The National Park Service is investing $29 million in 81 individual energy efficiency and water conservation projects at national parks throughout the greater Washington region. This unprecedented commitment to reducing energy use and generating energy from renewable sources is the largest to date among the nine bureaus in the Department of the Interior.
The 23-year Energy Savings Performance Contract, awarded at the end of September to Siemens Government Technologies, will allow the NPS to conserve energy and water with no upfront costs and to accrue cost savings into the future. The project is funded by savings generated through the new energy conservation measures. Savings are guaranteed by Siemens and will allow NPS to advance President Obama’s vision that federal facilities generate 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.
“The National Park Service is committed to managing the future health and sustainability of our national parks proactively through this kind of ambitious energy and resource conservation program,” Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said. “The parks in the greater Washington region involved in this effort are demonstrating the kind of leadership that other parks and public lands across the country can follow to reduce our carbon footprint, energy consumption, and water usage.”
“The National Park Service’s mission to preserve our country’s natural and historic treasures also requires us to be responsible stewards of our planet’s resources and of Americans’ tax dollars,” acting Regional Director Lisa Mendelson-Ielmini said. “As we approach our centennial in 2016, we are committed to employing the best science and industry practices, and this energy savings contract provides a creative way to accomplish our goals.”
The new energy conservation measures will allow 13 D.C. area national parks to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint, water and energy consumption and deferred maintenance backlogs. Greater efficiency will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 4,000 tons each year, reduce water usage by 74 million gallons each year and reduce energy use by nearly 20,000 MBtus each year.
Specific projects include installing intelligent lighting and water controls that regulate themselves to be most effective and efficient for the conditions, replacing outdated and high energy use heating and air conditioning systems and installing photovoltaic solar arrays. Project installation is expected to begin in January 2015.
Project Examples:
National Mall and Memorial Parks: Park staff will know instantly when a light bulb burns out along the National Mall. Intelligent lighting systems with remote monitoring capabilities will not only allow the park to know when a new light bulb is needed, but also will smartly adjust to natural lighting conditions. New energy efficient lights will help the National Mall reduce energy use by 13 percent in the first year.
President’s Park: Sprinklers on the White House Ellipse in President’s Park will now only turn on when the grass needs water. Intelligent remotely monitored sensors will substantially reduce water use making irrigation more efficient and sustainable. In the first year of the new energy conservation measures, President’s Park will reduce its energy use by 36 percent.
Monocacy National Battlefield: The sun will provide all the energy needed to power the visitor center at Monocacy National Battlefield. A photovoltaic system of solar panels will be installed on the visitor center’s roof helping the park reduce its energy use by 30 percent in year one. Park rangers will be able to use the solar panels to educate visitors about climate change and renewable energy.
Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts: Intelligent lighting systems and energy-efficient bulbs will be installed at the Filene Center. The lights are designed to match the ambience and historic feel of the amphitheatre. All told, projects like this at Wolf Trap will help the park reduce its energy consumption by 15 percent in the first year.
Participating Parks:
Antietam National Battlefield (Md.)
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (DC, Md., Va.)
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park (WVa., Va., Md.)
Manassas National Battlefield Park (Va.)
Monocacy National Battlefield (Md.)
National Capital Parks- East (DC, Md.)
National Mall and Memorial Parks (DC)
George Washington Memorial Parkway (DC, Md., Va.)
Prince William Forest Park (Va.)
Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts (Va.)
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
While some will scoff at the value of "reduced greenhouse emissions" and the use of renewable energy technology, this project will also offer some real dollar savings in reduced energy and water usage.
It also involves an interesting way to finance the work.
Energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) "allow Federal agencies to complete energy-savings projects without up-front capital costs... An ESPC is a partnership between a Federal agency and an energy service company (ESCO)....In consultation with the Federal agency, the ESCO designs and constructs a project that meets the agency's needs and arranges the necessary funding. The ESCO guarantees that the improvements will generate energy cost savings to pay for the project over the term of the contract (up to 25 years). After the contract ends, all additional cost savings accrue to the agency."
All for the energy and water savings parts. The only way the solar works is subsidies. The taxpayer will end up footing the bill.
[Edit] Not to mention the eyesore of the solar panels in our natural surroundings.
I acknowledge your concerns about the taxpayer subsidies. In the case of these contracts, where the solar is part of the overall water and energy-saving improvements, perhaps those subsidies are "hidden" costs. Even so, these contracts are an interesting approach, where the contractor funds the upfront costs and "guarantees that the improvements will generate energy cost savings to pay for the project over the term of the contract."
The reason they do that is the NPS wouldn't be eligible for the subsidies. By setting up a front, the ESCO does. Happening all over the country. Companies pocketing taxpayer subsidies under the guise of saving the world.
I’m confused. Where is the 29 million investment from the NPS coming from or is that the amount that Siemens Government Technologies is investing? Does the park service then have to wait 23 years to start realizing the savings or do they share it with Seimens? What is Siemens ROI? I also cringe a little when I hear subsidies are involved be it private or public.
OMB has expressed skepticism that ESPCs can achieve the savings that their supporters claim (particularly on data centers; projects like those listed above might have better luck, although that's not clear). http://fcw.com/articles/2013/06/26/wyden-data-center.aspx
Data centers don't get save the world subsidies.
It is a bit hard to sort out how this works. As best I can tell, the NPS pays nothing up front; Simens pays for the initial costs of the improvements, and then gets to keep the resulting savings in energy and water costs for the 23 years of the contract. After that time, any savings go to the NPS.
As to subsidies, there's no mention of that in the contract or press release. There's an assumption by some that since there's typically a long time period to recover the investment in solar systems, the cost of those systems is being subsidized.
My only guess is the NPS $29 million "investment" is the amount of anticipated savings in energy and water costs that will be used to pay back the contractor for the new systems being installed.
Perhaps others can clarify if they have better information.
If you are referencing my comment - there is no assumption. We went through this in Breckenridge. Solar systems - particularly for electric generation - can't compete directly with alternative generation technologies. The only way they may make economic sense is if they are subsidized. (Disagree with me on that - then join me in calling for an end to the subsidies). Governmental organizations aren't eligible for the subsidies (tax credits) since they don't pay taxes. Therefore those wanting to sell solar equipment create front organizations or use existing ones. They build the infrastructure and then sell the power at below market rates. They make up the difference - and more - with the tax credits. Saves the governmental entity money but costs all us tax payers.
Is a subsidy for a solar system any different than subsidies provided through tax breaks and other gimmicks to oil and coal companies?
NPS obligated $1,064,993 on September 23rd toward the Siemens contract.
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?form_fields=%7B%22search_term%22%3A%22...
http://www.usaspending.gov/explore?fiscal_year=all&comingfrom=searchresu...
Yes Lee - look up the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. Then learn how to read a corporate income statement and balance sheet and you will see the notion that oil companies get subsidies is a total myth.
Okay, I'm guilty of helping take this thread off topic a bit, but while they are clearly different, both tax credits and tax deductions can help reduce an individual's (or corporation's) tax liability. One investment site defines a subsidy as "A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals,usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction."
Just for fun, I Googled "tax breaks for oil companies" and the first hit (for an oil company) has an interesting pitch on its home page. "...Investing in oil and gas plays with Crude Energy gives the savvy investor the ability to take advantage of tax incentives and high capital return potential..."
We could probably play the word game indefinitely on the difference between a tax break, credit, incentive or a deduction, but quite a few sources such as this one point out that oil and gas companies do receive some very generous tax "breaks" indeed, including a variety of tax credits. Whether or not those lower taxes constitute a "subsidy" probably depends on your political persuasion as much as anything else :-)
Jim, I'm assuming something similar. While any energy use reductions will be nice I'd like to understand what NPS is giving up and what Siemens is gaining vs. the NPS purchasing these systems themselves and realizing the savings immediately. At the rate that technology is changing will it be time to replace whatever was installed in 23 years? The devil is always in the details. How are savings calculated etc. This could be a good or bad deal, there just isn't enough info to judge.
Yeah, living up here in Alaska and reading that word "myth" is where I had a good old fashioned belly laugh.
Our governor, $arah Palin's hand picked successor, Sean Parnell, was a lobbyist for the oil companies before his current job. He has been exceedingly well known through his administration for giving away in a multitude of ways millions of dollars to the very oil companies he was recently an employee of. Again, as Jim just noted, there is a variety of sophistry in how various things are described - tax breaks, tax incentives, etc - but they all end up with financial advantage to the oil companies and financial disadvantage to the citizens of Alaska.
You might ask why such a man gets reelected. You might also notice how many millions of dollars the Koch brothers are spending in the current elections.
Yeah that $1800 check you got last year was a real financial disadvantage.
Last year Exxon Mobil, the largest US oil company paid $24 billion in income tax - an effective income tax rate of 48%. On top of that they paid another $67 billion in other taxes. That means their total taxes were more than 3 times their net income. Please explain to me how that is a subsidy.
ec - I won't even try to unravel those figures, except to say without the various tax breaks the company received (however we choose to define them) its taxes would almost certainly have been even higher. Whether that would be good national economic policy is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Despite the taxes the company paid, things seem to be going pretty well at Exxon. According to a company statement, “ExxonMobil delivered strong business results in 2013 while remaining focused on improving profitability and long-term shareholder value. ... In 2013, the Corporation distributed $26 billion to shareholders through dividends and share purchases to reduce shares outstanding.”
And, back to the original subject, it would be good to have some clarity on the long-term costs vs. savings for the NPS project. If the total cost to the NPS for the improvements over the life of the contract exceeds the savings realized, it could be argued that the difference amounts to a "subsidy" of sorts. Some would argue that there are non-economic benefits from the project that justify those expenditures.
So lets see if I say I am going to tax your $60 billion more because you are an oil company but I will give you a $1 billion credit because you are an oil company, the oil company is "subsidized"? Absurd.
You know why? Because it is you, not the Exxon Mobil that ultimately pays the tax.
I have no doubt the NPS will come out ahead but it will be at the expense of American taxpayers. Whether that would be good national economic policy is beyond the scope of this discussion.
It would be nice to read stuff here without every little thing turning into a rant from Fox and Friends.
According to Exxon, in 2013 they paid $9.8 billion in total US tax. That is state, local, property, sales, income, etc. According to Exxon, their effetive tax rate was 35%, but that includes all forms of taxes, not just federal income tax.
The $24 billion number might be income tax nationally and internationally; they do pay a lot of taxes to other countries, particularly Bahamas.
Yes dahkota, my numbers were total. And yes, they paid $9.8 billion in total US tax. Their net US income was $8.4 billion. That hardly fits the definition of subsidized.
But your numbers have nothing to do with whether or not Exxon is subsidized. The company itself states they paid 35% in total taxes to the United States. Their Federal Income tax rate was closer to 17%. They do get very large tax breaks and tax credits; it is a matter of semantics whether or not you want to call them subsidies.
Special classes of tax payers received tax breaks/credits available to no other classes. A quick example: homeowners with a mortgage who itemize their taxes. No other class of taxpayers is eligible for the tax break. The same holds true for tax breaks and credits aimed at oil companies; there are credits and deductions specifically for oil companies as a class of taxpayers. Because these tax breaks/credits are aimed specifically at oil and gas companies, to the exclusion of any other taxpayer, some call them subsidies.
How much one pays in taxes has no relation to the number of tax credits/deductions/breaks one gets.
They have everything to do with whether they are subsidized.
They pay big taxes that other companies dont pay. You can't claim subsidies out of one side of your mouth and ignore the forfieture of other taxes out of the other. On a net basis, they pay a higher, not lower than average tax. On a net basis they are overly burdened not subsidized.
But hey, I have the solution to the argument. Eliminate corporate taxes all together. That way we aren't favoring one industry over another. In the process we lower prices, increase demand, eliminate a chunk of the IRS, reduce the cost of compliance, eliminate inversions and bring billions of cash and millions of jobs back to the US.
Use the IGNORE button to prevent trolls from limiting comments on the site.