US Department of Energy Fails Its Own Energy Audit

The US Department of Energy has spent the past several months in promotion and funding of renewable energy and efficiency, yet it manages to set a less-than-stalwart example by failing its own energy audit.

The 21-page energy audit (pdf) by the DOE's Office of the Inspector General highlights several sectors where the department's own buildings, though equipped for efficient management, are not being utilized as such. In particular, the Office of Science and National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Y-12 National Security Complex came under scrutiny.

The report found that DOE failed to use or maintain so-called setback controls in 35 of the 55 DOE-owned or leased buildings sampled.

What really makes this report so bitter to the tongue is not the waste of energy and money per se, though it is a big concern. No, what really leaps from the pages is the fact that so many of the department's agencies and building managers were aware of the tools available to improve efficiency. They just opted to ignore them--and for no discernible satisfactory reason. In one case, a building manager simply refused to purchase the necessary software to enable the building "setbacks" which improve energy consumption.

Some Key Findings in  the Audit:

• In spite of its energy conservation leadership role, we found that the Department and its facility contractors did not place adequate emphasis on reducing energy consumption through the application of setbacks.

• Despite discussions with several Federal and contractor officials, we could not obtain what we considered to be a satisfactory explanation as to why the Department failed to take advantage of this conservation practice, one that is generally low cost and has limited, if any, adverse impact on operations or building occupants.

• With nearly $300 million spent on annual utility costs, the Department could save over $11.5 million in annual utility costs by aggressively using setbacks.

• Despite a number of interviews and significant document research at all four sites, we could find no plausible reason for the lack of interest in setbacks.

Changes Recommended:

1. Begin using setbacks at each of the Department's owned or leased facilities, to the maximum extent practicable;
2. Ensure site contractors develop and implement policies and procedures requiring that setbacks be used at all Departmental facilities, as appropriate;
3. Require future lease agreements to incorporate setback clauses;
4. Train building operations personnel and occupants on the use and benefits of setbacks; and,
5. Ensure that required maintenance is performed on HVAC systems capable of setbacks.

Of course, everyone involved has nodded their heads in agreement and promised to "take a closer look"--one of the most cliché sayings in the history of mass media.

But a rather important question still remains:

How, in the midst of all the information being put forward to convince the world to take note of climate change and reduce energy consumption and waste, could such a massive government institution not bother to look in its own back yard before appealing to the masses?

One might suggest that the audit is precisely that: a look in their own back yard. It probably is--a mile short and a day late. The world wants examples of these new changes at work, not the age-old government rhetoric of "do as I say, not as I do". And while it would seem imprudent to ignore the wealth of funding and promotion the DOE has done of late, it does raise the question of motivation.