As discussed in 
Nancy painting the House GREEN, in the beginning of March, Nancy Pelosi directed the House Chief Administrative Officer to come up with a plan to ‘Green the House’.
Thursday, the preliminary report (summary: pdf) of the Green the Capitol Initiative was released. It has real, substantive, and meaningful elements. It merits support, applause and, well, some examination.
Note: Credit upfront to Cunctator who highlighted this in Hill Global Warming Week: Capitol Going Green that, sadly, only got three comments (two by me).
In the beginning of March, Nancy Pelosi tasked the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the House on ‘greening the Capitol’ …
a critical initiative to address energy conservation, efficiency and cost savings for the U.S. Capitol and congressional office buildings …
The House of Representatives should provide leadership to the nation in providing an environmentally responsible and healthy working environment for our employees.
Well, the preliminary report (summary: pdf) of the Green the Capitol Initiative is out … and the initiative is real … the House will be providing leadership. Pelosi and the Democrats intend for the House to walk the walk when it comes to a new way forward for a sustainable and prosperous energy future.
“The environmental challenges we face are as local as our neighborhoods and as global as our planet. The House must lead by example and it is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint. Today, we announce our intention to operate the House in a carbon neutral manner at the earliest possible date with a deadline of the end of this Congress.” Speaker Pelosi, 19 April 2007
What are core recommendations in the CAO’s preliminary report:
- Operate the House in a Carbon Neutral Manner
- Shift to 100 Renewable Electric Power
- Aggressively Improve Energy Efficiency
- Adopt Sustainable Business Practices
- Continued Leadership on Sustainability Issues
- Offsets to ensure Carbon Neutral Operations
What do some of these mean and what are the numbers?
- Renewable Power: Today, the House’s electricity comes from a mix that is composed of 61% coal/gas, 37% nuclear, and 2% renewable power. Shifting to 100% renewable/nuclear will cut the House’s carbon footprint by 57,000 tons per year — the equivalent, as calculated, of taking 11,000 cars off the road.The House used 103,410,886 kilowatt hours in 2006 (1.7% more than in 2003) (The full version of the preliminary report (warning: large pdf) has a lot of detail about the House’s / Capitol’s use of energy.) — which will be reduced by the third initiative …
- Aggressively Improve Energy Efficiency: “The Architect of the Capitol has identified over one hundred opportunities for improvements in the physical buildings and operations …” And, the CAO has recommended many of these for action.Some of the coming actions are ones that we can all execute in our own house, like Pelosi seeks to do in the People’s House. For example, 100% of the House’s light bulbs will be changed over the next six months to compact-flourescents and other other energy efficient lights. (Have to wonder whether Joe Barton’s office will have CFLs …) And, the report recommends that Energy Star (and Federal Energy Management Program) designated products be required for purchases. We all can do (and should be doing) this in our own lives.And, the report covers the range of real efficiency options such as getting better fans and pumps, with modern controls. And, (as I’ve done in my home) sealing the air ducts to reduce linkage. There will also be a longer term look at revamping the huge — and aged — Capitol steam-heat system. This includes consideration of whether it will make sense to move to a combined-heat power (CHP) plant, The report is good in that it raises system-of-system challenges (from inefficiencies in steam generation, to losses in pipes, to inefficiencies in end use) that compound the overall system inefficiency and offer real opportunity for
- Symbolic Leadership/Education: CAO recommends actions that have symbolic more than direct impact as well. One that has real meaning to me that can be adopted in 100% of homes and offices and businesses today: “Give priority to the purchase of climate-neutral products …” Buy non-VOC (volatile organic compound) materials, etc … And, often these can be done at the same (or lower) price than “traditional” products. Simply prioritizing their use ups their place in the purchasing chain and can increase use even while not increasing costs.In addition, for example, buying furnishings of recycled/sustainable forest products; holidng a Green Expo; and establishing an education program for House employees. This last can be meaningful, if the 1,000s of workers on the Hill start taking smarter energy practices into their own lives and, then, sharing their learning with family and friends. Leadership by example.
- Offset Program: The report calls for a serious review of carbon credit programs to find a path for offsetting roughly 34,000 tons of carbon emissions from the Capitol Power Plant. To be absolutely honest, this is the element that seems to lack credibility. Who pays for the offsets? The taxpayer. What is an identifiable offset? What will not be done to achieve these offsets? To me, lots of confusion here as to what this really means for House operations.
Why is that carbon offset required? Because of the Capitol Power Plant, a principally coal-burning plant that was installed in 1910 (don’t know how much it has been updated since then, but it is antiquated nonetheless). Sadly (but perhaps not surprisingly), The Washington Post coverage of the Green the Capitol Initiative focused on the power plant (which merited coverage, but not discounting the rest). On the front page of today’s Post, Reliance on Coal Sullies ‘Green the Capitol’ Effort:
The Capitol Power Plant, operated by Congress, is the only coal-burning plant in the District and is a major source of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and soot in a city that has repeatedly been found in violation of the Clean Air Act.
There have been efforts to clean it up … that have been stalled by specific political interests.
But any efforts to eliminate coal have been thwarted by two of the most powerful figures in the Senate, who just happen to represent coal-producing states: Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
When the office of the Architect of the Capitol took a step in 2000 to eliminate coal from the fuel mix, the two lawmakers let it be known that they wanted coal to continue as the main fuel burned at the plant. Byrd and McConnell had a lot of say about the Architect’s budget, and the discussions quickly ended.
This is just another example of how political interests will stymie taking the right approaches toward not just global warming, but other pollution issues. And, there are always the excuses and explanations.
Neither senator has any apologies for wanting the plant to continue using coal. “He’d like it to continue as the fuel source,” said spokesman Don Stewart of McConnell, though he said the senator would review any recommendations from the Architect’s office.
“As we break the chains of foreign oil, our reliance on resources that we have here at home will only expand,” said Jenny Thalheimer, a spokeswoman for Byrd. “Technologies are available today that can burn coal more cleanly and more efficiently.”
Sure, there are technologies for burning coal more cleanly … they just don’t happen to be deployed in DC in this plant. And, as well, there are basically no deployed technologies for directly reducing GHG emissions from coal plants — these GHG-free coal plants (sequestration and otherwise) represent future promise rather than today’s reality. Now, there is one real option for keeping this as a coal plant that would have a real impact on reduced pollution — installing a modern combined heat-power plant (CHP) which produces electricity and the waste heat is used for other things. (Note, that is is an option discussed in the preliminary report.) The power plant is a real problem — both to the Greening the Capitol initiative and for the citizens of the DC area. (And, well, as symbolic for the need to clean up (if not shut down) coal-fired electricity ASAP.)
But, let us put aside the question of carbon offsets and the power plant for a moment.
The Green the Capitol initiative is a clear step that the House leadership is seeking to walk-the-walk when it comes to how Congress conducts its business.
Now we have the question (which is critical for Congressional issues, like the power plant): Will the Senate follow the House’s leadership?
Ask yourself: Are you doing your part?