Keeping the Capitol cool could be a costly venture

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee’s push Wednesday to replace aging cooling equipment won’t chill debate on Capitol Hill, but it will save senators and their staffs from heat stroke.

Four large “chillers” fueled by natural gas, coal and oil have had kept the temperature pleasant and the water ice-cold for the past 30 years. But the equipment needs to be replaced as it is costly and inefficient — and in some eyes, not environmentally friendly.

{mosads}The designs alone for the new chillers are estimated to cost about $1 million, according to acting Architect of the Capitol (AoC) Steven Ayers. That money is included in next year’s budget.

“It’s one of the most important things we could do (to cut back on energy costs),” Ayers said at the panel’s first public hearing on energy efficiency.

Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also charged the AoC to look into what it would take to switch the Capitol power plant entirely to the more environmentally friendly natural gas and cease to use coal.

“It seems like a very good thing to do,” she said.

Under the direction of the Chief Administrative Office, the House has increased the power plant’s natural gas use as part of its aim to reduce its carbon emissions for a goal of carbon neutrality by the end of the year.

The power plant is at its maximum capacity for using natural gas as an energy source and would need new equipment to increase usage, which is estimated to cost as much as $7 million, according to the AoC.

Ranking member Robert Bennett (R-Utah) said he was concerned that buying up a large amount of natural gas for the Capitol’s energy use could raise the overall cost of natural gas and prevent Americans from using the already more expensive energy source.

“I have a holistic view of this whole thing,” he said. “I’m concerned that focusing on greening the Capitol makes us feel good but shifts the carbon footprint some other place.”

Ayers said increasing natural gas usage was not the most cost-effective solution to creating a more energy-efficient Capitol.

He proposed a $200 million revamping of the power plant that would re-equip it to produce electricity for House and Senate sides in addition to the Capitol complex. The AoC could then sell back any excess electricity to Pepco, which currently provides the Capitol complex’s electricity.

Ayers argued that the large initial expense would save the Capitol money in the long term. But the price tag sparked some concern from the committee.

“That’s a tough sell,” Bennett said.

More than 95 percent of the Capitol complex’s pollution comes from its electricity use and the Capitol power plant, according to Terrell Dorn, director of physical infrastructure issues at the Government Accountability Office.

Feinstein proposed requiring Senate staffers to turn off their computers at the end of the day, instead of merely putting them to sleep, which she argued wastes energy and money.

The Senate has made strides toward becoming more energy efficient in recent years. It has implemented recycling programs, switched the majority of lighting mechanisms to lower waste systems, and is considering a vegetative rooftop for the Dirksen Senate office building.