
d
+j
u_
0
O
d
o
H
[Natural Gas
o
d
o
d
o
d
"ro
O
d
o
H
| LPG/Propane
o
d
o
d
o
d
1
CO
"ro
o
O
o
d
o
d
o
d
ffi
CO
[Purch. Steam
o
d
o
d
o
d
ffi
CO
0
o
d
o
d
io
o
O
o
1 —
d
>
Q
Btu/GSF:
o
d
t Facilities
s Square Fee
Q. W
E 2
x °
o
-------
-------
-,.
--T-
'O
~V,
Appendix E:
EPA Facility Inventory
For Submittal With EPA's
Energy Management and Conservation Program
FY 2007 Annual Report
14 December 2007
-------
-------
APPENDIX E—EPAct Goal Subject Building Inventory1
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma
Site Energy Manager: Frank Price
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Site Energy Manager: Steven Dorer
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
Site Energy Manager: Harvey Holm
Science and Ecosystem Support Division Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
Site Energy Manager: Betty Kinney
New England Regional Laboratory
Chelmsford, Massachusetts
Site Energy Manager: Bob Beane
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
Site Energy Manager: Rich Koch
Test and Evaluation Facility
Cincinnati, Ohio
Site Energy Manager: Rich Koch
Center Hill Test and Evaluation Facility
Cincinnati, Ohio
Site Energy Manager: Rich Koch
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory - Western Ecology
Division
Corvallis, Oregon
Site Energy Manager: Primo Knight
Willamette Research Station
Corvallis, Oregon
Site Energy Manager: Primo Knight
1 EPA is required to report to DOE and OMB the energy use at facilities for which the Agency pays utility
bills. Although EPA occupies other facilities, utility expenses for those facilities are paid by GS A.
-------
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory - Mid-Continent
Ecology Division
Duluth, Minnesota
Site Energy Manager: Rod Booth
Region 2 Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey
Site Energy Manager: Joseph Pernice
Environmental Science Center
Fort Meade, Maryland
Site Energy Manager: Rick Dreisch
Region 8 Laboratory
Golden, Colorado
Site Energy Manager: Sue Datson
Large Lakes Research Station
Grosse He, Michigan
Site Energy Manager: Rod Booth
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory - Gulf Ecology Division
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Site Energy Manager: Clay Peacher
Region 6 Environmental Laboratory
Houston, Texas
Site Energy Manager: L.C. Miner
Kansas City Science and Technology Center
Kansas City, Kansas
Site Energy Manager: John Begley
University of Nevada, Las Vegas - On-Campus EPA Facilities
Las Vegas, Nevada
Site Energy Manager: Fred Childers
Region 10 Laboratory
Manchester, Washington
Site Energy Manager: Linda Donahue
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
Montgomery, Alabama
Site Energy Manager: Mike Clark
-------
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory - Atlantic Ecology
Division
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Site Energy Manager: Russ Ahlgren
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory - Western Ecology
Division
Newport, Oregon
Site Energy Manager: Primo Knight
New Consolidated Facility
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Site Energy Manager: Sam Pagan
New Computer Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Site Energy Manager: Sam Pagan
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Site Energy Manager: Sam Pagan
Human Studies Facility
Research Triangle Park (Chapel Hill), North Carolina
Site Energy Manager: Sam Pagan
New Page Road
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Site Energy Manager: Sam Pagan
Central Regional Laboratory
Richmond, California
Site Energy Manager: Jennifer Mann
-------
-------
-------
------- |