Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management

Background

Operational Adjustments

Before its revocation, the 2007 order played a significant role in reshaping the operational dynamics of various federal agencies. It mandated a series of rigorous targets aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions across government operations. For instance, agencies were required to lower their energy intensity by 3% annually, culminating in a 30% reduction by 2015, relative to a 2003 baseline. This directive was not merely advisory but imposed operational adjustments that necessitated substantial upgrades in facilities and equipment to meet the benchmarks. Such changes were comprehensive, often requiring the retrofit of older buildings and the deployment of energy-efficient technologies.

Additionally, the order prioritized the development and utilization of renewable energy sources by stipulating that a majority of the renewable energy consumed should derive from new sources. Federal agencies were thus encouraged to explore solar, wind, and other renewable options, fostering a nascent shift towards sustainability in federal operations. These changes stimulated internal policy reforms, pushing agencies to rethink their resource allocation and project implementation to align with the goals. Furthermore, a greater emphasis on reducing water intensity, requiring a 2% annual reduction, affected how agencies managed their infrastructure, often leading to investments in water-saving technologies and practices.

Enforcement and Compliance

Compliance with these sustainability goals necessitated a framework within each agency to track progress and ensure adherence, manifesting as Environmental Management Systems (EMS). While the order did not carry the force of statutory law, it imposed de facto compliance requirements that agencies needed to incorporate into their strategic planning and operations. The Executive Order also compelled federal agencies to integrate sustainable practices into their procurement processes, which increased demand for biobased, environmentally preferable, energy-efficient, and water-efficient goods and services. Agencies were expected to meet these procurement objectives or face scrutiny from oversight bodies.

The oversight mechanism involved high-level accountability, requiring each agency to designate a senior executive to oversee the implementation of the order's provisions. This structure ensured that the directives were not merely aspirational but closely monitored for compliance. Consequently, federal agencies established more rigorous performance measurement indicators and internal audits to document and improve their environmental and energy performance, thus embedding sustainability within the federal procurement and operational ecosystems.

Agency Directives without Rulemaking

The strategic imperatives set forth in the order resulted in several direct agency directives, even in the absence of formal rulemaking. Agencies were prompted to adopt a management approach where environmental performance was ingrained into the decision-making culture. This was evidenced by policy changes such as the requirement for a significant portion of electronic acquisitions to meet Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) standards. By compelling agencies to ensure 95% compliance with EPEAT standards for eligible acquisitions, the order effectively raised the baseline for acceptable environmental performance for electronic products.

These directives significantly pushed federal agencies toward integrating sustainability into their core missions. The requirement for renewable energy projects on agency property, whenever feasible, encouraged agencies to evaluate underutilized assets for renewable energy assessments. This sometimes sparked collaborations with private partners to explore innovative energy solutions. As a result, agencies not only pursued internal sustainability goals but also contributed external expertise and leadership in the adjacent sectors, thereby setting a standard for other non-government entities to follow.

Reason for Revocation

Transition Under Obama Administration

The revocation of the 2007 executive order by President Obama in 2015 was largely part of a broader shift in environmental policy under his administration. President Obama aimed to embed more stringent and extensive environmental responsibilities within federal operations through his own Executive Order 13693, titled "Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade." This new order expanded upon the previous mandates by setting forth more aggressive targets, such as reducing federal greenhouse gas emissions by 40% over ten years. It reflected a strengthened commitment to combat climate change more assertively than its predecessor.

Emphasis on Holistic Sustainability

Obama's approach also sought to integrate sustainability more holistically within federal practices, moving beyond just operational efficiency to embedding sustainable principles across a wider array of federal activities. The new directive went further in fostering resilience to climate change by integrating considerations for climate change adaptation into facilities and project planning. This shift underscored the administration's understanding of environmental sustainability as a multifaceted priority requiring comprehensive strategies, extending beyond mere energy efficiency.

Iterative Policy Development

This revocation was also a reflection of the natural evolution of policy, where existing frameworks are refined and expanded in response to both emerging challenges and advancements in technology. By the time of the revocation, technological advancements and increased awareness of climate risks had prompted the need for more nuanced and comprehensive policy tools. The new framework aimed to tackle these challenges with updated goals, advanced metrics for tracking sustainability performance, and a clearer alignment with scientific and economic realities.

Political and Ideological Considerations

Alongside the technological and environmental imperatives, there were also clear political undertones to this shift. The Obama administration faced mounting pressure from both domestic stakeholders and international partners to significantly bolster the U.S. stance on climate action. The 2015 mandate was, therefore, also a strategic alignment with broader global efforts, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, which the administration was keen on championing. Thus, the revocation served as a necessary step to align internal policies with both national and international climate agendas.

Winners

Green Technology and Renewable Energy Industries

The revocation was likely beneficial to companies within the green technology and renewable energy sectors. By expanding the scope and ambition of federal sustainability goals, the subsequent order drove up demand for innovative solutions in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable building materials. Companies specializing in solar, wind, geothermal, and other clean technologies good stand to gain from increased federal procurement and incentives to install renewable energy projects on government properties. Moreover, the expanded use of EPEAT-registered products implied greater business opportunities for manufacturers of compliant electronics and IT equipment.

Consulting and Environmental Services

Consulting firms and environmental services providers would have benefited from the increased demand for expertise in compliance with the new sustainability directives. These firms play a critical role in advising federal agencies on how best to meet their sustainability and energy efficiency targets, thereby driving growth and job creation within the sector. The shift necessitated new strategies and deeper evaluation for agencies seeking to align with the new sustainability mandates, thereby creating business opportunities across the consultancy landscape.

Federal Employees and Infrastructure Projects

Federal employees whose roles are related to sustainability coordination, energy management, and environmental compliance stood to benefit from the enhanced emphasis on sustainability. The revamped objectives often led to additional staffing or expanded roles within agencies to facilitate compliance and reporting. Moreover, the infrastructure sector could see an influx of projects related to retrofitting, upgrades, and new builds that adhere to enhanced green building standards, providing a broad range of opportunities for contractors and developers engaged in sustainable urban planning and execution.

Losers

Traditional Energy Sector

Entities heavily vested in fossil fuels and traditional energy-intensive practices were likely disadvantaged by the revocation and subsequent implementation of more robust sustainability requirements. The Obama administration's increased prioritization of reducing reliance on petroleum and enhancing energy efficiency effectively diverted federal procurement and investment away from fossil fuel-based companies. This would adversely affect their market share and influence within federal energy contracts.

Certain Industrial Manufacturers

Industrial manufacturers whose products did not align with new environmental standards faced potential losses. Companies producing energy-inefficient or non-compliant electronics and building materials would either have to rapidly innovate to meet compliance benchmarks or risk losing substantial federal business. The expanded use of renewable materials and environmentally friendly products in government operations meant traditional manufacturers might require substantial investment to pivot or risk falling behind.

Agencies with Limited Budgets

Federal agencies facing budget constraints potentially struggled with the implementation of increased sustainability standards which often required up-front financial outlay, despite long-term cost efficiencies. Smaller agencies, in particular, could have faced difficulties in securing funds to manage compliance and oversight activities, leading to resource allocation challenges and potential gaps in meeting the enhanced sustainability goals set forth in the new order. This financial strain could affect both the day-to-day operations and strategic planning capacities of these bodies.