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lighting and water controls that regulate themselves to be most effective and efficient for the conditions, replacing outdated and high energy use heating and air conditioning systems and installing photovoltaic solar arrays.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.)
Comments
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.