Administering Green Programs in Congress: Issues and Options

Administering Green Programs in Congress:
Issues and Options
October 6, 2008
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
Government and Finance Division

Administering Green Programs in Congress:
Issues and Options
Summary
Programs to create an environmentally conscious workplace have long existed
on Capitol Hill. Congress has been working to reduce consumption and conserve
energy since the 1970s. Traditionally, these programs have been administered by the
Architect of the Capitol. In recent Congresses, the House of Representatives and the
Senate have created separate greening programs. In addition, the Architect of the
Capitol has developed green programs for the Capitol Complex.
In the House of Representatives, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
manages green programs for individual Member offices, committee offices, and
support offices. The administration of building-wide energy conservation programs
is traditionally managed by the Architect of the Capitol. For the House, the CAO and
Architect’s program oversight is conducted by the Committee on House
Administration. In the 110^th Congress, the House of Representatives labeled all
conservation and greening programs as part of the “Green the Capitol” initiative.
In the Senate, green programs in individual Senate offices, committee offices,
and staff support offices are administered by the Architect of the Capitol, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate,
and with oversight provided by the Rules and Administration Committee. In the 110^th
Congress, the Architect of the Capitol’s role in administering facilities-related
programs on behalf of the Senate has remained unchanged.
The Architect of the Capitol also administers greening programs for the Capitol
Complex. These programs include energy usage reduction programs for the House
and Senate office buildings, the Capitol building, and other Capitol complex
facilities; conservation measures for the Senate office buildings, the Capitol building,
and other Capitol complex facilities; and green programs for the Capitol Grounds.
A number of policy options are potentially available to create an inter-chamber
greening program on Capitol Hill. The options include creating a formal House
greening program, creating a “Green the Senate” initiative, establishing an
independent greening commission, creating a Capitol Complex-wide greening
program, and continuing to use ad-hoc programming for greening issues.
For further analysis of general greening programs in Congress, see CRS Report
RL34617, Recycling Programs in Congress: Legislative Development and Architect
of the Capitol Administration, by Jacob R. Straus.

Contents
House of Representatives............................................1
“Green the Capitol” Initiative....................................2
Preliminary Report.........................................2
Final Report..............................................3
Six-Month Progress Report..................................4
“Green the Capitol” Programs................................4
Other Green Initiatives.........................................13
Architect of the Capitol....................................13
Committee Programs......................................14
Legislative Proposals......................................15
Senate ..........................................................16
Administration ...............................................16
Greening Programs...........................................16
Recycling ...............................................16
Lighting Programs........................................17
Water Savings Programs...................................18
Steam Traps.............................................19
Dirksen Green Roof.......................................19
Restaurants ..............................................21
Capitol Complex.................................................21
Administration ...............................................21
Greening Programs...........................................22
Energy Reduction.........................................22
Solar Cells..............................................24
Capitol Power Plant.......................................25
Criticism of Greening Programs .....................................26
Carbon Offsets...............................................27
Capitol Dome................................................29
Options for Program Administration..................................31
Formal House Greening Program................................31
“Green the Senate” Initiative....................................31
Independent Greening Commission...............................32
Capitol Complex-Wide Greening Program.........................32
Continued Case-by-Case Programming............................33
List of Tables
Table 1. Implementation Strategies for Final Report Goals.................3
Table 2. Senate Energy Saving Lighting Projects........................17
Table 3. Costs of Architect-Proposed Roof Replacement Options for Dirksen
Senate Office Building.........................................20
Table 4. Department of Energy Photovaltaic (PV) Evaluation for the
Capitol Complex.............................................24

Administering Green Programs in Congress:
Issues and Options
Programs designed to create an environmentally friendly work environment and
conserve energy have gained a higher profile in the 110^th Congress (2007-2009). In
March 2007, the House of Representatives created the “Green the Capitol” initiative
with the goal of making the House “carbon neutral” by the end of the 110^th
Congress.¹ The “Green the Capitol” initiative expanded energy reduction and
greening programs for the House and encouraged cooperation with efforts in the
Senate and in the Capitol Complex.
In general, the House and the Senate have developed separate greening
programs. In the House, these programs are administered by the Chief Administrative
Officer (CAO) in cooperation with the Architect of the Capitol, and with the
oversight of the Committee on House Administration. In the Senate, greening
programs are administered by the Architect of the Capitol in coordination with the
Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, with the oversight of
the Committee on Rules and Administration. In addition, the Architect of the Capitol
administers greening initiatives for the Capitol Complex, including energy usage
programs for the House and Senate office buildings and the Capitol building.
House of Representatives
Implementation of greening programs in the House is divided between the
Architect of the Capitol and the CAO. In general, the Architect is responsible for
building and facilities maintenance, while the CAO is responsible for the interior of
Member, committee, and support staff offices. In some ways, the relationship
between the Architect and CAO is similar to the relationship between condominium
owners and their building. The owner (the CAO) is responsible for maintenance of
inside spaces including paint, carpet, furniture, and appliances, while the building
(Architect) is responsible for maintenance of walls and general facilities operation
such as heating, cooling, and building repairs. The following sections discuss the role
of the CAO in implementing the “Green the Capitol” initiative and the role of the
Architect in other greening projects.

¹ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Executive
Summary of Green the Capitol Initiative Preliminary Report, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., p. 4.
[http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/GTCsummary.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008. (Hereafter, Green
the Capitol Preliminary Report Executive Summary.)

“Green the Capitol” Initiative
In March 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the
then chair of the Committee on House Administration, the late Juanita Millender-
McDonald, asked CAO Daniel Beard and his Senate counterparts to “undertake a
‘Green the Capitol’ initiative to ensure that the House institutes the most up-to-date
industry and government standards for green building and green operating
procedures.”² The letter further asked the CAO to provide a preliminary report by
April 30, 2007 and a final report, with recommendations, by June 30, 2007.
As a result of the March 2007 letter, the CAO conducted a study to understand
“House operating procedures with respect to energy conservation, sustainability and
related matters.”³ The results of the study were presented to the House in two
reports. The preliminary report was issued on April 19, 2007, and the final report was
issued on June 21, 2007.
Preliminary Report. Using figures from the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the CAO estimated
that the House was responsible for 91,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions,⁴
equivalent to the emissions of 17,200 cars, in FY2006. Based on these numbers, the
preliminary report included six recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the House. These six preliminary recommendations were

1.operate the House in a carbon neutral manner;

2.shift to 100 percent renewable electric power;

3.aggressively improve energy efficiency;

4.adopt sustainable business practices;

5.maintain leadership on sustainability issues; and

6.insure carbon neutral operations with offsets.

The preliminary report also included broad options for implementing the six⁵

recommendations.
² U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, “House Democrats Urge
Greening of Capitol Complex,” press release, Mar. 2, 2007,
[http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0082], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
³ Green the Capitol Preliminary Report Executive Summary, p. 3.
⁴ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Preliminary
Report Green the Capitol Initiative, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess.
[http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/GTCreport.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008, p. 4.
⁵ Ibid., pp. 19-26.

Final Report. In the final report, the CAO created three goals for the “Green
the Capitol” initiative based on the six initial recommendations. These three goals are
^!operate the House in a carbon-neutral manner by the end of the 110^th
Congress;
^!reduce the House’s carbon footprint by cutting energy consumption
by 50 percent in 10 years; and
^!make House operations a model of sustainability.⁶
To achieve these goals, the final report provided a “roadmap to reduc[e] the carbon⁷
footprint of the House while operating in an environmentally sustainable manner.”
While the three goals are broad, the report suggests strategies for implementation.
Table 1 lists the goals and recommended implementation strategies.
Table 1. Implementation Strategies for Final Report Goals
^G^o^a^l^Reco^m^m^e^{nded St}^ra^t^e^g^y
^{Operate th}^{e Hou}^s^{e in}^{a carbon}^-ⁿ^eu^{tral m}^aⁿⁿ^e^r^th^-^P^u^rch^a^s^e^ren^e^w^a^{ble pow}^{er f}^o^{r electricity}
^by^t^h^{e en}^{d of}^t^h^{e 110}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^(Decem^ber^use^;
²⁰⁰⁸⁾^-^Op^er^{ate th}^{e Cap}^ito^{l P}^o^w^e^r^P^l^an^{t w}^ithⁿ^a^tu^r^a^l
^ga^s;^aⁿ^d
^-^P^u^rch^a^s^e^carbon^of^f^s^ets^on^th^{e C}^h^icag^o
^C^lim^{ate Ex}^ch^an^g^e^.
^R^e^du^{ce t}^h^{e carbon}^f^oot^priⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e by}^-^R^e^du^{ce en}^erg^y^con^s^u^m^ptionⁱⁿ^Hou^s^{e of}^fⁱ^ce
^c^u^t^tⁱ^{ng e}ⁿ^e^r^gy^c^o^nsum^p^tⁱ^o^{n b}^y⁵⁰^%ⁱⁿ¹⁰^b^u^ildⁱⁿ^g^s^{; an}^d
^y^ears^-^R^e^du^{ce en}^erg^y^con^s^u^m^ption^{at th}^{e C}^a^pitol
^Pow^e^r^Pl^aⁿ^t^.
^Mak^e^H^o^u^s^{e operat}ⁱ^oⁿ^s^{a m}^odel^of^-^{Direct th}^{e C}^A^{O to ov}^ers^{ee im}^plem^en^tation
^su^stain^a^b^ility^o^f^“^G^r^een^th^{e Cap}^ito^{l I}ⁿ^itiativ^e”;
^-^Dev^e^lo^p^{a Ho}^u^s^{e su}^stain^a^b^ility^p^l^an^;
^-^C^oⁿ^d^u^c^{t leaders}^h^{ip, edu}^cation^,^an^{d ou}^treach^;
^an^d
^-^Dev^e^{lop m}^ech^an^is^m^s^f^o^{r ev}^alu^a^tin^g^s^u^cces^s
^an^{d report}ⁱⁿ^g^prog^res^s^.
^Source:^U^.^S.^Co^ngr^e^ss,^H^o^use^Chi^e^{f A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^v^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^r^,^Green^th^{e Ca}^p^ito^{l I}ⁿ^itia^{tive Fin}^a^l^th^st
^Repor^t^{, 110}^C^oⁿ^g^{., 1}^s^e^s^s^.^[h^ttp://s^peak^er.g^ov^/pdf^/GT^C^I621f^u^ll2.pdf^{], acces}^s^e^{d J}^u^ly^10,^{2008, pp.}
^2-^14.

⁶ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Green the
Capitol Initiative Final Report Executive Summary, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess.
[http://speaker.gov/pdf/GTCI621sum2.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008, p. iv.
⁷ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Green the
Capitol Initiative Final Report, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess.
[http://speaker.gov/pdf/GTCI621full2.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008, p. 2.

The CAO has since created a greening agenda for the House of Representatives
to reduce energy consumption and make the House “carbon neutral”⁸ by the end of
the 110^th Congress. In announcing the release of the final report, Speaker of the
House Pelosi summarized the initiative and its importance: “This plan is an essential
first step, because it not only will make the House a better place to work and live
near, but it will also make our institution a model — one that cares about what kind
of planet our children will inherit.”⁹
Six-Month Progress Report. In December 2007, six months after the
“Green the Capitol” initiative began, the CAO issued a report on the progress made
in meeting the initiative’s goals. In his comments introducing the report, the CAO
stated: “In just six months we have made significant inroads toward our goal of
carbon neutrality and vastly improved energy efficiency. Based on our success thus
far, and with the help of our committed and environmentally-conscious employees,¹⁰
I am confident that goal is well within our grasp.”
The six-month progress report also contained a list of completed and ongoing
projects. These projects, described in more detail below, included initiating a study
to relight the Capitol Dome, purchasing carbon credits on the Chicago Climate
Exchange, holding a “Green the Capitol Expo” to highlight alternative forms of
transportation, initiating a car sharing program, purchasing renewable electricity and
additional natural gas for the Capitol Power Plant, serving “fair trade” coffee in
House food service venues, composting food and material waste from the cafeteria,
and installing compact florescent light bulbs throughout the House.¹¹
“Green the Capitol” Programs. “Green the Capitol” programs seek to
reduce energy consumption to meet the House goal of carbon neutrality by the end
of the 110^th Congress. The details of many of these projects are contained in the
preliminary report, final report, and the six month progress report, which are noted
earlier in this CRS report. Other information can be found in testimony given by the
CAO at committee hearings, in “Green the Capitol” newsletters, and press releases.

⁸ Webster’s Dictionary defines “carbon neutral” as “emitting no carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere; also, employing a technique to absorb carbon dioxide so it is not emitted.” See,
Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English, Preview Edition,
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon neutral], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
Alternatively, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term “carbon neutral” as “making
no net release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, especially through offsetting emissions
by planting trees.” See, Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 1 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007), p. 346.
⁹ U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, “Pelosi: As Part of ‘Green the
Capitol’ Initiative, House to Reduce Energy Consumption by 50 Percent in Just 10 Years,”
press release, June 21, 2007 [http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0222], accessed
Sept. 29, 2008.
¹⁰ U.S. Congress, House Chief Administrative Officer, Green the Capitol: Six Months of
Progress, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., Dec. 2007 [http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/
progress-booklet-2007dec.pdf], accessed, Sept. 29, 2008, p. 1. (Hereafter, Green the Capitol
Six-Month Progress Report).
¹¹ Ibid, pp. 2-7.

Relighting of the Capitol Dome. On October 19, 2007, the CAO issued a
Request for Proposal (RFP)¹² to design a lighting scheme for the Capitol Building¹³
Dome using “more energy efficient lighting.” The RFP specified that the “work
will include the lighting of the interior and exterior of the Capitol Dome. The design
shall describe the role of the lighting in enhancing the exterior and the architecture
of the building at night and shall emphasize methods for incorporating energy saving¹⁴
lighting design and sustainability as part of the overall effort.”
On March 4, 2008, a contract to design a new configuration for the Capitol
Dome was awarded to The Lighting Practice of Philadelphia.¹⁵ The Lighting Practice
contract will cost $671,400 and was chosen from among five proposals ranging in
cost from $521,306 to $1,348,268 and “offered the lowest cost and the most¹⁶
technically acceptable design.” Funds for the lighting design project will be
disbursed from the CAO’s operating budget.¹⁷ A future RFP is to be issued by the
Architect for the implementation of the design.
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs. The House is currently in the process
of changing approximately 30,000 light bulbs from standard incandescent bulbs to
more energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). CFLs use
approximately one-fifth to one-quarter the energy of incandescent light bulbs and can

¹² According to the Federal Acquisition Institute, a request for proposal (RFP) is a
solicitation for offers under negotiation procedures. Federal Acquisition Institute, Glossary
of Acquisition Terms, FAC-97-09, Dec. 1998 [http://www.fai.gov/pdfs/glossary.pdf], p. 92,
accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
¹³ Green the Capitol Six-Month Progress Report, p. 2.
¹⁴ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives,
“Comprehensive Lighting Design for the U.S. Capitol Building Dome,” Solicitation Number
OPR080000004. A synopsis of the request for proposal can be found
[htt ps://www.fbo.gov/spg/House/HOCAO/ HOCAOOP/OPR08000004/listing.html ],
accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
¹⁵ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, “Plans to
Relight Symbol of Democracy Taking Shape,” press release, March 4, 2008
[http://cao.house.gov/press/cao-20080305.shtml], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
¹⁶ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 2 Fiscal Year 2009 Legislative^th^nd
Branch Appropriations Requests, hearing, 110 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008),
pp. 576-577.
¹⁷ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, “Plans to
Relight Symbol of Democracy Taking Shape,” press release, March 4, 2008
[http://cao.house.gov/press/cao-20080305.shtml], accessed Sept. 29, 2008. For press
accounts of the dome lighting project see “Seeing the Light,” The Washington Post, Apr. 2,

2008, p. A8; Jordy Yager, “Who’s Go the Brighter Lights? Capitol Dome vs. Memorials,”

The Hill, Mar. 5, 2008, p. 1, 8; “Editorial: Lightning Round,” The Philadelphia Inquirer,
Apr. 3, 2008, p. A14; and Linda Loyd, “Lighting Practice Caught Off-Guard by Furor,” The
Philadelphia Inquirer, Apr. 4, 2008, p. A1.

last up to 10 times longer than incandescent light bulbs.¹⁸ According to the fact sheet
accompanying the “Green the Capitol” six-month progress report, approximately

7,000 of 30,000 light bulbs had been changed as of December 2007.¹⁹

Low VOC (volatile organic compounds) Carpets. In preparation for the
transition to the 111^th Congress (2009-2011), the CAO issued an RFP for the²⁰
installation of new carpet for Member offices. As part of the installation of new
carpet, the CAO sought a vendor who could offer carpets that contained low levels²¹
of volatile organic compounds, which are often associated with “sick building
syndrome.”²²
Carbon Offsets. A carbon offset is defined as “tradeable carbon-emissions²³
permits.” Carbon offsets can be purchased on market-based exchanges, such as the
Chicago Climate Exchange.²⁴ Carbon offsets are purchased as a way to
counterbalance emissions that are not easily remedied through other programs. For
example, in November 2007, the House purchased $90,500 in carbon credits to offset
the burning of natural gas in the Capitol Power Plant to heat and cool the House
Office Buildings.²⁵ In a press release, Representative Rahm Emanuel summarized the
goal of carbon offsets in the House.

¹⁸ For more information on compact fluorescent light bulbs see CRS Report RS22807,
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs): Issues with Use and Disposal, by Linda Luther.
¹⁹ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Six Months
of Progress: A Report from the Green the Capitol Office, “Checklist,”
[http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/progress-report-2007dec.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
(Hereafter, Six Months of Progress Checklist).
²⁰ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, “Carpet
Installation for the 111^th Transition,” Solicitation Number: OPR08000028. A synopsis of the
proposal can be found at [https://www.fbo.gov/spg/House/HOCAO/HOCAOOP/
OPR08000028/listing.html], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
²¹ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a class of chemicals that are commonly
encountered by people as they go about their daily routines. Exposure to VOCs can occur
from contact with chlorinated water, methane, smoking, paint, dry-cleaning, and gasoline.
For more information about VOCs see David L. Ashley, Michael A. Bonin, Frederick L.
Cardinali, Joan M. McGraw, and Joe V. Wooten, “Measurement of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Human Blood,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 104, Supp. 5 (Oct.

1996), pp. 871-877.

²² Green the Capitol Six-Month Progress Report, p. 5.
²³ Eric C. Bettelheim and Gilonne d’Origny, “Carbon Sinks and Emissions Trading under
the Kyoto Protocol: A Legal Analysis,” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 360, No. 1797 (Aug. 15, 2002), p. 1843. For a
discussion of carbon offsets see CRS Report RL34241, Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Overview
and Assessment, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
²⁴ For more information on the Chicago Climate Exchange and its operations see
[http://www.chicagoclimatex.com], accessed Aug. 13, 2008.
²⁵ U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Statement of Disbursements of the House:
October 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, 110^th Cong., 2^nd sess., Oct. 16, 2007, H.Doc. 110-87
(Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 35.

Under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) and Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer (MD-5), the House will become carbon neutral by
purchasing wind power for electricity used by the House, by substituting the
House’s portion of the use of the Capitol Power Plant natural gas for coal, and
to offset the carbon emitted from burning natural gas, the House will purchase
carbon offsets. After taking into account the other changes made under the Green
the Capitol Initiative, the House is offsetting 30,000 tons of carbon through the
purchase of carbon financial instrument contracts or carbon credits through CCX
[Chicago Climate Exchange], totaling approximately $90,000. Funding for the
purchase of these carbon offsets is available in the Chief Administrative²⁶
Officer’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
For FY2009, the CAO has requested $125,000 for the purchase of carbon
offsets. The CAO testified that he hopes the House will not need to purchase carbon
credits to remain carbon neutral in FY2009. If, however, the purchase of credits is
necessary “then the Chicago Climate Exchange, like the New York Stock Exchange,
is a marketplace where prices fluctuate depending on supply and demand.
Accordingly, in the event that we need to purchase the same amount of carbon credits
in FY2009, as we did in FY2008, we would expect a potential increase in the²⁷
purchase price.”
Natural Gas in the Capitol Power Plant. The House has decided to stop
using coal to generate steam in the power plant. Instead, the House is working to use
only natural gas to generate the steam necessary to operate the heating and cooling
system in the House Office Buildings and in the House portion of the Capitol
building.²⁸ Because the House office buildings do not receive steam separately from
other buildings, the House has directed the Architect to purchase additional natural
gas so that the proportion of steam supplied to the House will no longer be generated
with coal and fuel oil.²⁹
In testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the
CAO stated:
I think it is important to add to this debate, though, that if we switch to 100
percent natural gas, we would certainly have a significantly reduced
environmental footprint and carbon footprint. Right now, the Congress is the
proud owner and operator of a facility that is the second largest point source

²⁶ U.S. Congress, Representative Rahm Emanuel, “Emanuel Announced Greening of the
Capitol: U.S. Congress to Purchase Carbon Offsets from the Chicago Climate Exchange,”
press release, Nov. 5, 2007 [http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il05_emanuel/
capitolgreening.html], accessed, Sept. 29, 2008.
²⁷ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 2 Fiscal Year 2009 Legislative^th^nd
Branch Appropriations Requests, hearing, 110 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008),
p. 552.
²⁸ Six Months of Progress Checklist, p. 2.
²⁹ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic and Other Implications of Switching
from Coal to Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating Units
Nationwide, GAO-08-601R, May 1, 2008.

pollution in the District of Columbia. And so, I think there is a significant³⁰
environmental benefit associated with moving to 100 percent gas.
In a statement on the House floor, Representative Jay Inslee reiterated the
CAO’s statement on the importance of switching to natural gas at the Capitol Power
Plant and suggested that the House could further reduce its emissions.
Switching from coal, first, to natural gas in our power plant, which reduces
carbon dioxide something like 20 to 30 percent. We’re then taking a look at the
possibility of going to a totally renewable fuel of wood pellets [from trees]
grown in New Hampshire and some other places which would go to essentially³¹
zero CO² on a net basis.
In May 2008, the GAO completed a report on the implications of switching
from coal to natural gas at the Capitol Power Plant. The Capitol Power Plant uses a
combination of coal, natural gas, and fuel oil to generate the steam necessary to heat
and cool the Capitol Complex. From 2001 to 2007, “[t]he percentage of energy input
from each fuel has varied from year to year, with an average fuel mix of 43 percent
natural gas, 47 percent coal, and 10 percent fuel oil.”³² Additionally, GAO reported
that to complete the “Green the Capitol” goal of using only natural gas to supply
steam to the House would require a 38% increase in the use of natural gas.
Based on available data and key assumptions about the plant’s operation and
future fuel costs, we estimated that fulfilling the Green the Capitol initiative’s
fuel-switching directive would require the plant to increase its natural gas use by
38 percent relative to its baseline level of fuel consumption between 2001 and
2007. As a portion of the plant’s total fuel mix, natural gas would increase from
about 43 percent of overall energy input to about 60 percent of input. Using
information from the AOC on its fuel expenditures and fuel price projections
from EIA [Energy Information Administration], we estimate that implementing
the fuel-switching directive could range in cost from $1.0 to $1.8 million in fiscal³³
year 2008.
Car Sharing. On November 1, 2007, the House began a car sharing pilot
program with four cars located in Rayburn parking garage. The program is designed
to encourage “Hill staffers to use public transportation to commute to work, and the
car share program for meetings and appointments off the Hill.”³⁴ Partnered with

³⁰ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Administration
Proposals on Climate Change and Energy Independence, hearing, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., May

11 and 16, 2007, H.Hrg. 110-44 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 45.

³¹ Rep. Jay Inslee, “Green the Capitol Initiative,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.

153, no. 177(Nov. 15, 2007), p. H14074.

³² U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic and Other Implications of Switching
from Coal to Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating Units
Nationwide, GAO-08-601R, May 1, 2008, p. 2.
³³ Ibid., p. 6.
³⁴ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, “House Car
Sharing Pilot,” [http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/carshare.shtml], accessed Sept. 29,
(continued...)

Zipcar, the House has a fleet of four hybrid cars, located in the Rayburn garage.³⁵
Zipcars parked in the Rayburn garage are available only for the use of House
Members and staff, but otherwise operate with the same rules and regulations as
other Zipcars.³⁶ House Members and staff can use the Zipcars outside of work hours.
In a speech on the House floor, Representative Earl Blumenhauer discussed the
benefits for a car sharing program.
Car sharing ...is a very successful business around the country. It’s recently on
the GSA schedule. I’m pleased to have a small part in encouraging that to happen
here on Capitol Hill. We now have over 100 employees that have signed up for
it. There are cars that are parked here that people can use before or after hours³⁷
for business or after hours on their own time....
The CAO testified before the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch that 272 individuals had signed up for Zipcars through the
House program, that 38% of registrants were actively making reservations, and that
“[s]ince November 1, 2007, the on-campus vehicles have been driven a total of 290.5
hours or 8.7 percent of available hours. House participants have used off-campus
vehicles for a total of 1736 hours since the inception of the program.”³⁸
Bicycle Programs. On March 21, 2008, the CAO issued an RFP to create
a House bicycle sharing program. In the RFP, the CAO stated that:
The House is interested in acquiring the services of a contractor to provide and
maintain at least 30 bicycles. Additional bicycles may be ordered later depending
on the success of the program and subject to availability of funding. The
contractor will deliver the bicycles fully assembled and ready for use and provide³⁹

ongoing preventative and remedial maintenance.
³⁴ (...continued)

2008.

³⁵ Six Months of Progress Checklist, p. 3.
³⁶ Zipcar, “How does Zipcar work? [http://www.zipcar.com/how/], accessed Aug. 19, 2008.
For additional information on the car-sharing program, see Elizabeth Brotherton, “House
Staff Get Zipcars, Flexcars,” Roll Call, Oct. 29, 2007, posted at
[http://cao.house.gov/press/rollcall-20071029.shtml], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
³⁷ Rep. Earl Blumenhauer, “Green the Capitol Initiative,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 153, no. 177 (Nov. 15, 2007), p. H14073.
³⁸ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 2 Fiscal Year 2009 Legislative^th^nd
Branch Appropriations Requests, hearing, 110 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008),
p. 554.
³⁹ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, “House
Bike Sharing Program,” Solicitation Number: OPR08000038. A synopsis of the proposal
can be found at [https://www.fbo.gov/spg/House/HOCAO/HOCAOOP/OPR08000038/
listing.html], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.

The “Wheels4Wellness” program is free of charge to House staff and employees
who sign up at the House fitness center.⁴⁰ The bike-sharing program is designed to
“allow employees to checkout bicycles from self-service racks in six locations on the
House side of the Capitol.”⁴¹ Bicycles can be checked out from First Call in room
B227 of the Longworth House Office Building or from the CAO’s HR office in room
102 of the Ford House Office Building between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.⁴² Bicycles
are located in lot one behind the Cannon House Office Building, lot four behind the
Rayburn House Office Building, and lot nine across from the Ford House Office
Building.⁴³ The bicycles cannot be kept overnight.⁴⁴
Purchase of Renewable Electricity. During FY2007, the House purchased
renewable energy from Pepco, their energy supplier. On May 11, 2007, Stephen T.
Ayers, acting Architect of the Capitol, testified before the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on climate change and energy independence. As
part of his testimony, Mr. Ayers stated that the Architect has “contracted with GSA
and Pepco for three percent renewable energy in FY2007 and is currently in
discussions with Pepco as we assess the budget implications to increase this
percentage to the maximum percentage that is reasonable.”⁴⁵
Food Service. In 2005, the Architect began a search for a food service vendor⁴⁶
for the Capitol Visitor Center. As part of the search process, the House and the

⁴⁰ Dear-Colleague Letter from Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Thomas Petri, co-
chairs, Congressional Bike Caucus, Aug. 6, 2008. To sign up for the bike-sharing program,
House staff and employees need to bring their staff ID badge, a completed waiver form, and
a completed participation form to the House Gym, located on level G2 of the Rayburn
House Office Building between 11-2 Monday through Friday. Waiver and participation
forms are available on Housenet, the House intranet, [https://housenet.house.gov/portal/
server.pt?open=512&obj ID=372&&Page ID = 36663&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=
true], accessed Aug. 20, 2008, and are required to use the bike-sharing program. Housenet
is available only to House offices.
⁴¹ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives,
“Wheels4Wellness Bike Sharing Pilot Program Rolls Out,”
[http://cao.house.gov/w4w.shtml], accessed July 17, 2008.
⁴² Dear-Colleague Letter from Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Thomas Petri, co-
chairs, Congressional Bike Caucus, Aug. 6, 2008.
⁴³ Dear-Colleague Letter from Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Thomas Petri, co-
chairs, Congressional Bike Caucus, Sept. 5, 2008.
⁴⁴ U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, “Wheels 4 Wellness,” Housenet
[ h t t p s : / / housenet.house.gov/ portal/server. p t ? o p e n = 512&obj ID=372&&PageID=36663&
mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true], accessed Aug. 20, 2008.
⁴⁵ Testimony of Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Regarding the Administrative Responses^th^st
to Climate Change and Energy Independence, hearings, 110 Cong., 1 sess., May 11, 2007
[http://transportation.house.gov/ hearings /T estimony.aspx?TID=1131&News ID=190],
accessed Sept. 29, 2008, p. 4.
⁴⁶ For additional information on the Capitol Visitor Center, see CRS Report RL31121, The
(continued...)

Senate were provided the option of contracting with the Architect’s vendor for House
and Senate food services operations, respectively. In August 2007, the Architect
chose Restaurant Associates of New York City as the official food vendor for the
Capitol Visitor Center. Following the Architect’s decision, the House independently
contracted with Restaurant Associates to provide food service in the Longworth,
Rayburn, and Cannon House Office Buildings, the House wing of the Capitol, and
the Members’ Dining Room.⁴⁷ The contract went into effect on December 17, 2007.
As part of the contract, Restaurant Associates (RA) has agreed to operate the
House cafeteria and restaurants in an environmentally friendly manner. “At the US
House of Representatives, RA is determined to impact both the health and wellness
of our guests, and the quality of our community and the environment.”⁴⁸ RA initiated
the following programs:
^!purchasing organic food, when possible;
^!purchasing local food grown within 150 miles of the Capitol, when
possible;
^!purchasing sustainable seafood;
^!serving food with zero trans-fat;
^!serving fair trade coffee;
^!serving cage free eggs;
^!composting food and biodegradable container waste; and
^!installing white boards to reduce printing of signs.
There has been considerable attention on two of the programs that RA has initiated.
The fair trade coffee program and the composting program have been discussed in
the CAO’s Six-Month Progress Report, on the floor of the House, or during hearings.
Fair Trade Coffee. To ensure that coffee was purchased under “fair market
conditions,” the House has begun to serve “Pura Vida Coffee, which specializes in
organic and bird-friendly, shade-grown beans.”⁴⁹ In a speech on the House floor,
Representative Sam Farr explained the importance of fair trade coffee. “They
[Restaurant Associates] are going to provide all fair trade coffee, which is the coffee
that is paid the best price because you grow it for organic conditions, for taking care

⁴⁶ (...continued)
Capitol Visitor Center: An Overview, by Stephen W. Stathis.
⁴⁷ U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Chief Administrative Officer, “House Cafeteria
to Undergo Major Menu, Operational Changes in December,” press release, Nov. 13, 2007
[http://cao.house.gov/press/cao-20071113.shtml], accessed Feb. 4, 2008. Food service in the
Ford Cafeteria is scheduled to transition from the current vendor, the Skenteris family, to
Restaurant Associates in September 2008. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Chief
Administrative Officer, “CAO Allows Current Ford Cafeteria Vendor to Remain Until
September 2008,” press release, Nov. 16, 2007
[http://cao.house.gov/press/cao-20071116.shtml], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁴⁸ Restaurant Associates, “Sustainability,” House of Representatives Dining Services
Website [http://go.compass-usa.com/house/content/sustainability.asp], accessed Sept. 29,

2008.

⁴⁹ Green the Capitol Six-Month Progress Report, p. 3.

of the employees, paying good wages of doing it environmentally sensitive, and
Starbucks and everyone else is participating in this.”⁵⁰
Composting. The House of Representatives began composting food waste and
biodegradable food containers and utensils in partnership with the House restaurant
food vendor in December 2007.⁵¹ Between December 2007 and April 2008, the
House reduced the volume of materials sent to the landfill by 120 tons.⁵²
In testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming on February 26, 2008, CAO Daniel Beard described the process for
composting of food service waste and its benefits for the reduction of transportation
costs of waste materials.
We send the compostable food service items along with all of the food waste
from the front of the cafeteria and from the kitchens to a pulper. The pulper is
like a giant garbage disposal that breaks down and dewaters the compost
material. This reduces the volume of the compost material by a ratio of 10-1 and
reduces the weight by as much as 4-1. The result is reduced hauling costs and⁵³
reduced tipping fees by 60%-75%.
The House is expanding the composting program to include individual Member
offices. In testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, the CAO talked about the program’s expansion. “The
House has completely revamped its paper recycling program to ensure compostable⁵⁴
food waste is picked up from Member offices.” Bins to collect compostable

⁵⁰ Rep. Sam Farr, “Green the Capitol Initiative,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.

153, no. 177 (Nov. 15, 2007), p. H14077.

⁵¹ For a discussion on composting see, George Tchobanoglous and Frank Kreith, Handbook
of Solid Waste Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), pp. 1.9-1.11.
⁵² U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Green the
Capitol Initiative, Green Team “Newsletter,” vol. 1, 110^th Cong., 2^nd sess. Apr. 7, 2008
[http://cao.house.gov/ greenthecapitol/green-newsletter/greenteam01.shtml], accessed Sept.

29, 2008.

⁵³ Testimony of Chief Administrative Office of the House of Representatives Daniel Beard,
in U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming,^th
Food for Thought: A Primer on the Climate Consequences of Food Choices, 110 Cong.,^nd

2 sess., Feb. 26, 2008, [http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/assets/files/0361.pdf],

accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁵⁴ Testimony of Chief Administrative Office of the House of Representatives Daniel Beard,
in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, A Growing Capitol
Complex and Visitor Center: Needs for Transportation, Security, Greening, Energy, and^th^nd
Maintenance, 110 Cong., 2 sess., Apr. 1, 2008
[http://cao.house.gov/appearances/20080401_transportation.shtml], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.

materials within individual offices are available through the House recycling program
office.⁵⁵
Other Green Initiatives
The House also has greening programs that operate outside of the “Green the
Capitol” initiative. These programs are administered by the Architect of the Capitol
and oversight is provided by the Committee on House Administration, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, and during the 110^th
Congress the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.⁵⁶
Architect of the Capitol. The Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the
facilities and buildings in the Capitol Complex. As part of this role, the Architect is
responsible for the administration of the House recycling program and is generally
responsible for the reduction of energy usage throughout the Capitol Complex.
Recycling. The House recycling program was established by the adoption of
H.Res. 104 in the 101^st Congress (1989-1991).⁵⁷ Created as a voluntary program,
focused on recycling paper, the recycling program has grown to include bottles, cans,
e-waste (i.e., computers, printers, and toner cartridges), and construction materials
(i.e., carpet, concrete, ceiling tiles and scrap metal). In calendar year 2007, the House
recycled approximately 1,400 tons of paper, 21.5 tons of bottles and cans, and 294⁵⁸
tons of e-waste and construction material.
The recycling program operates separately from the “Green the Capitol”
initiative. The “Green the Capitol” initiative, however, has begun recycling materials
not previously recycled by the Architect. These items include the composting of food
waste, corn-based biodegradable forks, spoons, and knives, and sugar cane-based

⁵⁵ For information on how to request a compost bin for an office visit
[http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/recycle/faq.shtml], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁵⁶ Section 4(c) of H.Res. 202, agreed to March 8, 2007, established the Select Committee
on Energy Independence and Global Warming’s jurisdiction. “The select committee shall
not have legislative jurisdiction and shall have no authority to take legislative action on any
bill or resolution. Its sole authority shall be to investigate, study, make findings, and develop
recommendations on policies, strategies, technologies and other innovations, intended to
reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign sources of energy and achieve
substantial and permanent reductions in emissions and other activities that contribute to
climate change and global warming.” The select committee will expire at the end of the^th

110 Congress unless the House agrees to a resolution authorizing its continuance.

⁵⁷ H.Res. 104 (101^st Congress), agreed to by voice vote, Aug. 1, 1989.
⁵⁸ For more information on the House recycling program see CRS Report RL34617,
Recycling Programs in Congress: Legislative Development and Architect of the Capitol
Administration, by Jacob R. Straus.

biodegradable carry out containers from the House restaurants. The personal cell
phones of House staff have also been collected and recycled.⁵⁹
Committee Programs. The Committee on House Administration and the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management have held hearings and
discussions on greening issues in the House. These hearings have concentrated on the
Architect’s energy reduction programs as well as the CAO’s “Greening the Capitol”
initiative. Additionally, the Committee on House Administration has begun to
organize programs, such as a tire inflation workshop, to assist individual staff
members reduce their energy consumption during their commute to work.
Proper Tire Inflation. On July 28, 2008, Representative Vernon Ehlers,
Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, sent a Dear Colleague
letter announcing a program to check staff vehicles for proper tire inflation. In his
letter, Representative Ehlers stated “[t]he Department of Energy estimates that 1.2
billion gallons of fuel were wasted in 2005 as a result of driving on underinflated
tires. With gas prices at an all time high, the simple step of keeping tires inflated will
help ease pain at the pump, as well as reduce carbon emissions, a major threat to the
environment.”⁶⁰ The program took place on July 30, and offered free tire inspections
to participants.
Legislative Proposals. While the Architect administers the majority of
greening programs not officially part of “Greening the Capitol,” other legislative
proposals have also been introduced to create green programs. In the 110^th Congress,
two bills have been introduced that would create green programs. H.R. 6474,
introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren would allow the CAO of the House to
create projects to promote energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption in the
House. H.R. 6171, introduced by Representative Dan Lungren, would create a⁶¹
Congressional commission on energy in the National Capitol Region.
Demonstration Projects. On July 10, 2008, Representative Lofgren and
Representative Zack Wamp introduced H.R. 6474 “[t]o authorize the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives to carry out a series of
demonstration projects to promote the use of innovative technologies in reducing
energy consumption and promoting energy efficiency and cost savings in the House
of Representatives.”⁶² The bill would authorize $5 million for both FY2009 and

⁵⁹ Dear-Colleague Letter from Daniel Beard, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives, Dec. 12, 2007. See also, Elizabeth Brotherton, “Beard Details New
Recycling Efforts,” Roll Call, Feb. 27, 2008
[http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_99/news/22279-1.html], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁶⁰ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, “Under Pressure? Proper Tire
Inflation Save Energy, Money,” Dear Colleague Letter, July 28, 2008.
⁶¹ For more information on Congressional Commissions see CRS Report RS22725,
Congressional Advisory Commissions: An Overview, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
⁶² H.R. 6474 (110^th Congress), ordered reported from the Committee on House
(continued...)

2010 for the CAO to carry out short term demonstration projects that promote
innovative technology to reduce energy consumption and promote energy efficiency
and cost savings in the House.⁶³
During the markup session on July 30, Representative Ehlers proposed three
amendments to the bill. The amendments would have (1) provided the authority to
carry out the demonstration projects to the Architect of the Capitol instead of the
CAO, (2) required the CAO to consult with the Architect on demonstration projects,
and (3) clarified the responsibility of the CAO and the Architect for building related
projects.⁶⁴ All three amendments were defeated by voice vote. The bill was ordered
reported by voice vote.
National Capitol Energy Commission. On June 3, 2008, Representative
Dan Lungren introduced H.R. 6171, the “National Capital Region Leadership in
Environmental and Energy Stewardship Commission Act.” The bill would create a
Congressional commission to analyze the environmental and energy footprint of the
federal government in the National Capitol Region, hold a nationwide competition
to find innovative solutions to reduce or eliminate federal government facility
emissions, analyze existing and new technologies, recommend solutions to eliminate
emissions and reduce energy consumption, and submit a report to Congress with⁶⁵
recommendations and draft legislation. The bill was referred to Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
Senate
Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate does not have a formal name
for its greening activities. The Senate, however, is engaged in greening activities,
such as the replacement of light bulbs, the installation of energy efficient building
systems, and the development of green programs in the Senate cafeterias.
Administration
While the Senate does not have a formal greening program, the Architect of the
Capitol, under the guidance of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,
has created a greening program for the Senate office buildings and the Senate wing
of the Capitol. In creating greening programs, the Architect aims to improve client
(i.e., individual Member, committee, and support staff offices) satisfaction and to

⁶² (...continued)
Administration, July 30, 2008.
⁶³ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Committee Meeting, markup of
H.R. 6339, H.R. 6474, H.R. 6475, H.R. 6589, H.R. 998, H.R. 6608, H.Res. 1207, and^th^nd
committee resolutions 110-7 and 110-8, 110 Cong., 2 sess., July 30, 2008.
⁶⁴ Statements of Representative Vernon, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on House
Administration, Committee Meeting, markup of H.R. 6339, H.R. 6474, H.R. 6475, H.R.^th

6589, H.R. 998, H.R. 6608, H.Res. 1207, and committee resolutions 110-7 and 110-8, 110^nd

Cong., 2 sess., July 30, 2008.
⁶⁵ H.R. 6171 (110^th Congress), introduced June 3, 2008.

improve energy efficiency.⁶⁶ The Sergeant at Arms also administers greening and
energy savings initiatives related to computer technology and security for the Senate.
Greening Programs
Senate greening programs are focused on the reduction of energy consumption
and lessening overall Senate energy costs. The details of many of these projects were
discussed during a Senate Committee on Rules and Administration hearing and in
conversations with the Architect’s office.
Recycling. The Senate recycling program was established by the adoption of^st⁶⁷
S.Res. 99 in the 101 Congress (1989-1991). Created as a voluntary program
focused on recycling paper, the recycling program has grown to include bottles, cans,
e-waste (i.e., computers, printers, and toner cartridges), and construction materials
(i.e., carpet, concrete, ceiling tiles and scrap metal). In calendar year 2007, the Senate
recycled approximately 700 tons of paper, 10 tons of bottles and cans, and 292 tons
of e-waste and construction material.⁶⁸
Lighting Programs. The Architect has developed a program to reduce energy
consumption from lighting in the Senate. The lighting energy savings program
consists of three main projects, installing compact fluorescent light bulbs, installing
dimmable ballasts in Senate offices, and installing solar lighting in Senate parking
lots.
Light Bulbs. Since 2006, the Senate has installed approximately 4,000
compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs.⁶⁹ While CFLs
are more energy efficient than incandescent light bulbs, the Senate is not switching
all lights to CFLs. Committee hearing rooms have not been switched to CFLs
because CFL bulbs cannot produce the light levels required for television

⁶⁶ Based on CRS discussions with Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Architect
of the Capitol, and Michael Shirven, general engineer, Architect of the Capitol, Mar. 6,

2008.

⁶⁷ S.Res. 99 (101^st Congress), agreed to by unanimous consent, Oct. 2, 1989.
⁶⁸ For more information on the House recycling program see CRS Report RL34617,
Recycling Programs in Congress: Legislative Development and Architect of the Capitol
Administration, by Jacob R. Straus.
⁶⁹ Testimony of Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers, in U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, Improving Energy Efficiency, Increasing the Use
of Renewable Sources of Energy, and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the Capitol^th^nd
Complex, hearing, 110 Cong., 2 sess., June 18, 2008
[http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2008/0618ayers.pdf], accessed Aug. 20, 2008. (Hereafter,
Senate Rules Committee Energy Efficiency Hearing).

broadcasting.⁷⁰ Incandescent bulbs replaced as part of the CFL replacement project
are being recycled by the Senate.⁷¹
The Senate has also undertaken lighting projects that are projected to reduce
energy consumption by approximately one million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year.
Table 2 lists the projects, provides a description, and lists the estimated kWh saved
per year.
Table 2. Senate Energy Saving Lighting Projects
^Project^Des^cription^k^{Wh Saved Per Year}
^S^H^G^{008 S}^t^orag^{e R}^oom^Motⁱ^oⁿ^s^eⁿ^s^{or i}ⁿ^s^t^al^l^e^d^28,404
^Dir^k^sen^Co^v^e^Lⁱ^g^h^tin^g^C^oⁿ^tr^o^llerⁱⁿ^stalled^to^tu^rⁿ^co^v^e^343,837
^lig^h^t^s^of^f^{at n}ⁱ^g^h^t^an^{d on}^w^eek^en^ds
^Ru^{ssell Ro}^tuⁿ^d^{a L}ⁱ^g^h^tin^g^C^oⁿ^tr^o^llerⁱⁿ^stalled^to^tu^rⁿ^lig^h^t^{s o}ⁿ^19,710
^oⁿ^l^y^a^tⁿⁱ^ght
^Dir^k^sen^Caf^e^terⁱ^a^D^im^m^e^r^p^aⁿ^e^{l r}^e^m^o^v^e^d^to^allo^w²¹⁵^289,664
ⁱⁿ^can^des^cen^{t bu}^lbs^{to be replaced}
^w^ith²⁶^w^a^{tt CFL}^s
^Ru^{ssell B}^a^sem^eⁿ^t^Lⁱ^g^h^t^s^C^oⁿ^tr^o^llerⁱⁿ^stalled^to^tu^rⁿ^cen^ter^2,982
^c^o^r^rⁱ^d^o^r^lⁱ^ght^{s o}^{ff a}^tⁿⁱ^ght
^Dir^k^se^{n a}ⁿ^d^Russe^ll^Ex^h^a^u^s^t^f^aⁿ^s^t^u^rn^{ed of}^f^atⁿⁱ^g^h^t^149,175
^B^a^t^h^r^o^o^m^E^xha^ust^Fa^ns
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Uⁿ^derg^rouⁿ^d^G^a^rag^e^Motⁱ^oⁿ^s^eⁿ^s^ors^158,865
^To^t^a^l^992,637
^Source:^Em^ail^ex^ch^an^g^e^betw^een^th^{e au}^th^{or an}^{d Scott Sh}^apleig^h^,^recy^clin^g^prog^ram^m^aⁿ^a^g^e^r,^Sen^a^te
^of^fⁱ^{ce bu}ⁱ^l^dⁱⁿ^g^s^{, A}^r^chⁱ^t^ect^of^t^h^{e C}^a^pi^t^o^l^,^A^u^g^.^{22, 2008.}
Dimmable Ballasts. The Architect has installed a dimmable ballast lighting
system in 11 Senate and committee offices in the Hart Senate Office Building.
Dimmable ballasts allow light levels to be networked and controlled from a central⁷²
computer. This allows light levels to be reduced on a per fixture basis, with a
standard output of approximately 70% of available light. The Senate system includes
daylight sensors near windows, occupancy sensors in conference rooms, and
additional light switches for individual control in conference rooms.⁷³ The Architect

⁷⁰ Conversation between the author and Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Senate
office buildings, Architect of the Capitol, Sept. 10, 2008.
⁷¹ Ibid., p. 17.
⁷² Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program, “Energy Efficiency
Fact Sheet: Dimmable Compact Florescent Lamps” [http://www.energy.wsu.edu/documents/
building/light/compact_fluor.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁷³ Conversation between the author and Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Senate
(continued...)

estimates that the pilot program of 11 offices “typically saves 11,400 kilowatt hours
per week or 40 percent of lighting energy used in an office suite. Over the first year,
the pilot saved 692,000 kilowatt hours of electricity.”⁷⁴ With the completion of the
pilot program, the Architect has begun to outfit an additional 10 offices in the Hart
and Dirksen Senate Office Buildings with the dimmable ballast system. The Senate
plans to install dimmable ballasts in all offices in the future.
Solar Lighting in Parking Lots. To reduce energy consumption in lighting
the Senate parking lots, the Senate has selected a vendor to provide renewable, solar
energy for lighting in parking lot 18. In testimony before the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration, acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers testified that
the project is “[s]cheduled to be completed this fall [2008],” and that the “...new⁷⁵
lights will save 1,825 kilowatt hours per year.”
Water Savings Programs. The Architect has developed a program to
reduce water usage in the Senate. The water savings program consists of two main
projects, installing dual flush valves in private restrooms and installing water cooling
systems in offices that do not require plastic bottles.
Dual Flush Valves. The Architect is installing dual flush valve toilets in
private bathrooms in Senate offices. These toilets provide more than one option of
how much water is used to flush the system. Installation of the dual flush valves
reduces the amount of water needed to flush a toilet. The Architect has chosen not
to install dual flush valves in public restrooms for sanitary reasons.⁷⁶
Water Coolers. In 2008, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee
approved the installation of bottle-less water filtration systems in Senate offices.
Each individual office is responsible for selecting a vendor to supply the water cooler
and filters. The Architect then facilitates the selection of appropriate cooler locations
in an office, installs the necessary infrastructure to support bottle-less coolers through
the plumbing office, regulates the types of systems that can be purchased or rented⁷⁷
by offices, and connects the office to the existing building water supply. Through
September 2008, requests have been made for 80 coolers to be installed by Senate⁷⁸

offices. The Architect’s office anticipates another 20 to 30 requests will be made.
⁷³ (...continued)
office buildings, Architect of the Capitol and Michael Shirven, general engineer, Senate
office buildings, Architect of the Capitol, Mar. 6, 2008.
⁷⁴ Testimony of Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers, Senate Rules Committee
Energy Efficiency Hearing, p. 6.
⁷⁵ Ibid.
⁷⁶ Conversation between the author and Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Senate
office buildings, Architect of the Capitol and Michael Shirven, general engineer, Senate
office buildings, Architect of the Capitol, Mar. 6, 2008.
⁷⁷ Email from Trent Wolfersberger, assistant superintendent, Senate Support Office,
Architect of the Capitol, Sept. 11, 2008.
⁷⁸ Based on CRS conversations with Trent Wolfersberger, assistant superintendent, Senate
(continued...)

Steam Traps. The Architect has replaced 147 steam traps⁷⁹ in the Hart Senate
office building. The steam traps were replaced because when a steam trap fails, “it
bleeds steam in to the air and wastes energy.” The new traps have been placed on a
preventative maintenance program and will be replaced or repaired as needed.⁸⁰
Dirksen Green Roof. A green roof is an alternative roofing option that
places vegetation or solar panels on a building’s roof to absorb heat and reduce
rainwater runoff. The American Institute of Architects defines a green roof as
a roof of a building that is partially or completely covered with vegetation and
soil, or a growing medium, planted over a waterproofing membrane. A green roof
may also include additional layers such as a root barrier and drainage irrigation
systems. Green roofs can be below, at , or above grade, but in all cases the plants
are not planted in the “ground.” The term “green roof” may also be used to refer
to roofs that incorporate some form of green technology, such as solar panels or⁸¹
photovataic modules.
Pursuant to the passage of P.L. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act of 2005,⁸² the
Architect was asked by Congress “to evaluate the potential for converting some of
the roof areas on Dirksen Senate Office Building to ‘vegetated’ roofs.”⁸³ In the
report, the Architect evaluated multiple roof designs, including replacing the existing
roof with another copper roof, creating a roof with a public courtyard accessible by

⁷⁸ (...continued)
Support Office, Architect of the Capitol, Sept. 11, 2008.
⁷⁹ “Steam traps are automatic valves that release condensed steam (condensate) from a steam
space while preventing the loss of live steam. They also remove non-condensable gases from
the steam space. Steam traps are designed to maintain steam energy efficiency for
performing specific tasks such as heating a building or maintaining heat for process use.
Once steam has transferred heat through a process and becomes hot water, it is removed by
the trap from the steam side as condensate and either returned to the boiler via condensate
return lines or discharged to the atmosphere, which is a wasteful practice.” See, U.S.
Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, “FEMP Management and
Maintenance: Steam Traps,” [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/operations_maintenance/
om_steamtraps.html], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁸⁰ Email from Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Senate office buildings,
Architect of the Capitol, Aug. 22, 2008.
⁸¹ The American Institute of Architects, 50 to 50
[http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/50to50_20071212.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008. For
more information about the benefits and drawbacks of green roofs see Erica Oberndorfer,
Jeremy Lundholm, Brad Bass, Reid R. Coffman, Hitesh Doshi, Nigel Dunnett, Stuart
Gaffin, Manfred Köhler, Karen K. Y. Liu, and Bradley Rowe, “Green Roofs as Urban
Ecosystems: Ecological Structures, Functions, and Services,” Bioscience, vol. 57, no. 10
(Nov. 2007), pp. 823-833.
⁸² P.L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 1136-1137, Aug. 5, 2005. Section 1829 requires the Architect to
carry out a study to explore the feasibility of installing energy and water conservation
measures on the Dirksen Senate Office Building roof, including the area directly above the
food service facilities in the center of the building.
⁸³ U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, Dirksen Senate Office Building Facilities
Condition Assessment Vegetative Roof Study Project No. SB06015, July 27, 2007, p. 1-1.

a pedestrian bridge from the Hart Senate Office Building, and creating a vegetative
roof that would be inaccessible to staff. Table 3 lists the costs associated with the
three proposals presented by the Architect.
Table 3. Costs of Architect-Proposed Roof Replacement
Options for Dirksen Senate Office Building
^Rep^l^acem^en^{t Op}^ti^on^E^s^ti^m^a^ted^Cos^t
^Sⁱ^mⁱ^l^a^{r t}^o^Exⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^g^R^oof^$1,636,823
^In^acces^sⁱ^{ble Green}^R^oof^$5,121,531
^Pu^blⁱ^c^l^y^A^cces^sⁱ^bl^{e G}^r^een^R^oof^$6,653,098
^Source:^{U.S. Co}ⁿ^g^r^{ess, A}^r^ch^{itect o}^f^th^{e Cap}^ito^l,^Dir^k^s^e^{n Senate Office}^{Building Facilities}^C^ondition
^As^s^e^s^s^m^ent^Veget^a^tⁱ^{ve Roof}^St^{udy Pr}^oj^ect^N^o^{. SB06015}^{, Ju}^l^y^{27, 2007, p. 1-}^1.
Cost differences presented in Table 3 result from the type of vegetation used in
each roof plan. For the publicly accessible roof, the Architect proposed adding small,
shallow rooted plants on the roof of the interior courtyard, creating an area with trees
and shrubs where tennis courts currently exist on the roof of Dirksen, and building
a pedestrian bridge from the Hart building. For the non-publicly accessible roof, the
Architect proposed a variety of plants on both the interior roof and in the tennis court⁸⁴⁸⁵
area. The Architect has not been authorized to begin construction on a green roof.
Restaurants. As noted earlier, as part of the search process for a food service
vendor for the Capitol Visitors Center, the House and the Senate were provided the
option of contracting with the vendor chosen by the Architect for House and Senate
food services operations, respectively. The Senate has chosen to exercise this option
and is negotiating a contract with Restaurant Associates.
Contracting with Restaurant Associates to operate the Senate restaurants would
presumably allow the Senate to participate in many of the green programs currently
established in the House restaurants. As part of the new contract, the Senate could
require Restaurant Associates to operate its cafeterias in accordance with
environmental considerations. This would position the Senate to receive many of the
green benefits associated with the practices currently in place under the House
contract.

⁸⁴ Ibid. For additional information on green roofs see, Nancy Solomon, “Vegetation Systems
Atop Buildings Yield Environmental Benefits: Roofing Technology Developed in Germany
is Starting to Take Root in North America,” Architectural Record, vol. 191, no. 3 (Mar. 1,

2003); and The American Institute of Architects, “Green Roof Design,” AIA Best Practices,

[http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/bestpractice_18_18_02E.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁸⁵ Conversation between the author and Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Senate
office buildings, Architect of the Capitol and Michael Shirven, general engineer, Senate
office buildings, Architect of the Capitol, Mar. 6, 2008.

Capitol Complex
In addition to programs specifically designed to green aspects of the House or
the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol also facilitates greening programs for the
Capitol Complex. These programs affect all buildings in the Capitol Complex.⁸⁶
Administration
Pursuant to Chapter 28 and Chapter 30 of Title 2 United States Code, the
Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the United
States Capitol and the House and Senate Office Buildings. These responsibilities
include “the mechanical and structural maintenance of the building, the upkeep and
improvement of the Capitol grounds, and the arrangement of inaugural ceremonies
and other ceremonies held in the building or on the grounds.”⁸⁷ The Architect also
manages the energy usage of Capitol Complex buildings and the operation of the
Capitol Power Plant.⁸⁸
Greening Programs
Among the Architect of the Capitol’s responsibilities are energy reduction and
greening programs in the Capitol Complex. Capitol Complex greening programs can
generally be classified into energy reduction initiatives and Capitol Power Plant
modifications. Both energy saving programs impact operation for all Capitol
Complex buildings.
Energy Reduction. The Architect of the Capitol is required by law to
improve energy efficiency in the Capitol Complex. The Architect’s energy reduction
requirements are set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended 42
U.S.C. § 8251, et seq., to require the Architect to “develop, update, and implement
a cost-effective energy conservation and management plan...for all facilities

⁸⁶ The Capitol Complex includes the Capitol, the House Office Buildings (Cannon,
Longworth, Rayburn, and Ford), Senate Office Buildings (Russell, Dirksen, and Hart), the
U.S. Botanic Garden, the Capitol Grounds, the Library of Congress buildings (Jefferson,
Adams, and Madison), the Supreme Court Building, the Thurgood Marshall Federal
Judiciary Building, the Capitol Power Plant, the Capitol Visitors Center, and various support
facilities. See U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, “Capitol Complex Overview,”
[http://www.aoc.gov/cc/index.cfm], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁸⁷ U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, “Responsibilities,”
[http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/responsibilities/index.cfm]], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁸⁸ 2 U.S.C. § 2162. For more information on the Architect of the Capitol, see CRS Report
RL32820, Architect of the Capitol: Appointment, Duties, and Current Issues, by Mildred
Amer.

administered by Congress...to meet the energy performance requirements for Federal
buildings .”⁸⁹
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the
Acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen T. Ayers, testified that his office has
exceeded the goals set out in the Energy Policy Act.
The Energy Policy Act requires us to increasingly reduce energy consumption
per gross square foot per year in fiscal years 2006 through 2015. The AOC
exceeded the goal of 2 percent by reducing energy consumption by 6.5 percent
in 2006. In addition, for 2007, we achieved a total cumulative reduction of 6.7⁹⁰
percent over the 2003 baseline.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 further requires the Architect to reduce
energy consumption in the Capitol Complex. The Act allows the Architect to perform
a feasibility study regarding construction of a photovoltaic roof for the Rayburn
House office building; to, when practical, include energy efficiency measures,
climate change mitigation measures, and other appropriate environmental measures
in the Capitol Complex master plan; to operate the steam boilers and the chiller plant
at the Capitol Power Plant in the most energy efficient manner possible to minimize
carbon emissions and operating costs; and to install technologies for the capture and
storage or use of carbon dioxide emitted from coal combustion in the Capitol Power
Plant.⁹¹
Additionally, the Act requires the use of Energy Star lighting products in all
federal buildings and establishes an Office of High-Performance Green Buildings in
the U.S. General Services Administration to promote green building technology and⁹²

implementation in federal buildings.
⁸⁹ P.L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 605, Aug. 8, 2005. The act further required that the Architect’s plan
include: (1) a description of the life cycle cost analysis used to determine the
cost-effectiveness of proposed energy efficiency projects; (2) a schedule of energy surveys
to ensure complete surveys of all congressional buildings every five years to determine the
cost and payback period of energy and water conservation measures; (3) a strategy for
installation of life cycle cost-effective energy and water conservation measures; (4) the
results of a study of the costs and benefits of installation of sub-metering in congressional
buildings; and (5) information packages and ‘how-to’ guides for each Member and
employing authority of Congress that detail simple, cost-effective methods to save energy
and taxpayer dollars in the workplace.
⁹⁰ Senate Rules Committee Energy Efficiency Hearing, p. 6.
⁹¹ P.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1655-1658. For more information on the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, see CRS Report RL34294, Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007: A Summary of Major Provisions, coordinated by Fred Sissine.

⁹² The White House, Executive Office of the President, “Fact Sheet: Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007,” press release, Dec. 19, 2007
[http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/print/20071219-1.html], accessed Sept. 29,

2008.

Energy Audits. In an April 2007 report, the GAO recommended that the
Architect of the Capitol conduct energy audits on Capitol Complex buildings to
identify projects that could reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. In the
report, the GAO summarized the importance of energy audits.
A strategy for reducing emissions includes conducting energy audits to identify
and evaluate energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects, as well as
evaluating other emissions reduction projects that may fall outside the scope of
energy audits. The strategy would also involve developing an implementation
plan that considers cost-effectiveness, the extent to which the projects reduce⁹³
emissions, and funding options.
Following the GAO recommendations, the Architect has begun to conduct
energy audits of Capitol Complex buildings. The Architect has already conducted an
energy audit of the U.S. Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds and is planing to “use
$400,000 of FY2008 funds to perform comprehensive energy audits of the Capitol
Building and the Ford House Office Building.” The Architect will also “direct any
remaining FY2008 funds to an audit of the Hart Senate Office Building.”⁹⁴ The
Architect is currently scheduling energy audits in other buildings, with a goal of
performing “energy audits on all buildings on a five-year rotating schedule.”⁹⁵
Environmental Services Performance Contracts. The Architect of the
Capitol has entered into environmental services performance contracts (ESPC) to
help Congress increase energy efficiency. ESPCs are a “contracting vehicle that
allows agencies to accomplish energy projects for their facilities without up-front
capital costs and without special Congressional appropriations to pay for the
improvements.”⁹⁶ The Architect has entered into ESPCs with two energy companies
for a total of 55 projects in the Capitol Building, the Capitol Power Plant, the House
Office Buildings, the Senate Office Buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, and
on the Capitol Grounds. These projects will costs $154,781,000 to implement, with
$149,882,000 paid for by the ESPC vendor and $4,899,000 paid for by the
government. Overall, the ESPC contracts will reduce Capitol Complex energy
consumption by 5.25% and are projected to save $20,700,000 annually.⁹⁷

⁹³ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, GAO-07-516, Apr. 2007, p. 4.
⁹⁴ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Architect of the Capitol: Progress in Improving
Energy Efficiency and Options for Decreasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, GAO-08-917T,
June 18, 2008, p. 5.
⁹⁵ Testimony of Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers, Senate Rules Committee
Energy Efficiency Hearing, p. 7.
⁹⁶ U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, Super Energy Savings
Performance Contracts, [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/superespcs.html],
accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
⁹⁷ Based on CRS discussions with Charles Iliff, planning and project management project
executive, Architect of the Capitol, Sept. 22, 2008.

Solar Cells. Pursuant to the passage of P.L. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act of

2005,⁹⁸ the Architect requested that the Department of Energy Solar America⁹⁹

Initiative study solar energy opportunities for Congressional office buildings. The
Department of Energy completed the study in October 2007, and concluded that
“there is potential for over 2 Megawatts of photovoltaics made up of numerous arrays
on each building.”¹⁰⁰ The Department of Energy also calculated the number of
possible photovotaic (PV) arrays, the total square feet required for the arrays, the size
of the photovotaic cells, the initial cost of the project, the estimated annual energy
generated, and the estimated annual utility cost savings. Table 4 presents the
Department of Energy’s findings.
Table 4. Department of Energy Photovaltaic (PV) Evaluation for
the Capitol Complex
^Hou^s^{e of}^Lⁱ^b^r^{ary of}
^Repres^entatives^C^oⁿ^g^res^s^S^en^ate^T^otal
^P^V^A^r^a^y^s^E^v^a^l^u^t^e^d³¹¹⁴¹⁴⁵⁹
^S^u^m^of^P^V^A^rray^A^r^eas^(f^t²⁾^133,972^30,305^39,889^204,166
^S^u^m^of^PV^Sⁱ^{ze (k}^W)^1,547³⁵²⁴⁶¹^2,360
^P^V^In^{itial C}^o^s^t^$13,872,288^$2,973,796^$4,065,589^$20,911,673
^P^V^A^nnua^l^Eⁿ^e^r^gy^D^e^lⁱ^v^e^r^y^1,566,654^351,766^471,469^2,379,889
^(k^W^h^/y^ear)
^P^V^A^nnua^{l Utility}^Co^st^$158,364^$35,793^$47,923^$242,080
^Sa^vi^{ngs (}^$^/^y^e^a^r⁾
^Source:^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^o^f^En^erg^y^,^Assessmen^{t o}^f^th^{e Un}^ited^S^t^a^t^{es Ca}^p^ito^{l Co}^mp^{lex fo}^{r Ap}^p^lica^tioⁿ
^of^Sol^ar^Ener^{gy T}^echnol^ogi^es^{, O}^c^t^.^{2007, p. 3.}
The Department of Energy also considered the installation of solar water heating
systems for the House Page Dorm and the Senate daycare building. The study
concluded that photovoltaic systems have long payback periods with high initial costs
and that without local government incentives, solar systems are not cost effective.
“[W]hile the Washington, DC government does offer incentives for photovoltaics,
they are often awarded to low-income neighborhoods, hospitals, and other non-
Federal entities. Without such incentives, the cost of photovoltaic systems is high and
the payback is long.” However, the study also concluded that “[d]ue to week-long

⁹⁸ P.L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 1136-1137, Aug. 5, 2005.
⁹⁹ The Department of Energy studied the feasibility of installing solar panels on the Rayburn
House Office Building (HOB), the Cannon HOB, the Ford HOB, the Longworth HOB, the
House page dorm, and the House parking lot; the Dirksen Senate Office Building (SOB),
the Hart SOB, the Russell SOB, and the Senate child care building; and the Adams and
Madison Buildings of the Library of Congress.
¹⁰⁰ U.S. Department of Energy, Assessment of the United States Capitol Complex for
Application of Solar Energy Technologies, Oct. 2007, p. 2.

use and the lower cost of the technology, solar water heating on the House Page
Dorm would be cost effective according to the criteria of 10CFR436.”¹⁰¹
Capitol Power Plant. The Capitol Power Plant consists of a main plant (built¹⁰²
in 1910), the east refrigeration plant (built in 1938), an operations building (built
in 1978), the west refrigeration plant (built in 1978), the coal yard (transferred from
the General Services Administration [GSA] in 1987), and the west refrigeration
building expansion (built in 2007).¹⁰³ Between 1909 and 1938, the Capitol Power
Plant provided electricity and steam to the Capitol Complex buildings. In 1938, the
east refrigeration plant was completed and the power plant began supplying chilled
water in addition to electricity and steam. Since 1952, the power plant has only
supplied steam and chilled water.¹⁰⁴
To generate steam, the power plant’s steam generation plant “contains seven
boilers that utilize a combination of three fuels (natural gas, low-sulfur coal, and fuel
oil) to generate steam.”¹⁰⁵ On average, the Capitol Power Plant historically uses a¹⁰⁶
mixture of 43% natural gas, 47% coal, and 10% fuel oil to generate steam. For

2009, the Capitol Power Plant projects the mixture of fuels to be 60% natural gas,¹⁰⁷

35% coal, and 5% fuel oil.

In FY2008, the Architect has spent $67,570,000 on utilities for the Capitol
Power Plant. For FY2009, the Architect has requested $68,791,000 in appropriations
for the purchase of natural gas, coal, fuel oil, and electricity to operate the power
plant.¹⁰⁸ As part of the “Green the Capitol” initiative, the House has estimated that

31% of the Capitol Power Plant output can be attributed to the House office space in

¹⁰¹ Ibid. 10 C.F.R. § 436 establishes the rules for Federal energy management and planning
programs. These programs are designed to “reduce Federal energy consumption and to
promote life cycle cost effective investments in building energy systems, building water
systems and energy and water conservation measures for Federal buildings.”
¹⁰² P.L. 58-194, 33 Stat. 479, Apr. 26, 1904.
¹⁰³ U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, Accountability Report 2003,
[http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/cfo/upload/AOC-Financial-Report-2003.pdf], accessed Sept. 29,

2008, p. 25.

¹⁰⁴ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Feasibility of Outsourcing the Management and
Operation of the Capitol Power Plant, GAO-08-382R, Jan. 31, 2008, p. 4. Electricity for the
Capitol Complex is purchased from Pepco.
¹⁰⁵ Testimony of Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers, Senate Rules Committee
Energy Efficiency Hearing, p. 8.
¹⁰⁶ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic and Other Implications of Switching
from Coal and Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating Units
Nationwide, GAO-08-601R, May 1, 2008, p. 2.
¹⁰⁷ Based on CRS discussions with Christopher Potter, deputy director, Capitol Power Plant,
Sept. 5, 2008.
¹⁰⁸ Ibid., p. 510.

the Capitol Complex.¹⁰⁹ The House has appropriated additional funds for the
Architect to purchase additional natural gas, so that the proportion of steam supplied
to the House will no longer be generated with coal and fuel oil. The Senate will
continue to use a mixture of coal, natural gas, and electricity.¹¹⁰
Criticism of Greening Programs
Opposition to the “Green the Capitol” initiative has developed as the program
has expanded. While no Members of Congress have gone on record against the goal
of creating a more environmentally friendly and sustainable Capitol, there have been
concerns expressed about how money has been spent, the process used to choose
some vendors, and the manner in which greening goals have been pursued.
The ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management of the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, summarized the position of those opposed to aspects of green
programs for financial reasons during his opening statement at a hearing on greening
Washington and the National Capitol Region. In reference to green initiatives, he
said:
They make a lot of sense when they result in improved efficiency and real energy
reductions and are done in the most cost efficient way. However, when done
without regard to the cost or real benefit to the environment, they can be¹¹¹
completely illogical and a waste of taxpayer’s money.
Those opposed to greening programs have primarily focused their attention on the
purchase of carbon offsets and the awarding of the contract to re-light the Capitol
Dome.
Carbon Offsets
As discussed previously, the House purchased $90,550 worth of carbon offset
credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange on November 2, 2007.¹¹² Members of the

¹⁰⁹ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives,
Preliminary Report Green the Capitol Initiative, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess.
[http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/GTCreport.pdf], accessed Sept. 29, 2008, p. 11.
¹¹⁰ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic and Other Implications of Switching
from Coal to Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating Units
Nationwide, GAO-08-601R, May 1, 2008, pp. 2-3.
¹¹¹ Statement of Ranking Member Sam Graves, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management Subcommittee, Greening Washington and the National Capital Region,^th^nd
hearing, 110 Cong., 2 sess. Apr. 17, 2008 [http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/
news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=363], accessed Oct. 2, 2008.
¹¹² U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Statement of Disbursements of the House:
October 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, 110^th Cong., 2^nd sess., Oct. 16, 2007, H.Doc. 110-87
(continued...)

minority opposed to the carbon offset purchase have argued that using funds to
purchase carbon credits is a waste of taxpayer money as “it accomplishes nothing, but
makes you feel good about yourself.”¹¹³
To illustrate the point, the minority leader referred to an article in the
Washington Post that questioned the logic of purchasing carbon offsets and stated
that the money the House spent may not have provided the perceived benefit.¹¹⁴ The
article traced where the House’s money went in an effort to offset pollution.
Some of the money went to farmers in North Dakota, for tilling practices that
keep carbon buried in the soil. But some farmers were already doing this, for
other reasons, before the House paid a cent.
Other funds went to Iowa, where a power plant has been temporarily rejiggered
to burn more cleanly. But that test project had ended more than a year before the¹¹⁵
money arrived.
The Washington Post also quotes the ranking member of the House Administration
Committee, as saying “[t]his is just extra money in their pocket for something they’re¹¹⁶
already doing.”
On January 14, 2008, the ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and the ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, sent a letter to Comptroller General David M. Walker requesting that
GAO examine the carbon credits marketplace.¹¹⁷ On January 31, in a follow up letter,
the two ranking members further requested that “GAO, in the course of work on
these matters, specifically examine and report the manner and means by which the¹¹⁸
House of Representatives made the purchases.” The GAO report was released in
summer 2008.¹¹⁹

¹¹² (...continued)
(Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 35. For more information on the Chicago Climate Exchange
see, [http://www.chicagoclimatex.com], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
¹¹³ U.S. Congress, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, “Green Pork Update:
Beard’s ‘Waste of Taxpayer Dollars’ Now Under Examination by Government Auditors,”
press release, Feb. 6, 2008 [http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/
DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=83264], accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
¹¹⁴ Ibid.
¹¹⁵ David A. Fahrenthold, “Value of U.S. House’s Carbon Offsets Is Murky,” The
Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2008, p. A1.
¹¹⁶ Ibid.
¹¹⁷ Letter from Reps. Joe Barton and John Shimkus, to David M. Walker, Comptroller
General of the United States, Jan. 14, 2008. A copy of the letter is available from the author.
¹¹⁸ Letter from Reps. Joe Barton and John Shimkus, to David M. Walker, Comptroller
General of the United States, Jan. 31, 2008. A copy of the letter is available from the author.
¹¹⁹ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Offsets: The U.S. Voluntary Market Is
Growing, but Quality Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants, GAO-08-1048,
(continued...)

On July 29, 2008, the House minority leader further criticized the purchase of
carbon offsets. In a letter addressed to the Speaker, the minority leader requested that
the Speaker “immediately relieve House Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard of
his duties...” in part because “Mr. Beard spent $90,000 to purchase carbon credits on
the Chicago Climate Exchange, ignoring a reasonable and sensible request by a
member of the House Committee on House Administration to wait for a Government
Accountability Office study of carbon credits to determine if they were worthwhile
and effective.”¹²⁰
Criticism of carbon offsets was also leveled by a Senator during a hearing before
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on renewable energy and the
Capitol complex:
Yes, I am very skeptical about carbon offsets. I could put it pleasantly, but I
might as well just put it bluntly. The opportunities for scamming that thing are
huge, and the question I have been unable to get anybody to answer for me when
we have gotten into that area is: How do you know that the person who plants a
tree in order to provide the carbon offset would not have planted the tree
anyway? And, indeed, I have heard from some farmers who have said, “You
know, I just got an insight into a major new income stream for me, because as I
was out planting trees, somebody came up and said, ‘Can we buy the planting of
your trees to sell as carbon offsets?’” And he said, “I would have planted the
trees anyway, but now I can get some money for doing something that would
have happened anyway.” And when I raised that with some people, they say,
“Oh, well, we are going to investigate that.” We are going to have to be sure that¹²¹
there is, in fact, a real carbon offset rather than a scam.
Capitol Dome
Opponents of the “Green the Capitol” initiative are also dissatisfied with the
process used to solicit and evaluate proposals to relight the Capitol dome, the length
of time required to realize energy savings as a result of dome lighting expenditures,
and the necessity for a separate contract to install the lighting design. As discussed
above under “Green the Capitol Programs,” on October 19, 2007, the CAO issued a
Request for Proposal (RFP) to design a lighting scheme for the Capitol Building

¹¹⁹ (...continued)
August 29, 2008. For more information on the controversy surrounding the carbon offset
market see Jonathan Weisman, “Capitol to Buy Offsets in Bid to Go Green,” The
Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2007, p. A6; David A. Fahrenthold, “Value of U.S. House’s
Carbon Offsets Is Murkey,” The Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2008, p. A1.; and Jordy Yager,
“CAO Would ‘Welcome” Investigation into Carbon Offsets,” The Hill, Feb. 6, 2008, p. 16.
¹²⁰ Letter from Minority Leader John Boehner to Speaker of the House of Representatives
Nancy Pelosi, July 29, 2008.
¹²¹ Senate Rules Committee Energy Efficiency Hearing, pp. 16-17.

dome¹²² and on March 4, 2008, a contract for $671,900 was awarded to the Lighting
Practice of Philadelphia to design a new configuration for the Capitol dome.¹²³
A representative addressed the Capitol Dome lighting project in a post on his
personal blog.
I agree that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment, but
it must be done in a consistent manner. Dan Beard, The House Chief
Administrative Officer, said of this new lighting project: “We’re not going to
drastically cut our energy consumption...” If Speaker Pelosi would like to
upgrade the Capitol’s lighting system at such an exuberant cost, why doesn’t she
just come out and say it?
Furthermore, it would take more than 45 years to recoup the money spent on the
new “energy efficient” systems design.
My question is this, if it is not going to significantly cut energy consumption, and
it will actually cost more money in the long run, what is the goal of such a¹²⁴
extensive and costly overhaul?
The House minority leader also stated his opposition to the cost of the design
contract when he was quoted in a Washington Post article. “Everyone supports
making the Capitol more energy efficient, but we don’t have to waste taxpayer¹²⁵
dollars to do it: This is a ridiculous boondoggle.”
The House minority leader restated his opposition in his July 29, 2008 letter to
the Speaker. In the letter, the minority leader refuted the CAO’s claim that relighting
the Capitol dome will save Congress money. “Mr. Beard claims that this effort will
save money on lighting costs, but in reality it will take the House more than 50 years
to generate enough energy savings to finally recoup the cost of Mr. Beard’s
misguided design effort. When multimillion dollar construction and installation costs¹²⁶

are factored in, the payback period grows to well over a century.”
¹²² Green the Capitol Six-Month Progress Report, p. 2.
¹²³ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, “Plans to
Relight Symbol of Democracy Taking Shape,” press release, March 4, 2008
[http://cao.house.gov/press/cao-20080305.shtml], accessed July 16, 2008.
¹²⁴ Representative John Campbell, “New Lights Over the Capitol,” blog post
[http://greeneyeshade.townhall.com/blog/g/e69697a1-1f2c-40ce-a1ab-20a17264ccab],
accessed July 23, 2008.
¹²⁵ Christopher Lee, “Beacon or Boondoggle? New Lights For the Capitol: Update Would
Conserve Energy, Democrats Say,” The Washington Post, Apr. 2, 2008, p. A1.
¹²⁶ Letter from Minority Leader John Boehner to Speaker of the House of Representatives
Nancy Pelosi, July 29, 2008. A copy of the letter is available from the author.

Options for Program Administration
The “Green the Capitol” initiative has become a central piece of the 110^th
Congress’s administrative policies and programs. However, the “Green the Capitol”
initiative is a non-statutory program that is operated by the Chief Administrative
Officer at the request of the Speaker of the House. While the Speaker has the
authority to create internal House programs, a number of policy options are¹²⁷
potentially available to create an inter-chamber greening program on Capitol Hill.
Formal House Greening Program
The current “Green the Capitol” initiative exists because of a request by the
Speaker of the House, the majority leader, and the Committee on House
Administration for the CAO to “undertake a ‘Green the Capitol’ initiative to ensure
that the House institutes the most up-to-date industry and government standards for
green building and green operating procedures.”¹²⁸ Because the “Green the Capitol”
initiative operates under the authority of the Speaker, it is possible that should the
current minority become the majority, or the current Speaker steps down, the
program could be discontinued.
To ensure the program’s continuation, the House has the option of passing a
resolution creating a more formal greening initiative. The resolution could create a
program that includes input from both the majority and minority and considers the
critiques of the opponents and the goals of the proponents. Should a new majority or
Speaker desire to alter or terminate the program once a resolution has been agreed to,
a subsequent resolution could amend or terminate the program.
“Green the Senate” Initiative
Senate greening programs are currently administered by the Architect of the
Capitol under direction from the Committee on Rules and Administration. To
augment the green programming taking place in the House of Representatives, the
Senate could create its own “Green the Senate” initiative. A “Green the Senate”
initiative could allow the Senate to create energy and cost savings programs that
cover administrative functions not typically covered by the Architect. Should the
Senate consider its own green initiative, it could choose to place its implementation
with the Architect, or could assign implementation to the Sergeant at Arms, the
Secretary of the Senate, or a combination of the three officers. If the Senate followed
this course, the same continuity issues raised by the current House initiative would
also apply to the Senate.

¹²⁷ CRS take no position on any of the options identified in this report.
¹²⁸ U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, “House Democrats Urge
Greening of Capitol Complex,” press release, Mar. 2, 2007,
[http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/ pressreleases?id=0082], accessed July 9, 2008.

Independent Greening Commission
The Senate, the House, or both could create a greening commission to oversee
greening efforts. Should the Senate or House choose to create a commission, it could
be modeled after the commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, also known
as the “Franking Commission.”¹²⁹ The franking commission “has a three fold
mandate: (1) to issue regulations governing the proper use of the franking privilege;
(2) to provide guidance in connection with mailings; (3) to act as a quasi-judicial
body for the disposition of formal complaints against Members of Congress who
have allegedly violated franking laws or regulations.”¹³⁰
A greening commission could serve a similar purpose in guiding the Architect
and the CAO to coordinate greening activities within the Senate and the House and
between the two chambers. The greening commission could provide long-term
strategic guidance to the Architect and CAO, provide context to the Architect and
CAO of Member intent and interest in new greening opportunities, and act as a
liaison between the greening program and the committees of jurisdiction in the
Senate and in the House.
Capitol Complex-Wide Greening Program
Although the program created in March 2007 by the House is called the “Green
the Capitol” initiative, the initiative only covers actions and opportunities in the
House. By functioning in only one chamber, “Green the Capitol” does not have the
authority to set policy in the Capitol as a whole. To maximize impact on the energy
use and conservation of the Capitol, the House and the Senate could pass a
concurrent resolution or a bill to create a Capitol-wide greening initiative.
The passage of either a concurrent resolution or bill could create a more formal,
cooperative greening program that would encompass activities in the House and the
Senate. Cooperation between chambers might encourage costs savings since
purchasing services or goods in quantity often leads to lower prices. Additionally, the
passage of a concurrent resolution or a bill would allow the House and Senate to
addresses green programs for the entire Capitol complex, rather than creating
programs that affect only a portion of the Capitol grounds.
Such legislation would need to determine who would administer a Capitol Hill-
wide greening program. The House and the Senate could chose the Architect of the
Capitol and expand Architect’s jurisdiction to include all energy and green programs
associated with building administration. The House and the Senate could also choose
to designate officers within each chamber to coordinate Capitol Hill-wide efforts,

¹²⁹ P.L. 93-191, 87 Stat. 737, Dec. 18, 1973. For more information on the Commission on
Congressional Mailing Standards see CRS Report RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical
Development and Options for Change, by Matthew Eric Glassman; and CRS Report
RS22771, Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Current Legislation, by
Matthew Eric Glassman.
¹³⁰ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, “About Franking Commission,”
[http://cha.house.gov/franking_about.aspx], Sept. 23, 2008.

create a new officer of the Capitol for greening issues, or create a joint committee to
facilitate and provide oversight to a combination of offices responsible for greening.
Continued Case-by-Case Programming
The House and the Senate might determine the current system of operating
greening programs is effective. Instead of creating a statutory House or Senate
program, creating a “Green the Senate” Program, or creating a joint greening effort,
the House and the Senate could continue to allow the CAO to operate the “Green the
Capitol” initiative and allow the Architect of the Capitol to administer other greening
and energy usage programs in the House and Senate. Expansion could continue on
an as-needed basis, with minimal coordination between the Houses.
To provide oversight in the case-by-case system, the House and the Senate could
rely on the existing committee system to guide green programs. In the House, the
Committee on House Administration, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the Committee on Appropriations, and in the 110^th Congress the Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming have jurisdiction. In the
Senate, the Committee on Rules and Administration, the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the
Committee on Appropriations maintain jurisdiction over current greening initiatives.
Each of these committees could hold hearings, individually or jointly, to discuss
greening programs and provide direction to the officers of Congress responsible for
implementing energy reduction and greening.