As monthly electricity bills go, this one was a monster: $111,834.08.
That was what the U.S. government owed in January to keep the lights and heat running in the Poff Federal Building in downtown Roanoke. The bill was an aberration for two reasons: It came in the midst of a bitterly cold streak, and it included about $41,000 from the previous month that the government was late in paying.
Still, the cost of providing electricity to the 14-story office building is substantial — nearly $585,000 from September 2009 though August of this year, according to bills obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
As the General Services Administration prepares to spend nearly $51 million to make the Poff Building more energy efficient, the electric bills shed light on just what the federal landlord will get for its money.
If the renovations reduce energy consumption by 40 percent, as the GSA says in posters touting the project, that would amount to an annual savings of $233,659.
The improvements, including new glass walls and a new roof, are expected to extend the building’s life another 30 years. That would save about $7 million on energy costs. But would that be worth $51 million?
“That’s a calculation that any homeowner would do, and I think the government should be doing it as well,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that tracks wasteful public spending.
An unscientific calculation shows the project would take 218 years to pay for itself.
The GSA and several independent experts say a cost-benefit analysis of the project is not so simple, and other factors should be considered.
But the electric bills have done nothing to change the mind of U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who has called the use of $51 million in federal stimulus funds a waste of taxpayer money.
“I think it indicates, again, the questionable nature of whether this project is justified based on a so-called greening of the building,” said Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County.
Goodlatte said he has yet to see a comprehensive government cost-benefit analysis, despite asking for one for more than a year.
“I think it’s really stunning that, given the amount of money they’re spending … there’s so little indication of them really crunching the numbers,” he said.
Since Goodlatte went public with his concerns four months ago, GSA officials have stressed how the project will create a more energy-efficient building. But that’s not the only goal, GSA spokeswoman Sara Merriam said Thursday in response to questions based on the electricity bills.
Constructing a new roof, repairing leaky windows and making restrooms accessible to people with disabilities are also part of the $51 million cost, which Merriam said would more than double if the government had decided to construct a new building.
“Energy efficiencies are an important component, but they by no means constitute 100 percent of the cost of this project,” Merriam said.
Bills and benefits
Problems with heating and cooling the Poff Building are as old as the building itself.
Completed in 1975, the building has two large glass walls, facing south and north.
“The south side is fully exposed to the midday sun, whereas the north side has little exposure,” a 2008 feasibility study on the renovations stated. That causes “a dramatic imbalance in heating and cooling needs between the north and the south area.”
In the summer, the air conditioning system strains to cool the south side, making the north side so chilly that some staffers wear Snuggies at their desks or use space heaters.
In the winter, “the monolithic east and west core towers serve as large heat sinks” that drain warmth from the rest of the building, the feasibility study stated.
Todd Burns, a spokesman for Appalachian Power Co., declined to say whether the $584,146 annual electricity bill is within the norm for a 300,000-square-foot structure that uses electricity for heating and cooling, as the Poff Building does.
Many variables — including the age of a building, its insulation, the amount of sunlight it receives, electricity usage patterns, the number of entrances, even the number of computers — make comparisons difficult, Burns said.
Planned renovations to the building include replacing the outdated heating and cooling system. A GSA spokeswoman said in June that the project will convert a 35-year-old building into “a hallmark of taxpayer savings through higher performing, greener improvements.”
The project will also replace the single-paned glass walls, build a new roof equipped with solar panels, install more efficient lighting, and upgrade restrooms to include water-conserving fixtures and better access for people with disabilities.
GSA officials say the work, which will be the first major renovation of the building, is scheduled to start next spring and last three years.
Kent Peterson, former president of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, said the $51 million figure does not sound unreasonable for the amount of work required.
Peterson cautioned against using electricity bills and expected savings to determine when the energy-efficiency improvements will pay for themselves. If an outdated heating and cooling system needs to be replaced, he said, that’s an expense that may never be regained in full.
“If your car is falling apart after 20 years of driving, you don’t do a cost-benefit analysis of whether to replace your car,” Peterson said. “You might do a cost-benefit analysis of whether to buy a Prius or another less energy-efficient model.”
Other expenses, such as taking out ceilings to install a new lighting system, are not focused on energy savings, he said.
“You don’t go in and renovate a 35-year-old building without there being other costs,” Peterson said. “And those costs, they add up.”
Some renovation benefits don’t show up on the electric bill. Those include lightening the building’s carbon footprint, creating a better workplace, reducing future repair costs and showing that the government is a leader in the green building movement.
“Sometimes I think the role of government buildings is to show what’s possible and what’s the right thing to do,” said Georg Reichard, a building construction professor at Virginia Tech who specializes in energy efficiency.
In analyzing the renovations, Reichard stressed that some of the work, such as installing water-conserving fixtures, is aimed at sustainability and does not produce cost savings.
“Sustainablity is not necessarily energy efficiency, and vice versa,” Reichard said.
Transparency push
After spending more than a year trying in vain to get detailed information about the renovations from the GSA, Goodlatte wrote to the agency’s administrator, Martha Johnson.
The June 18 letter cited the congressman’s “deep concerns” about the project and his frustration with the GSA, a massive agency that manages federal buildings nationwide. Goodlatte asked that the project be halted. Or at the least, that his questions be answered.
Then he waited.
After two months, Goodlatte fired off another letter, along with a public statement, blasting the government for its lack of transparency. He noted that the 2008 feasibility study, which the GSA gave to him when The Roanoke Times obtained a copy through a Freedom of Information Act request, was missing key portions, including two sections on the project’s cost.
The GSA said it could not release documents that were part of its “deliberative process.” What was the government trying to hide? Goodlatte asked.
Ten days later, Goodlatte got a response from Johnson. The GSA head apologized “if we failed to keep you apprised on the project” and pledged to work more closely with his office in the future.
With the letter came two pages from the feasibility study that had previously been redacted. But other sections, including the ones on the cost of the project, remained missing. Goodlatte said he asked the agency, again, for those documents.
Like all House Republicans, Goodlatte voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Congress passed last year as part of President Obama’s plan to save the tanking economy.
As part of the so-called stimulus, the GSA received $5.5 billion to make federal buildings more energy efficient. Goodlatte believes the agency is spending the money because it’s there, not because there is a dire and documented need.
He may have a point, said Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
“GSA has got money burning a hole in their pocket, and they have to come up with a way to spend it,” Ellis said. “But the question is, would this project have been done anyway? And if it’s a 35-year-old building, it sounds like it would have.”
If Republicans regain control of the House in the November elections, Goodlatte said it’s possible that unspent stimulus money — including that for the Poff Building — might be frozen.
“It will depend upon how much light we can shed on a bad decision,” he said. “Or how much light they can shed on a good decision.”