Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management

Background

Before its revocation, the Executive Order on greening the government through efficient energy management had a significant influence on federal operations regarding energy consumption and sustainability. It mandated federal agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption by specific percentages, promoting a shift toward more sustainable operational practices. The focus on life-cycle cost-effective measures was meant to encourage agencies to adopt cost-efficient solutions while minimizing environmental impact. The order emphasized the use of renewable energy, water conservation, and reduced reliance on petroleum, compelling agencies to integrate these considerations into their operations and planning.

The executive order also had a profound impact on procurement policies and practices across federal agencies. It required agencies to prioritize Energy-Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and utility energy-efficiency service contracts, leveraging these mechanisms to implement energy-efficient projects without the need for upfront capital expenditures. Additionally, federal procurement practices were aligned to prioritize the acquisition of ENERGY STAR-rated products and to reflect the operational costs based on energy efficiency. This effort not only pushed the federal market toward more sustainable products but also signaled a broader shift within the procurement landscape, encouraging the private sector to innovate and offer products that met these standards.

Operational adjustments as a result of the executive order included the establishment of energy teams tasked with implementing energy strategies and technologies across federal facilities. Agencies were compelled to develop annual implementation plans and reports, fostering a culture of accountability regarding energy management. The Department of Energy, alongside other federal entities like the General Services Administration, was instrumental in creating guidelines and support frameworks to facilitate compliance. The requirement for agencies to report progress fostered a culture of transparency and accountability, effectively institutionalizing energy efficiency and sustainability as integral components of federal operations.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of President Clinton's executive order in January 2007 by President George W. Bush was indicative of a broader ideological shift towards a more market-oriented approach, reducing federal mandates concerning environmental standards. President Bush's administration favored a philosophy that prioritized energy independence and economic competitiveness over prescriptive regulatory mandates. A reliance on market forces to drive energy efficiency was preferred, with less direct federal intervention in dictating the methods by which energy goals should be achieved.

The decision to rescind this directive also coincided with the Bush administration's emphasis on bolstering fossil fuel industries, viewing them as critical to domestic energy security. This focus was reflected in policy decisions that encouraged increased domestic oil and gas production, as seen in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. By revoking the earlier executive order, the administration effectively reduced the pressure on federal agencies to pursue aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets, aligning federal energy policy more closely with industry interests.

Facilitating less stringent energy management policies permitted greater flexibility for agencies and was part of the administration's broader deregulatory agenda. The overriding belief was that too many regulations could hamper economic growth and innovation, particularly in a recovering economy following the early 2000s recession. The emphasis was on enabling federal agencies to focus on broader strategic priorities without the heavy administrative burdens associated with stringent energy efficiency mandates.

Furthermore, the revocation reflected a broader skepticism about the efficacy of stringent federal mandates in addressing climate change. Advocates of the Bush administration's policies argued that such issues could be better addressed through voluntary initiatives and technological innovation rather than mandatory governmental oversight. A subsequent executive order, EO 13423, emphasized more generalized goals regarding federal environmental, energy, and transportation management but removed prescriptive measures that obligated agencies to specific energy performance outcomes.

Winners

The energy and fossil fuel sectors stood to benefit substantially from the revocation of the executive order. With federal agencies no longer mandated to prioritize renewable energy and energy-efficient products, there was an increased opportunity for traditional energy companies to maintain or increase their market share within the federal procurement landscape. The relaxing of stringent energy standards was likely perceived favorably by industries reliant on fossil fuels, aligning federal energy consumption practices with broader market opportunities for conventional energy sources.

Businesses providing conventional energy solutions, specifically coal, oil, and natural gas companies, were significant beneficiaries. Companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron, with considerable stakes in fossil fuel exploration and refining, benefitted from an administration more lenient toward fossil fuels. The focus on energy independence and economic growth meant continued support in federal policies encouraging domestic production and consumption of fossil fuels.

Federal agencies themselves could also be viewed as winners to some extent due to the increased flexibility afforded by the removal of stringent mandates. Agencies with significant operational or logistical challenges found relief in being able to tailor their energy management strategies without prescriptive federal oversight. This allowed for agency-specific adaptations that could meet operational needs more effectively without the administrative burdens imposed by the previous framework.

Losers

The revocation adversely impacted the renewable energy sector, which lost a critical federal ally in the form of mandated markets for their products. Companies that specialized in providing renewable energy solutions or energy efficiency products, such as solar panel manufacturers and energy service companies focusing on ESPCs, faced reduced market opportunities with the diminished focus on renewable energy in federal procurement practices. The shift in policy direction hampered their competitiveness in the federal market, potentially slowing down growth and innovation in these sectors.

Environmental advocacy groups and organizations focusing on climate change mitigation suffered setbacks with the removal of specific federal mandates aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The executive order had been pivotal in aligning federal operations with broader environmental goals, and its revocation represented a shift away from federally driven environmental stewardship. This policy reversal was a significant blow to efforts advocating for stringent climate action and sustainability in federal operations.

Employees working within federal agencies who had been engaged with implementing energy-efficient and renewable energy solutions also faced challenges. The revocation potentially undermined years of effort to embed sustainable practices within federal operations. Teams and individuals who had been responsible for driving the ambitious targets of the executive order might have faced uncertainty and frustration with the policy shift, affecting morale and the momentum of ongoing energy efficiency programs.