Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance

Background

Before its revocation, the 2009 directive on federal sustainability had a significant influence on U.S. federal agency operations and policies, embedding sustainability and energy efficiency deeply within the federal government's modus operandi. This executive order mandated federal agencies to improve energy efficiency, reduce waste, and encourage the use of renewable energy sources. Agencies were propelled to report their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, thus operationalizing transparency and accountability in energy consumption and emission levels. This shift required federal agencies to alter procurement, facilities management, and fleet operations in favor of more sustainable and environmentally-friendly practices, setting ambitious goals for agencies to reduce their Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions by 2020.

Operational adjustments were notable under this directive, as federal buildings underwent retrofitting to meet high-performance standards that emphasized reduced energy and water consumption. The requirements for achieving sustainable building designs led to extensive federal investments in green building technologies. Additionally, the order specified that 95% of new contract actions should include sustainable acquisition requirements, affecting how agencies assessed their suppliers. This represented a significant shift towards promoting sustainable practices across the government's extensive supply chain network without necessitating extensive rulemaking processes. The order also mandated a decrease in petroleum usage by federal fleets, striving for a 2% annual reduction, demonstrating an alignment of federal operational practices with broader environmental goals.

Enforcement of this directive took the form of systematic assessments and evaluations of agencies' sustainability performance plans, overseen by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget. The order's regular reporting requirements ensured that federal entities remained accountable for their progress. Further, the order gave rise to the designation of Senior Sustainability Officers within agencies, empowering a network of sustainability champions tasked with leading compliance initiatives. The presence of these officers nurtured a federal culture attuned to sustainability, gradually transforming agency bureaucracies into hub environments for environmental, energy, and economic advancements. This cultural shift was intended to extend beyond legal and administrative frameworks, striving to embed sustainability into the government's operational ethos.

Reason for Revocation

The decision to revoke the 2009 executive order in March 2015 was part of a strategic realignment under the Obama administration seeking modernization and streamlining of sustainability priorities and practices. This revocation coincided with the introduction of Executive Order 13693, which aimed to update and expand upon previous sustainability foundations. The new mandate aimed to intensify federal focus on climate resilience and energy consumption reductions by setting more precise benchmarks and integrating newer sustainability frameworks introduced after 2009. Thus, the revocation should be viewed less as a cancellation of sustainability ambitions and more as a recalibration aligned with evolving priorities.

The introduction of Executive Order 13693 alongside the revocation represented a strategic shift towards integrating climate preparedness and adaptation into federal operations. This newer directive emphasized a more holistic approach, incorporating lessons learned and technological advancements that had developed over the preceding years. The transition also symbolized a maturing federal sustainability agenda, one that required reconciling early ambitions with practical, attainable, and measurable targets. Moreover, the newer order sought to unify the various strands of federal sustainability efforts under a singular framework, making it more comprehensive and interconnected.

Revoking the 2009 order was also an acknowledgment of changing technological landscapes and socio-political contexts, necessitating a newer mandate that embraced advancements in clean energy technologies and aligned with international sustainability commitments. The new trajectory intended to harmonize broader federal goals with international climate agreements, thus reinforcing the U.S. role in global climate leadership. Executive Order 13693 preserved many foundations laid by its predecessor while adjusting tactics to suit a 21st-century environmental and geopolitical landscape.

This nuanced strategic maneuver also hinted at an evolving ideology within the Obama administration, one that recognized the need to innovate and iterate public policy mechanisms in step with dynamic sciences and policy landscapes. It underscored the importance of flexibility in policy management, where new data and technologies inform incremental enhancement rather than steadfast adherence to outdated frameworks. Consequently, the revocation was less an ideological departure than an adaptation to refine and expand federal sustainability missions.

Winners

While the revocation might appear detrimental to specific sustainability agendas, certain sectors stood to gain from the revised landscape. By releasing federal agencies from rigid mandates of the original 2009 order, industries and contractors offering advanced, cutting-edge sustainability solutions found new avenues for collaboration and innovation. Companies adept at navigating new sustainability protocols, particularly those at the vanguard of alternative energy and climate adaptation solutions, benefited from the increased flexibility afforded by the transition to newer guidelines.

The revocation's focus on modernizing procurement and sustainability strategies presented opportunities for tech-driven logistics and energy management firms, as the federal government remained one of the largest single buyers of goods and services in the U.S. Companies like IBM and Siemens, known for their contributions to smart building technologies and energy management systems, stood to benefit from a refreshed marketplace where technological solutions are favored over compliance-driven systems. This shift created competitive incentives for suppliers to innovate continuously, meeting updated federal sustainability benchmarks while showcasing emerging solutions.

Furthermore, the revamped directive arguably favored businesses that demonstrated agility and innovation within a rapidly changing regulatory milieu. By emphasizing climate resilience and comprehensive energy strategies, the federal market incentivized firms to pioneer adaptive technologies that bolster both environmental outcomes and economic efficiencies. Consequently, companies invested in developing integrative sustainable technologies and those nimble enough to adjust to new regulatory frameworks found themselves well-positioned to capture federal contracts and apply these innovations across other sectors.

Losers

The revocation potentially presented challenges to entities deeply invested in the explicit sustainability frameworks established by the 2009 directive. Industries that had adjusted their operations specifically to align with the precise targets set forth in the previous order had to recalibrate their engagement strategies with the federal government. Companies that expended significant resources realigning their production and service delivery to meet stipulated benchmarks might have initially viewed the transition as an upheaval, requiring additional investments to adapt to the updated order and its requirements.

Environmental advocacy groups dedicated to stringent adherence to the old order's benchmarks likely saw the revocation as a setback to the original vision of federal sustainability leadership. The recalibration introduced new uncertainties regarding federal commitment levels to specific goals, potentially frustrating entities that leveraged the order to drive broader environmental policy changes and corporate accountability in adjacent sectors. As the revised mandate integrated a broader, less prescriptive approach, it risked diminishing the impetus provided by clear-cut directives to spur widespread industry change.

Federal employees tasked with implementing the expansive programs of the initial sustainability order faced the challenge of navigating a newly restructured framework. Adjusting to newer systems required realignment of existing programs, plans, and performance standards to meet the revitalized goals effectively. This transition risked creating temporary administrative burdens as employees sought to align ongoing operations and expectations with the broad objectives shared by successive directives, potentially impacting the consistency and continuity of specific initiatives.