Modeling and Promoting Progress in Sustainability

Adam D. Silverman is the Deputy Director for Administrative Services at the National Science Foundation (NSF), and Chairman of the U.S. federal government’s Small Agency Council Administrative Services Committee. He was previously the Assistant Inspector General for Management, and Director of Program Evaluations at the Department of the Treasury.

Executive Order 13514 mandated that federal agencies designate Senior Sustainability Officers to be accountable for agency conformance with the order’s requirements. As NSF’s Senior Sustainability Officer, Silverman is also responsible for monitoring agency performance and progress in achieving the goals of the Order.

He spoke with Governement by Example to offer his insights on the ways the NSF is leading by example and how federal agencies can best integrate sustainability practices and environmental stewardship into their culture, policies and everyday operations.

The Government by Example: The National Science Foundation is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. This significant role, along with a mission “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,       prosperity, and welfare…,” makes NSF well positioned to serve as a model for environmental responsibility and sustainability. What steps have you taken internally to increase the Foundation’s level of environmental responsibility? What are NSF’s strategies for promoting environmental research, education and scientific assessment externally?

Adam D. Silverman: I would definitely agree that at NSF we are well positioned to serve as a model for environmental responsibility and sustainability in the ways we conduct business, and in accomplishing our mission. As NSF’s Senior Sustainability Officer, my role focuses primarily on sustainability and impact in terms of how we conduct business. I am pleased to discuss the ways in which NSF’s contributions are making a difference across government, and to the research and science community. I would group NSF’s “model” into three areas: 1) internal business operations; 2) environmental stewardship in relation to scientific research; and 3) external environmental research, education and scientific assessment programs.

When I first arrived at NSF in May 2008, I was asked to evaluate the impact of the first area - internal business operations - on the environment, and identify opportunities to increase environmental sustainability. At that time, NSF’s environmental program included a modest amount of recycling and some mysterious annual energy savings that the General Services Administration (GSA) calculated for us. Some people were aware of President Bush’s Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, but environmental awareness was generally low among the staff. Environmental impact reduction and increasing sustainability were not really at the absolute top of any federal agencies’ internal business operations priorities. However, with the interest and support of some senior leaders, and a small but very vocal group of interested employees from across the agency, we established a “Got Green?” campaign. We set out with the vision of NSF serving as a “model environmentally responsible and sustainable federal agency.”

In the second “model” area - environmental stewardship in relation to scientific research - NSF’s Office of Polar Environment, Safety and Health guides environmental stewardship for NSF-supported polar research. U.S. government policy assigns NSF overall responsibility for managing U.S. activities in the Antarctic. In the Arctic, NSF coordinates interagency research policy and plays a significant leadership role in promoting environmental stewardship as it relates to scientific research. The staff in this office set a high standard for others to follow by using their knowledge of environmental science and engineering to ensure that NSF research and related activities in the polar regions are environmentally sound.

The third and final “model” area is external environmental research, education and scientific assessment programs. Much of NSF’s support for environmental research is focused on understanding the fundamental processes involved in physical, biological and human system interactions. NSF also supports research activities across all scientific and engineering disciplines to address issues of importance in the preservation, management and enhancement of the environment.

A cornerstone of NSF programs is the integration of research and education. Most research projects have educational components targeted at students and teachers at all levels and the general public. In addition, NSF supports many programs that have education as their central focus. Examples of those that have an environmental concentration include the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program, the Math and Science Partnership program, the Digital Libraries Initiative, and the Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program.

GBE: How does NSF’s Got Green campaign help the agency to meet its sustainability goals? How responsive have the agency employees been to the program? How effective has the campaign been in helping NSF to meet its sustainability goals?

AS: The Got Green campaign established the framework for increasing awareness and providing responsible alternatives for our staff. Through the campaign, we have been able to exceed all of our goals. We often refer back to our work and the lessons learned over that 12-month period.

Our published mission was to “take simple yet comprehensive action to further the NSF culture of environmental responsibility based upon the fundamental belief that the NSF workforce believes in protecting our world through environmental stewardship; and wants to take ongoing, comprehensive action to help make a positive environmental impact at work, on the road and at home.” We posted two simple goals for everyone to see: 1) raise awareness; and 2) provide sustainable alternatives and reduce environmental impacts.

Our list of volunteers grew to 125 after some successful campaign marketing. Most volunteers served on one or more of our seven working groups. In just a few weeks, the groups came up with more than three hundred ideas, which we began implementing immediately. As a small federal agency, this was relatively easy because we did not have much bureaucracy to get in the way. Within a year of our kickoff, all of the ideas were implemented in one form or another. We evolved from recycling two or three types of material to a major recycling and reuse program with twenty-nine distinct categories that, on any given day, diverts up to 95 percent of its waste from landfills. Rather than settle for the small energy savings reported by GSA each year, we piloted new lighting solutions, some of which cost nothing and one that cost quite a bit.

GBE: What strategies has NSF developed for extending sustainability practices beyond the agency itself to include the participation of peer organizations, non-profit organizations, other governmental agencies, vendors, etc.?

AS: We have developed strategies on three levels. First, we speak at least monthly with local, state and federal offices and agencies, or nonprofit organizations, that are looking to reduce their impact on the environment and create more sustainable business operations for themselves or others. Our local neighborhood is home to significant components of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research and the Nature Conservancy. We have a traveling road show at which we outline how we approached the challenges at NSF, and discuss what worked and what did not work. We have found that people learn as much from the strategies that did not work as they do from our successes. I am grateful, however, that we have had many more successes than failures.

Second, the scientist, engineer, researcher and educator recipients of NSF grants frequently showcase their work at seminars in the field or at the NSF headquarters in Arlington. I recall one outstanding presentation on alternative fuels technology that filled our largest open conference room with 125 people, plus overflow rooms connected by remote video technology.

In addition, we do our best to host third-party organizations, such as the Arlington County government and the Ballston Science and Technology Alliance (BSTA). The BSTA hosts monthly evening meetings, mainly on the topics of sustainability and impact-reduction. Arlington County has a substantial emissions reduction and education program led by a very innovative group called Fresh AIRE - Arlington Initiative to Reduce Emissions - that began in 2007 to undertake the goal of emissions reduction in the county.

As for our vendors, the NSF Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support (DACS) maintains an in-depth informational web page on the contracting requirements at NSF. For officials inside of NSF, DACS posts an updated list of vendor resources for the purposes of market research and generating source lists for upcoming procurements. All DACS resources take into account green purchasing guidelines their team has issued across the foundation. Additionally, DACS leadership is working with GSA as we await formal guidance for tracking and reporting on green acquisitions that align with the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

GBE: What are the main challenges NSF has faced in working to meet the mandate of Executive Order 13514? What advice would you give to other agencies that might be experiencing these challenges?

AS: We haven’t encountered major challenges in meeting the requirements of the Order itself. When 13514 came out, we were already implementing the previous environmental executive order, EO 13423. With a little bit of work, we have been able to meet the first several requirements of EO 13514 easily. Establishing a Senior Sustainability Officer was the first mandate and that merely required our Director to be briefed so that a selection could be made. Conducting an audit to determine scopes 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions to establish baselines and targeted reductions required us to hire a contractor with the expertise to properly analyze our buildings, infrastructure, utility bills and employee actions. Our targeted reductions of 40 percent for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, and 11 percent for Scope 3 emissions, exceed or approximately equaled the cumulative government targets of 28 percent and 13 percent, respectively. We anticipate being able to meet all of the coming Executive Order requirements.

Most federal agencies, NSF included, would like to be able to do everything they can to set their targets for greenhouse gas reductions as high as possible. However, it is important to recognize that this isn’t always practical. In NSF’s case, we reside in leased office buildings that are 10 to 20 years old. Decades-old mechanical components cannot compare to the more efficient components available today. As tenants, we do not have the authority or resources to make all of the changes we might want.

With our current leases expiring in 2013, we are pursuing workspace that meets or exceeds the requirements of Executive Order 13514. However, it is somewhat out of our control. You see, most federal agencies coordinate prospectuses for leased space through the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), General Services Administration (GSA) and Congress. Sometimes, the customer and these three distinct groups may not all seek the same outcome. For example, while I might wish to see NSF in an iconic, environmentally friendly, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) “Platinum Certified,” net-zero workspace, I don’t get to set the budget for it. OMB determines the recommended budget for this space. That budget may not provide for everything we want. GSA, on the other hand, tries to ensure compliance with a myriad of laws, regulations and executive guidelines, while at the same time guaranteeing compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations, so that all area builders and developers have fair opportunity to satisfy agencies’ workspace needs. Leveling the playing field has the potential to result in compromises on some of the requirements. So, no matter how much an agency may want to set an environmentally friendly workspace example for others, there can be practical limitations on what is possible.

Also, government agencies, like their private and nonprofit counterparts, can face cultural challenges in convincing staff to reduce their environmental footprint. For example, at NSF we have worked with our staff and building management team on various issues, including more efficient, effective and economical lighting; transportation options; recycling and reusing; and water-saving heating, ventilation and air conditioning alternatives. However, in collaborative work environments, it is not always easy to mandate improvements that affect old practices. We have found that convincing some staff to change can take time.

For example, calculating Scope 3 emissions is best done through an in-depth survey and evaluation of commuting choices, and this can intrude on employees’ private decisions. Agencies often hesitate to survey employees because there is a serious expectation of privacy outside the office in the civil sector of government. Most government agencies need to work with employee unions for approval of all surveys. As a result, many agencies did not survey for the recent Scope 3 emissions baselines and targeted reductions. At NSF, we used previous surveys and existing analytical data for our estimations.

Lastly, in my service as a committee chair for the U.S. Small Agencies Council, what I have heard from many other small agencies is that they generally don’t have adequate in-house expertise - or the resources to hire the expertise to do the work needed to comply with the Executive Order. My advice to these agencies is to be persistent and do what you can. I have found that employees will adapt to the changing culture, some sooner than others. But they all seem willing to adapt at some point. The White House staff has been extremely flexible and reasonable in their requirements when working with the small agencies; their outreach has been sincere and generous. They have shown a real emphasis on partnership, and on wanting to work with each of us to reduce government’s impact on the environment while creating a model for organizational sustainability. Personally, I cannot say enough kind words about the work and approach of the Federal Environmental Executive, Michelle Moore. She deserves significant recognition for her hard work on our behalf.

GBE: Reducing energy consumption is an important focus of Executive Order 13514 and for any organization serious about environmental responsibility and sustainability. What can you tell us about NSF’s energy-use reduction program?

AS: We have already implemented a number of energy savings measures, including LED task lighting; reduced overhead lighting through bulb removal and replacement on demand only; motion switches; low-energy bulb installation; T-5 lighting on more than an entire floor; and incrementally improved heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. However, in order to evaluate building performance more strategically, and establish realistic greenhouse gas reduction targets, NSF conducted an energy audit of its two leased buildings in Arlington, VA. The resulting audit report benchmarks current building performance, identifies multiple cost-effective conservation measures, outlines NSF’s baseline greenhouse gas emissions from facility energy use, and provides targets for reducing facility-related greenhouse gas emissions.

The energy audit resulted in identification of 22 energy conservation measures, including electronic controls upgrades, lighting retrofits, equipment upgrades, information technology upgrades and water conservation. Several measures that would reduce NSF’s utility bills will also reduce the utility bills for our property manager. The initial cost for all conservation measures identified is around $2.9 million, and can lead to annual cost savings of around $856,000 with a simple payback period of three years.

In order for NSF to meet Executive Order 13514’s reporting requirements, we need to report only metered consumption for our original and oldest building, Stafford I, which amounted to 54.1 billion British Thermal Units (Btu) in fiscal year 2008, and 52.9 billion Btu in fiscal year 2009. In order to meet the reporting requirements, we will also need to monitor property manager energy consumption. Total energy consumption attributable to NSF operations in all leased spaces was 81.9 billion Btu in fiscal year 2008, and 79.9 billion Btu in fiscal year 2009. These estimates are based on the approximate building area occupied by NSF.

We have benchmarked facility energy performance using EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager. This program develops a score for buildings based on their space type, location and energy usage intensity. Our newest building, Stafford II, receives a score of 61, meaning it performs better than 61 percent of similar buildings. Stafford I has a score of just 52, meaning it performs better than only 52 percent of similar buildings. Key factors influencing building performance include inefficient T12 lighting, a data center, large volumes of outdoor air provided to conference rooms, and the necessary practice of keeping computers on around the clock.

We predict that if all conservation measures are implemented, Stafford I can reduce its overall energy consumption by 36 percent (including both NSF and the property manager’s energy bills). Stafford I can achieve an Energy Star score of 87, which would exceed federal requirements for a minimum score of 75. Meanwhile, Stafford II would achieve an Energy Star score of 72, predicated on us implementing a number of conservation measures in NSF spaces (but not in other tenant spaces). A higher score could be achieved if our property manager pursues more comprehensive upgrades throughout the buildings.

It is also likely, with our current leases coming to an end in 2013, that NSF will move within four to five years into refurbished and modernized office space or entirely new buildings. Our auditors evaluated potential building performance in a new facility in order to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals outlined by our auditors, and a new or renovated building would need to consume around 14.3 million kWh or less. This would correspond to an Energy Star score of 88. The building would consume 41 percent less energy than the average office building. If we were to implement an entire package of recommended conservation measures, the simple payback period is around 3.5 years and the internal rate of return for all measures is about 9–10 percent.

One challenge we face as lease tenants (and not building owners) is the question of whether the government/NSF or our owner should pay for the conservation measures. Depending on the measure, utility-cost reductions could be shared between NSF and its property managers.

Additionally, we hope to work with GSA and our property managers to investigate two additional funding sources, including utility rebates and Energy Saving Performance Contracts (ESPC). On March 24, 2010, Dominion Virginia Power received approval to implement a rebate program for commercial HVAC and lighting measures. While program details are not yet available, there is a good opportunity to apply future Dominion rebates to reduce the initial cost of conservation measures. Additionally, we may want to consider an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) with an energy services company (ESCO). In this case, the ESCO will design and construct a project to meet agency goals and arrange the financing to cover project costs. The ESCO guarantees energy savings over the period of the contract, and once the contract ends any additional savings accrue to the agency.

GBE: NSF’s website claims it has “the potential to recycle and/or reuse more than 95 percent” of its waste. What strategies/programs have been implemented to help the agency reach this goal?

AS: At NSF we now have the potential to recycle and/or reuse almost all of our waste. We have implemented procedures that make it easy to achieve this goal through "single-stream recycling" and other aggressive recycling and reuse programs.

We have recycling or reuse programs in place for various types of waste, including (but not limited to) all kinds of batteries, print materials, glass and plastic bottles, aluminum, steel and tin cans, cardboard, electronic data storage devices and other electronic waste, compact fluorescent light bulbs, food scraps and composting, and furniture.

GBE: Any closing thoughts on the short- and long-term cultural implications of increased environmental sustainability and impact reduction in the government?

AS: I appreciate the opportunity you have provided me to share some of what NSF and others in government are doing and experiencing. Like NSF, the federal government as a whole is positioned to serve as a model for environmental responsibility and sustainability. I hope this trend toward increased sustainability and environmental-impact reductions in government operations will continue.

*Footnotes