Testimony
of
Matthias Paustian
Sierra Club DC Chapter
on the
Department of General Services FY 2023 Budget
Committee on Government Operations and Facilities
Thursday, March 31, 2022
Thank you, Councilmember White, for the opportunity to testify at this hearing on the budget for the Department of General Services (DGS). My name is Matthias Paustian, and I am speaking today on behalf of the Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest and largest environmental advocacy organization, with chapters in every state. Here in DC, we have 3,000 dues-paying members.
My testimony today focuses on funding for the required energy efficiency measures in government buildings to comply with building energy performance standards (BEPS) as well as zero waste measures.
BEPS
At the hearing for the previous DGS budget, FY2022, I testified that 16 million square feet of District government-owned buildings are non-compliant with BEPS. I had further estimated that the cost of compliance with BEPS is just under 10 dollars per square foot. Multiplying the square footage with the cost of compliance per square foot, I testified of a funding need of about $160 million for DGS to comply with BEPS in the first compliance cycle. In stark contrast to this clear need for funding, the capital improvement plan in the previous budget allocated only $11.6 million over six years to energy efficiency programs at government owned buildings.
Despite those clear shortfalls in funding, DGS Director Keith Anderson testified that DGS was “on track to comply with BEPS.” When asked, Mr. Anderson declined to comment on my estimates of funding needs and testified that funding needs would become clear once the Strategic Energy Master Plan was published. He said the plan would be published by the end of 2021.
A year later, where do we stand? Déjà vu. Nothing has changed. The Strategic Energy Master Plan has not been published.
First, DOEE published a white paper on the benefit-cost analysis of BEPS this month, estimating an average cost of compliance with BEPS of $10 per square foot, fully confirming my estimate for the cost of compliance in the first BEPS cycle.
Second, the District government should spend well more than the $160 million needed to comply with just one cycle of BEPS and instead invest in deep energy retrofits that achieve larger energy reductions and put the government on track to also comply with future cycles of BEPS. By some estimates, DGS needs about $300 million to comply with BEPS on a sustained basis. The Sierra Club urges this committee to fund energy efficiency investments at this level.
Third, DGS is legally required to publish a strategic energy master plan by January 1, 2022. For months now we have been told publication is just around the corner. Why has it not been published yet, particularly since the January 1 deadline itself was pushed back a few times at the request of DGS? The lack of a publically-available energy master plan is certainly convenient for DGS, as once again uncomfortable questions can be postponed on the grounds that we must wait for publication of the plan.
Fourth, the capital improvement plan in this budget continues to grossly underfund BEPS measures, by hundreds of millions of dollars, just as it did in the previous budget.
Fifth, even worse, spending in this budget on energy efficiency is smaller than the planned expenditure for this year in the capital budget plan. Effectively, the Mayor proposes removing the additional funds for FY 23 provided by the Council in the previous capital plan.
Sixth, spending several hundred million dollars on energy efficiency is the fiscally prudent choice for the District. These measures pay for themselves via lower energy bills for District government agencies. Energy efficiency is not just an expenditure, it is an investment with positive returns.
Seventh, we cannot afford to delay urgent action on climate change and that the District government should be a leader in conserving energy and thus a leader in lowering its carbon footprint.
The Sierra Club has heard that there is a tendency to siphon funds from DGS for other purposes because these are local dollars that the Mayor and Council can easily reallocate. If even basic management and maintenance funds are not available, the efficiency of District buildings will decline rather than improve. District buildings should serve as a model for the private sector rather than falling behind.
We have also heard that DGS shows little effort in applying for federal grants, ostensibly because they do not have grant writers. The reality is that other departments do not have grant writers either, but manage to apply for and secure grants. Overall, this adds to the picture of an agency that is lacking in agility.
Because DOEE has the responsibility of managing the BEPS program for non-DGS buildings, there may be a tendency to look to DOEE for funding as well. The Sierra Club opposes placing the funding burden for DGS upgrades in the DOEE budget. This expense belongs in the DGS budget. DGS staff can assist by actively identifying and seeking federal grants for this important work, but the bulk of the funding will need to be allocated by the Mayor and this committee.
Zero Waste
The Sierra Club was pleased to see that the Mayor’s proposed budget notes that “Waste Management” costs have been separated from “Sustainable DC” initiatives for transparency but we would like to see more details to ensure that adequate funding is provided, especially for the diversion of recyclables, organic and food waste from incinerators and landfills, with recyclables going to secondary markets and food and organic waste being composted.
As we noted in the DGS Performance Oversight Hearing,[1] the Committee on Transportation and the Environment noted in its FY22 Budget Committee Report that:
The Zero Waste Omnibus Amendment Act includes provisions intended to strengthen source separation compliance at facilities and agencies, which will be implemented primarily by the Department of General Services.[2]
We request details on funding allocations for these measures in the FY23 budget and urge the Council to ensure that glass separation and collection along with food waste source separation and composting services become a reality in DGS-managed buildings and facilities. Currently, glass from the District is not recycled. We are wasting money paying for broken glass to be hauled for use as daily landfill cover, rather than selling high quality separated glass for recycling. Were this glass separated by color, it would be an income generator for the District versus the expense that it is now. We urge DGS to establish permanent separated glass collection sites at all DGS-managed buildings and facilities.
We also urge the Council to provide funding for DGS to launch pilots in DGS-managed buildings and facilities to test milk dispensers and water bottle refill stations. These reusables will prevent single-use plastic milk and water bottle waste from occurring. Pilots could be a first step in DGS updating its procurement requirements to require milk dispensers and water bottle refill stations. New legislation could ensure dish washing capacity for public schools modeled on a new California bill to bring dish washing capacity to public schools and community colleges.[3]
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.