The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

.

The Capitol Power Plant: Background and
Greening Options
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
Paul W. Parfomak
Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy
May 8, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40433
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Summary
The Capitol Power Plant and its impact on congressional operations are often misunderstood.
Although it was originally constructed as an electric power plant, the Capitol Power Plant has not
generated electric power for over 50 years. Rather, the facility is used to produce steam and
chilled water for heating and cooling of Capitol complex buildings. Because it is a significant
source of atmospheric emissions, some Members of Congress are concerned about the operation
of the facility and its impact on the environment.
In March 2007, the House leadership asked the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and his
Senate counterparts to undertake a “Green the Capitol” initiative to reduce the Capitol complex’s
environmental footprint. As a result of this request, the CAO issued a report in June 2007 which
recommended, among other strategies, operating the Capitol Power Plant with natural gas and
optimizing operations to reduce energy consumption at the plant. On February 26, 2009, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the Architect of the
Capitol calling for the facility to be converted to run exclusively on natural gas for all of its steam
production. The Architect of the Capitol took immediate action to maximize the use of natural gas
and on May 1, 2009, the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate announced that the
Capitol Power Plant will no longer burn coal, unless backup capacity is needed.
There are also proposals to further Capitol Power Plant efficiency by outsourcing plant
management or converting the plant to a combined heat and power (CHP) facility. Each of these
options has distinct costs, environmental benefits, implementation requirements, and risks—not
all of which have been thoroughly explored. It appears unlikely that outsourcing of the plant’s
operations could provide environmental benefits of the same magnitude as converting the plant to
100% natural gas or biomass, although such an action could provide incremental environmental
benefits. When both steam production and power generation are considered, the overall
environmental benefits of a CHP plant could be large.
Measures taken to date at the Capitol Power Plant have already resulted in significant
environmental benefits, but there are operational and plant conversion options which may reduce
the plant’s environmental impacts even further. These options may be costly, however, both in
terms of fuel expenses and capital requirements—and may involve price and operational risk.
Consequently, careful comparison of all the options for this aspect of “Greening the Capitol” may
be required to ensure that the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial investments are
made while ensuring the continued supply of utility services to the Capitol.

Congressional Research Service

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background and History.............................................................................................................. 1
Operations .................................................................................................................................. 4
Steam and Chilled Water Production ..................................................................................... 4
Boilers .................................................................................................................................. 4
Fuel Consumption................................................................................................................. 5
Appropriations ...................................................................................................................... 6
Current Projects .................................................................................................................... 7
Future Projects ...................................................................................................................... 8
Options for “Greening” the Capitol Power Plant.......................................................................... 9
Converting Boiler Fuel to 100% Natural Gas or Biomass ...................................................... 9
Outsourcing Capitol Power Plant Management.................................................................... 11
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Conversion .................................................................... 12
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 14

Tables
Table 1. Average and Peak Capitol Power Plant Loads for Steam and Chilled Water .................... 4
Table 2. Capitol Power Plant Boilers ........................................................................................... 5
Table 3. Fuel Consumption for 2007 and 2008............................................................................. 5
Table 4. Capitol Complex Utilities Budget FY2008 and FY2009 ................................................. 7
Table A-1. Facilities Supplied with Steam by the Capitol Power Plant ....................................... 15

Appendixes
Appendix. Facilities Supplied by the Capitol Power Plant ......................................................... 15

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 16
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Introduction
The Capitol Power Plant and its impact on congressional operations are often misunderstood.
Although it was originally constructed as an electric power plant, the Capitol Power Plant has not
generated electric power for over 50 years. Rather, the facility is used to produce steam and
chilled water for heating and cooling of Capitol complex buildings. As a heating and refrigeration
plant, the Capitol Power Plant remains a large consumer of energy and a significant source of
atmospheric emissions in the District of Columbia. Consequently, some Members of Congress are
concerned about the operation of the facility and its impact on the environment. Recent
demonstrations by environmental groups have drawn national media attention to emissions from
the plant.1
In March 2007, the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, and the chair of the Committee on
House Administration asked the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and his Senate counterparts
to “undertake a 'Green the Capitol' initiative to ensure that the House institutes the most up-to-
date industry and government standards for green building and green operating procedures.” As a
result of this request, the CAO issued a report in June 2007 which recommended, among other
strategies, operating the Capitol Power Plant with natural gas and optimizing operations to reduce
energy consumption at the plant.2
This report discusses the creation of the power plant, its operations, and the Architect of the
Capitol’s projects related to energy use at the plant. The report discusses energy efficiency and
fuel-switching issues at the plant and potential administrative and operational options in light of
the CAO’s recommendations.3
Background and History
Located four blocks from the Capitol building, the Capitol Power Plant provides steam and
chilled water to 24 Capitol Hill facilities. The plant site consists of a main plant (built in 1909),
the east refrigeration plant (built in 1938), an operations building (built in 1978), the west
refrigeration plant (built in 1978 and expanded in 2007), and a coal yard (transferred from the
General Services Administration in 1987).4 The plant contains seven boilers which burn either

1 For example see, Nicole Gaudiano, “Thousands Gather In D.C. Cold For Rally About Global Warming,” USA Today,
March 2, 2009; Emily Yehle, “Protesters Claim Big Win Over Coal,” Roll Call, March 3, 2009, p. 3; Dina Cappiello,
“Capitol power plant dims clean energy hopes,” The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2009/03/01/AR2009030100454.html; and Brian Westley, “Thousands rally for legislation on climate
change,” The Washington Post, March 2, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/
AR2009030200447.html.
2 U.S. Congress, House Chief Administrative Officer, Green the Capitol Initiative Final Report, 110th Cong., 1st sess.
http://speaker.gov/pdf/GTCI621full2.pdf, accessed March 3, 2009, pp. 2-14.
3 For further analysis of power plant management and operations see CRS Report RL34746, Power Plants:
Characteristics and Costs, by Stan Mark Kaplan, CRS Report RL33875, Electric Transmission: Approaches for
Energizing a Sagging Industry, by Amy Abel, and CRS Report RL34621, Capturing CO2 from Coal-Fired Power
Plants: Challenges for a Comprehensive Strategy, by Larry Parker, Deborah D. Stine, and Peter Folger.
4 U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, 2003 Accountability Report, Washington, DC, 2003, p. 25,
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/cfo/upload/AOC-Financial-Report-2003.pdf; and telephone conversation between the author
and Michael Culver, congressional and external relations director, Architect of the Capitol, February 20, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
1

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

natural gas, low-sulfur coal, or fuel oil to generate the steam used to heat Capitol complex office
buildings.5 The Capitol Power Plant transports steam and chilled water to the buildings it serves
by means of utility tunnels built between 1908 and 1955.6 A complete list of facilities currently
provided with steam by the Capitol Power Plant is in the Appendix.
Construction of a power plant for the Capitol complex was authorized in the fiscal year (FY)
1905 Appropriations Act for Sundry Civil Expenses of the Government. The plant was initially
designed to provide electricity and heating to the Capitol building, the Congressional Library
Building (i.e., the Jefferson building), the House of Representatives office building (i.e., the
Cannon building),7 and any future buildings erected on the Capitol Grounds.8 In 1911, the power
plant was officially named the Capitol Power Plant and the Architect of the Capitol was tasked
with facility management.9
Between 1909 and 1952, the Capitol Power Plant generated and provided electricity to the
Capitol complex buildings.10 However, the electricity produced by the plant was inconsistent with
mid-20th century (and current) electrical standards. On September 29, 1949, Representative
William Whittington introduced H.R. 6281 to provide for improvements to the Capitol Power
Plant’s distribution systems and the buildings served by the power plant.11 Referred to the
Committee on Public Works, the bill provided for changing the type of electricity provided to the
Capitol complex and discontinuing the generation of electricity at the Capitol Power Plant
following conversion. The bill contained provisions to
[c]onvert the electrical lighting and power systems and other electrical equipment in all
buildings and grounds, including the refrigeration plant, now served by the Capitol Power
Plant, from twenty-five cycle and direct current to sixty cycle alternating current.

5 Testimony of Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, Improving Energy Efficiency, Increasing the Use of Renewable Sources of Energy, and Reducing the
Carbon Footprint of the Capitol Complex, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., June 18, 2008, p. 8, http://rules.senate.gov/
hearings/2008/0618ayers.pdf.
6 The Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels are separate from pedestrian tunnels that connect the House and Senate office
buildings with the U.S. Capitol.
7 The House of Representatives Office building became known as the Cannon House Office Building. For more
information about the Cannon House Office Building and its history see http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/chob.cfm.
8 P.L. 194, 33 Stat. 479, April 26, 1904. P.L. 194 states “Toward the construction of a building for a heating, lighting,
and power plant in connection with the office building for the House of Representatives, the installation of necessary
machinery, for labor and material, construction of ducts, heating mains, subways, and traction system connecting the
Capitol building, and for all other appliances, and for each and every purpose in connection with all of the foregoing,
one hundred and thirty thousand dollars: Provided, That said building for heating, lighting, and power plant, when
constructed shall be of sufficient size and capacity to furnish the necessary heat, light, and power for the office building
of the House of Representatives, the Capitol building, the Congressional Library building, and for such other public
buildings which may hereafter be erected on grounds adjacent to the Capitol grounds at the east of the Capitol building
and facing the same.”
9 2 U.S.C. § 2162.
10 Standard electricity for home, commercial, and industrial use is delivered as alternating current as 60 cycles.
Between 1909 and 1952, the Capitol Power Plant “generated 25-cycle alternating current.” The Capitol complex
buildings were wired for a combination of 25-cycle alternating current and direct current. The 25-cycle alternating
current was used to power elevator motors and other machinery and the direct current was used for lighting to prevent
flicker in the lights. For information on the generation of electricity prior to 1952, see U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Public Works, Capitol Power Plant, hearing on H.R. 6281, 81st Cong., 1st sess., October 10, 1949, H.Hrg. 81-9
(Washington: GPO, 1949), pp. 9-10, 22, 43.
11 Rep. William Whittington, “Public Bills and Resolutions,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 95, part 10
(September 29, 1949), p. 13578.
Congressional Research Service
2

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Upon completion of such conversion, discontinue generating electrical energy at the Capitol
Power Plant and purchase all electrical energy for the buildings and grounds now supplied by
the plant; and prior to completion of such conversion, the Architect of the Capitol, with the
approval of the House Office Buildings Commission, may purchase such electrical energy as
he may deem necessary for such buildings and grounds.12
Enacted as P.L. 413, H.R. 6281 provided for reconfiguring the Capitol to use standard electricity,
to be purchased from the local utility, and to cease power production at the Capitol Power Plant.13
Power generation actually ceased in 1952. The Capitol Power Plant continues to burn fuel in
boilers to produce steam, and uses purchased electricity to produce chilled water.14
The Architect periodically upgrades the Capitol Power Plant to expand or improve its operations.
In recent years, the Architect has, among other changes, extended the distribution of steam and
chilled water to the Supreme Court building, the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building,
and to Union Station;15 expanded the West Refrigeration Plant (2003-2007);16 increased the
capacity of coal burning boilers, repaired gas ducts, and installed blowers and an ash conveying
system (2005);17 completed a new design to provide emergency power and HVAC services to the
emergency response center (2006);18 and installed and upgraded steam meters, updated heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment and practices, and addressed concerns with the

12 P.L. 413, chapter 760, 63 Stat. 933, October 26, 1949. Hearings in the House Committee on Public Works were held
on October 10, 1949, and the committee reported the bill on October 11. The bill passed the House on October 14 and
the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Works. The Senate committee reported the bill without
amendment on October 17, the Senate passed the bill on October 18, and it was signed by the President on October 19.
For more information see, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works, Capitol Power Plant, hearing on H.R.
6281, 81st Cong., 1st sess., October 10, 1949, H.Hrg. 81-9 (Washington: GPO, 1949); U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Public Works, Providing for Certain Improvements Relating to the Capitol Power Plant, Its Distribution Systems,
and the Buildings and Grounds Served by the Plant, Including Proposed Additions, report to accompany H.R. 6281,
81st Cong., 1st sess., October 11, 1949, H.Rept. 1402 (Washington: GPO, 1949); “Capitol Power Plant,” House debate,
Congressional Record, vol. 95, part 11 (October 14, 1949), pp. 14617-14620; “House Bills Referred or Placed on
Calendar,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 95, part 11 (October 15, 1949), p. 14631; U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Public Works, Providing for Certain Improvements Relating to the Capitol Power Plant, Its Distribution
Systems, and the Buildings and Grounds Served by the Plant, Including Proposed Additions, report to accompany H.R.
6281, 81st Cong., 1st sess., October 17, 1949, S.Rept. 81-1192 (Washington: GPO, 1949); “Improvements to the Capitol
Power Plant,” Congressional Record, vol. 95, part 11 (October 18, 1949), p. 14891; and “Bills and Joint Resolutions
Approved After Sine Die Adjournment,” Congressional Record, vol. 95, part 11 (October 19, 1949), p. 15102 and P.L.
413, chapter 760, 63 Stat. 933, October 26, 1949.
13 P.L. 413, chapter 760, 63 Stat. 933, October 26, 1949.
14 Electricity for the Capitol Complex is purchased from Pepco. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Feasibility of
Outsourcing the Management and Operation of the Capitol Power Plant, GAO-08-382R, January 31, 2008, p. 4. The
Capitol Power Plant is the sole source of steam and chilled water for the Capitol complex.
15 P.L. 107-217, 116 Stat. 1202, August 21, 2002.
16 The expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant was designed to “provide 16,200 additional tons of cooling capacity
to the U.S. Capitol Complex. The project will also convert the existing chilled water system to a primary/secondary
pumping configuration and provide architectural and site improvements to the [Capitol Power Plant] grounds.” For
additional information see, U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, 2005 Performance and Accountability Report,
Washington, DC, 2005, p. 31, http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/cfo/upload/AOC_Report_Full.pdf.
17 U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, Washington, DC, 2005, p. 27,
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/cfo/upload/AOC_Report_Full.pdf.
18 U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, Washington, DC, 2006, p. 24,
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/cfo/upload/AOC Performance and Accountability Report, 2006 rev 0415.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

operation of the power plant utility tunnels (2007).19 Current and future projects for the Capitol
Power Plant are discussed later in this report.
Operations
The Architect of the Capitol manages the Capitol Power Plant facilities overall, with day-to-day
activities handled by the plant’s director and deputy director. These individuals are responsible for
all plant operations and maintenance, including managing current and future power plant projects.
Steam and Chilled Water Production
The Capitol Power Plant has the capacity to generate up to 570,000 pounds of steam per hour and
47,300 tons of refrigeration.20 The power plant generates different volumes of steam and chilled
water depending on the season. In the winter, the output of steam is almost double the output in
summer. The opposite is true for chilled water. In the summer, the output of chilled water is
almost four times more than in the winter. Table 1 lists the average and peak loads in the winter
and summer for steam and chilled water.
Table 1. Average and Peak Capitol Power Plant Loads for Steam and Chilled Water
Steam (lbs/hr)
Chilled Water (tons)

2007 2008 2007 2008
Average Summer Load
100,000
100,000
20,000
20,000
Peak Summer Load
110,000
126,000
28,000
28,000
Average Winter Load
225,000
220,000
7,000
7,500
Peak Winter Load
290,000
307,000
10,000
12,500
Source: U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, “Capitol Power Plant Fact Sheet” (a copy of the fact sheet is
available from the author) and based on CRS discussions with Mike Culver, Director of Congressional and
External Relations, Architect of the Capitol, February 20, 2009.
Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand by the Architect of the Capitol.
Boilers
The Capitol Power Plant operates seven boilers that burn coal, natural gas, or oil to generate
steam. Table 2 lists the Capitol Power Plant boilers operating as of FY2007, their capacity,
installation date, the fuel they were originally designed to burn, the date of conversion and
modernization, and the current fuel burned.

19 U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, Washington, DC, 2007, pp.
20-21, http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/cfo/upload/AOC-2007-PAR_Oct23-2008-2.pdf. [Hereafter, 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report].
20 U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, “Capitol Power Plant Fact Sheet.” A copy is available from the author.
Congressional Research Service
4

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Table 2. Capitol Power Plant Boilers
Fuel
Capacity (lb of
Installation
Conversion
Current Fuel
Boiler
steam/hr)
Date Original
Fuel Date
Burned
1 140,000 1950
Coal
2000
Coal/Gas
2 140,000 1950
Coal
2000

Coal/Gas
3 140,000 1950
Coal
1989
Gas/Oil
4 50,000 1964
Oil
2000
Gas/Oil
5 50,000 1964
Oil
2000
Gas/Oil
6 50,000 1964
Oil
2000
Gas/Oil
7 50,000 1964
Oil
2000
Gas/Oil
Source: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2007: Part 2,
Fiscal Year 2007 Legislative Branch Appropriations Requests, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 775.
Upgrading the boilers at the Capitol Power Plant is an ongoing process that will enable the
burning of additional natural gas should the House and the Senate direct the Architect to use more
natural gas to supply steam to the Capitol complex buildings.21 In the FY2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, the Architect received $450,000 to modernize and renovate boilers.22 The
affected boilers provide approximately 35% of the steam generated by the plant.23
Fuel Consumption
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), during an average year, the Capitol
Power Plant has used a fuel mixture of approximately 43% natural gas, 47% coal, and 10% fuel
oil to generate steam. More recent data from the AOC indicates decreasing reliance on fuel oil
(down to zero consumption in 2008), less use of coal, and increased use of natural gas.24 Table 3
lists the quantity (in units) of fuel used by the Capitol Power Plant in 2007 and 2008. In 2008, the
Architect also purchased 105,856 MWh of electricity for the Capitol Power Plant.25
Table 3. Fuel Consumption for 2007 and 2008
Fuel 2007 2008
Coal (tons)
23,740
18,875

21 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, p.38.
22 Rep. David Obey, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
155 (February 23, 2009), p. H2396.
23 Telephone conversation between the author and Mike Culver, congressional and external relations director, Architect
of the Capitol, February 20, 2009.
24 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic and Other Implications of Switching From Coal and Natural Gas
at the Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating Units Nationwide, GAO-08-601R, May 1, 2008, p. 2.
[Hereafter, Switching from Coal and Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant]; and U.S. Congress, Architect of the
Capitol, “Capitol Power Plant Fact Sheet.” A copy of the fact sheet is available from the author.
25 Based on CRS discussions with Mike Culver, Director of Congressional and External Relations, Architect of the
Capitol, February 20, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Fuel 2007 2008
Natural Gas (decatherms)
852,274
975,044
Fuel Oil (gal ons)
3,010
0
Source: U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, “Capitol Power Plant Fact Sheet” (a copy of the fact sheet is
available from the author) and based on CRS discussions with Mike Culver, Director of Congressional and
External Relations, Architect of the Capitol, March 9, 2009.
The increase in the use of natural gas at the Capitol Power Plant in 2008 was a direct result of the
“Green the Capitol” initiative in the House of Representatives.26 The Chief Administrative
Officer, at the request of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, ordered the Capitol Power Plant to
stop using coal to generate steam for the House of Representatives. The Capitol Power Plant
generates and distributes steam to all Capitol complex buildings, however, so it is impossible to
separate the steam that goes to the House from the steam that goes to the Senate, the Library of
Congress, or any other facilities supplied by the Capitol Power Plant. As part of the “Green the
Capitol” initiative studies, the House has estimated that 31% of the Capitol Power Plant steam
output can be attributed to House buildings and office space.27 The 2008 increase in natural gas
consumption reflects this proportion. The House has appropriated funds to purchase additional
natural gas for the continued generation of steam necessary to operate the heating and cooling
system in the House Office Buildings and in the House portion of the Capitol building.28
Appropriations
For FY2008, the Capitol Power Plant was projected to spend approximately $67,000,000 on
utilities, including natural gas, electricity, coal, and fuel oil, and for FY2009, the Architect
requested approximately $68,000,000 in appropriations.29 Overall, the Capitol Power Plant spent
82% of its appropriations on utilities in FY2008 and is projected to spend 80% of appropriations
on utilities in FY2009.30 Table 4 lists the disbursements for utilities, for FY2008 and requested
appropriations for FY2009.

26 For more information on green programs in the House and Senate see CRS Report RL34694, Administering Green
Programs in Congress: Issues and Options, by Jacob R. Straus.
27 U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Preliminary Report Green the Capitol
Initiative, 110th Cong., 1st sess., http://www.speaker/gov/pdf/GTCreport.pdf.
28 U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Six Months of Progress: A Report
from the Green the Capitol Office, “Checklist,” p. 2, http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/progress-report-2007dec.pdf;
Switching from Coal to Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant.
29 Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 1, p. 510. A breakdown of Capitol Power Plant appropriations for
FY2009 were not included in the Omnibus. Overall, the Capitol Power Plant received $149,042,000 in FY2009, of
which $63,570,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2013. These funds are “[f]or all necessary expenses for
the maintenance, care and operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, power (including the purchase of
electrical energy) and water and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office buildings, Library of Congress
buildings, and the grounds about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air conditioning refrigeration not
supplied from plants in any of such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and Washington City Post
Office, and heating and chilled water for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, the Union Station complex,
the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare Library, expenses for which shall be
advanced or reimbursed upon request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so received shall be deposited into
the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation.” For more information see, P.L. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524, March 11, 2009.
30 For FY2008, the Capitol Power Plant had an operating budget of $81,685,000. In addition to utilities, the operating
budget includes appropriations for personnel, travel, transportation, contractual services, equipment, supplies,
materials, land and structures, and insurance. For FY2009, the Architect requested $85,472,000 to operate the Capitol
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Table 4. Capitol Complex Utilities Budget FY2008 and FY2009
In Dol ars
Items a FY2008
(enacted)
b FY2009
(requested)
Natural Gas
16,024,000
17,244,000
Electricity 42,606,000
43,452,000
Coal 5,650,000
6,212,000
Fuel Oil
2,765,000
2,765,000
Steam 1,009,000
1,009,000
Chilled Water
1,065,000
1,325,000
Water and Sewer
2,572,000
4,166,000
Green the Capitol Initiative c 3,261,000
0
Postal Square d 618,000
618,000
Reimbursement, Steam & Chilled Water e -8,000,000 -8,000,000
Total $67,570,000
$68,791,000
Source: Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 1, p. 510.
Note: Numbers have been rounded by the Architect of the Capitol.
a. Items included by the Architect of the Capitol as part of the Utilities Programs Group. This contains funding
for utilities for the Capitol complex, including other facilities under the control of the Architect of the
Capitol.
b. FY2008 numbers include a rescission by the Architect.
c. FY2008 was the initial pilot year for use of additional natural gas to provide steam, and 100% carbon neutral
renewable electric power as part of the Green the Capitol Initiative. For FY2009, additional natural gas and
carbon neutral renewable electric power is included within the Architect’s estimates.
d. Postal Square numbers include utilities provided directly to Postal Square.
e. Includes money received for providing steam and chilled water to Union Station, Postal Square, the
Government Printing Office, and the Folger Shakespeare Library.
Current Projects
Stephen T. Ayers, acting Architect of the Capitol, testified in the 110th Congress about the role of
the Capitol Power Plant in ongoing energy efficiency and conservation in the Capitol complex,31
and Capitol Power Plant operations.32 At these hearings, the Architect identified goals to improve

(...continued)
Power Plant. See Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 1, p. 504.
31 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Administration Proposals on Climate
Change and Energy Independence, hearings, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 11 and 16, 2007, H.Hrg. 110-44 (Washington:
GPO, 2007); and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Hearing.
32 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Architect
of the Capitol Budget, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., February 13, 2008 (Washington: GPO, 2008), and Testimony of
Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations for the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., April 30, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
7

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption for the Capitol Power Plant. These goals
include, but are not limited to
• completing the installation of the distributed control system in the boiler plant;
• installing steam and chilled water meters at several buildings around Capitol Hill;
• installing two new main air compressors in the West Refrigeration Plant and two
new main air compressors in the boiler plant;
• completing West Refrigeration Plant expansion;
• completing utility distribution system inventory and integrating maintenance
management procedures into the computerized work order system; and
• installing new boiler grate system for one of the boilers.33
The Architect testified before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that taking
steps to reduce the power plant’s energy consumption through greater efficiency will reduce
emissions.34
Future Projects
In addition to ongoing projects started before or during the 110th Congress, the Architect is also
planning new projects for FY2009 and beyond. Pursuant to the Architect’s budget request, there
are four major energy-related projects that will either continue or are slated to begin in FY2009.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2009 contains appropriations for each of the projects:35
• East Refrigeration Plant Chiller Relocation Design (Requested and Omnibus
Appropriation: $1,000,000) – The chillers currently located in the East
Refrigeration Plant will be moved to the expanded West Refrigeration Plant.
Following chiller relocation, the remaining equipment is scheduled to be
demolished.36
• West Refrigeration Plant Chiller Replacement (Requested and Omnibus
Appropriation: $1,720,000) – Design for the replacement of four 30-year-old
chillers in the West Refrigeration Plant with four new high-efficiency chillers.37
• Boiler Modernization and Control Replacement (Requested and Omnibus
Appropriation: $450,000) – Designs to modernize 1950s-era boilers. See
“Boilers” below for more information.38
• Minor Construction (Requested and Omnibus Appropriation: $4,000,000) – The
Architect has requested additional funds for minor construction. These funds

33 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, p. 39.
34 Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Hearing, p. 7.
35 Rep. David Obey, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
155 (February 23, 2009), p. H2396. See also, P.L. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524, March 11, 2009.
36 Ibid., p. 513.
37 Ibid., p. 514.
38 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

provide “flexibility for unforeseen needs including repair and alteration projects,
and related activities in connection with construction and maintenance activities
of the facilities under the purview of the Capitol Power Plant.”39 Such activities
presumably could be energy-related.
The Architect is also working with the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of
Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory to evaluate options and technologies available
for the Capitol Power Plant. The National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy
are to make recommendations based on criteria including sustainability,40 energy independence,
and security. Following the National Academy and Energy reports, the Architect is to update the
strategic master plan for the Capitol Power Plant.41
Options for “Greening” the Capitol Power Plant
As discussed above, various efforts are under way or under study to reduce the Capitol complex’s
environmental footprint.42 In addition to these efforts, there are proposals to further change the
operation of the Capitol Power Plant to reduce costs and increase efficiency: converting to 100%
natural gas or biomass operation, outsourcing power plant management, and developing a
combined heat and power (CHP) facility.
Converting Boiler Fuel to 100% Natural Gas or Biomass
The Capitol Power Plant currently burns natural gas, coal, and fuel oil for the generation of
steam. As discussed earlier, the House Chief Administrative Officer’s (CAO) 2007 report
recommended operating the Capitol Power Plant solely with natural gas. Switching from coal to
natural gas is seen as environmentally desirable because natural gas produces approximately half
the carbon dioxide emissions of coal for the same energy output, among other reasons.43 In his
testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the CAO stated,
I think it is important to add to this debate, though, that if we switch to 100 percent natural
gas, we would certainly have a significantly reduced environmental footprint and carbon
footprint. Right now, the Congress is the proud owner and operator of a facility that is the
second largest point source pollution in the District of Columbia. And so, I think there is a
significant environmental benefit associated with moving to 100 percent gas.44

39 Ibid., p. 515.
40 Sustainability criteria include economic analysis, environmental impact, efficiency, and energy consumption.
41 Telephone conversation between the author and Mike Culver, congressional and external relations director, Architect
of the Capitol, February 20, 2009.
42 For more information on greening program in Congress, see CRS Report RL34694, Administering Green Programs
in Congress: Issues and Options, by Jacob R. Straus and CRS Report RL34617, Recycling Programs in Congress:
Legislative Development and Architect of the Capitol Administration, by Jacob R. Straus.
43 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007, p. 264.
44 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Administration Proposals on Climate
Change and Energy Independence, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 11 and 16, 2007, H.Hrg. 110-44 (Washington: GPO,
2007), p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
9

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

In May 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed a study of the
implications of switching from coal to natural gas at the Capitol Power Plant. GAO reported that
to complete the “Green the Capitol” goal of using only natural gas to supply steam to the House
(but not necessarily all buildings served by the plant) would require a 38% increase in the use of
natural gas relative to its baseline level between 2001 and 2007 and could cost from $1.0 to $1.8
million in FY2008.45 In June 2008, the GAO Director of Construction and Facilities Management
testified before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee that
[I]t costs about 4 times as much to burn natural gas at the Capitol Power Plant as it does for
coal based on the amount of energy that you get out of the two energy sources.... Earlier this
year, we estimated that switching from coal to natural gas costs about $139 per ton of carbon
dioxide saved.46
Natural gas prices are volatile, however, and have fallen from around $11.00/MMBtu in May
2008 to around $4.50/MMBtu in February 2009, so the cost of additional natural gas for the
Capital Power Plant in the future could be substantially lower than the GAO estimates.47
During a 2008 Senate Committee on Rules and Administration hearing, the Architect estimated
that further increasing gas burn (presumably up to 100%) would require “a significant investment
in equipment upgrades to the tune of about $6 or $7 million,”48 because the plant was near its
maximum capacity to burn natural gas with its current equipment. Because of this substantial
capital requirement, it was not clear to GAO that such an upgrade would be the most cost-
effective means of reducing carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions from the Capitol
complex.49 GAO stated that “fuel switching would impose a recurring additional fuel cost on [the]
AOC and may prove less cost effective than implementing projects that decrease the demand for
energy.” 50
On February 26, 2009, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent
a letter to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) calling for the facility to be converted to run
exclusively on natural gas for all of its steam production.51 On April 24, 2009, the Architect
responded by ordering “the seasonal conversion to natural gas two months earlier than normal”

45 Switching from Coal to Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant, p. 6.
46 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Increasing the Use of Renewable Sources of Energy,
and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the Capitol Complex, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess. June 18, 2008, pp. 5-6
http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2008/0618transcript.pdf. [Hereafter, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Hearing.]
47 Oilnergy.com, “NYMEX Henry-Hub Natural Gas - 12 Previous Months,” March 3, 2009, http://www.oilnergy.com/
1gnymex.htm#year.
48 Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Hearing, pp. 13-14.
49 “The Capitol Power Plant operates under the Title V permitting program established under the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.” For more information see, U.S. Congress, Office of
the Architect of the Capitol, “Facts About the Capitol Power Plant,” press release, February 20, 2009, p. 1,
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/press-room/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=57651.
50 Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Hearing, pp. 13-14.
51 Letter from Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader to Stephen
T. Ayers, Acting Architect of the Capitol, February 26, 2009, http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1711. Sen. Tom Udall
also introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 639) to the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 to “ensure that any
electricity generated by or otherwise used by the Capitol Power Plant is not derived from coal.” For the text of the
amendment, see Sen. Tom Udall, “Text of Amendments,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 (March 3,
2009), p. S2721.
Congressional Research Service
10

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

and upgrading equipment to “enable the CPP to meet the steam requirements for the Capitol
complex using only natural gas....”52 On May 1, 2009, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid
announced that “[m]oving forward, the Architect of [the] Capitol will use only natural gas for
generating steam, and resort to coal only as a backup fuel source.”53
Some in Congress have suggested that the Capitol Power Plant could reduce its emissions even
further by converting to a renewable (biomass) fuel. For example, in a statement on the House
floor, Representative Jay Inslee stated that carbon emissions could be achieved
[s]witching from coal, first, to natural gas in our power plant, which reduces carbon dioxide
something like 20 to 30 percent. We're then taking a look at the possibility of going to a
totally renewable fuel of wood pellets [from trees] grown in New Hampshire and some other
places which would go to essentially zero CO2 on a net basis.54
Such a conversion would likely involve additional capital costs for new boiler equipment, and
would rely on a totally new source of fuel, the costs of which have not been estimated. Therefore,
there is insufficient information available this time to further examine the merits of biomass fuel
conversion compared to the other Capitol Power Plant fuel alternatives.55
Outsourcing Capitol Power Plant Management
Outsourcing plant management and operations to a firm specializing in the running of steam and
refrigeration facilities could provide certain advantages to the Capitol Power Plant. Potential
benefits may include lower net costs through operating efficiencies and the sale of excess
production to other government agencies or the private sector.56 The Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 200557 required that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a feasibility
study of Capitol Power Plant management outsourcing:
(b) Study of contract with a private entity. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall conduct a study and submit to the appropriate
congressional committees and the Architect of the Capitol a report that—(1) analyzes the
costs, cost effectiveness, benefits, and feasibility of the Architect of the Capitol entering into
a contract with a private entity for the management and operation of the Capitol Power Plant;
and (2) makes a recommendation on whether the Architect of the Capitol should enter into
such a contract.58

52 Letter from Stephen T. Ayres, Acting Architect of the Capitol, to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of
Representatives, April 24, 2009, http://speaker.gov/pdf/AOC42409.pdf.
53 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "Reid, Pelosi: Capitol Power Plant to
End Burning of Coal; Only to be Used as Emergency Backup," press release, May 1, 2009, http://speaker.house.gov/
newsroom/pressreleases?id=1136.
54 Rep. Jay Inslee, “Green the Capitol Initiative,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, no. 177(Nov. 15,
2007), p. H14074.
55 For further analysis of wood biomass and atmospheric emissions, see CRS Report RL31432, Carbon Sequestration
in Forests, by Ross W. Gorte.
56 The Architect of the Capitol currently sells excess steam and chilled water to Union Station, the Folger Shakespeare
Library, and Postal Square.
57 P.L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 385, December 8, 2005.
58 2 U.S.C. § 2162 note.
Congressional Research Service
11

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Pursuant to the act, GAO conducted a study in 2005 on Capitol Power Plant operations and in
2006 issued recommendations on staffing levels and training to make the power plant operate
with increased efficiency and safety.59 In January 2008, GAO issued another report on the
Architect’s progress in addressing staffing and plant management concerns raised by the 2006
report.60 In that report, GAO recommended the Architect take three actions to address previous
staffing concerns prior to the consideration of outsourcing:
1. quantify cost savings and efficiencies developed since the passage of P.L. 108-
447 in 2004;
2. complete the development of a comprehensive staffing plan and establish
procedures and guidelines for future sourcing decisions; and
3. create and pursue a competitive sourcing strategy.61
Because the Architect of the Capitol is a legislative branch official, the Capitol Power Plant
would not be required to follow the executive branch’s guidelines on outsourcing. The Architect,
however, could investigate whether the spirit of executive branch regulations could be utilized in
making future decisions on contracting for private sector services.62
Although outsourcing Capitol Power Plant management and operations could provide additional
revenues to Congress, and could also trim its operating budget and personnel costs by utilizing
the staffing resources of the management company, the environmental benefits of such an
arrangement are unclear. Selling excess steam or refrigeration output to additional customers
might well generate new revenues for Congress, but could increase the Capitol Power Plant’s fuel
consumption and associated emissions. It might also expose Congress to risks associated with
long-term energy prices and customer supply contracts. An outsourcing vendor potentially could
incorporate new operating practices with an environmental benefit beyond the Architect’s current
practices and the operational recommendations in the CAO report,63 but it is not known what
these new practices could be. Outsourcing of plant operations could provide worthwhile
incremental benefits.64
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Conversion
Another option for improving the environmental posture of the Capitol Power Plant is conversion
to a combined heat and power plant (CHP plant, also known as a co-generation facility) fueled by

59 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Architect of the Capitol: Addressing Staffing and Training Issues Is
Important for Efficient and Safe West Refrigeration Plant Operations, GAO-06-321R, February 10, 2006.
60 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Feasibility of Outsourcing the Management and Operation of the Capitol
Power Plant, GAO-08-382R, January 31, 2008.
61 Ibid., p. 4.
62 Office of Management and Budget, Performance of Commercial Activities, Circular No. A-76, May 29, 2003. In the
executive branch, competitive sourcing and the decision to outsource services and management and programs is guided
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB Circular A-76 governs whether commercial services should be
performed by the public or private sector and how the government makes that determination.
63 Green the Capitol Initiative Final Report, pp. 24-26.
64 For example, see CRS Report RL34495, Continuation of Employment Benefits for Senate Restaurant Employees, by
Jacob R. Straus. The House contract with Restaurant Associates specifies environmentally friendly practices to be
implemented in the House cafeterias.
Congressional Research Service
12

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

natural gas or, potentially, biomass.65 In 2005, Representative Jim Moran suggested that a CHP
installation could be beneficial for Congress in the long term:
I don’t think that we have got a very efficient system going on here, and it could be replaced.
We could make a far better use of that real estate.... We can put an electric generation facility
in to capture excess heat. The property is valuable, but not the way it is being used now. And
it seems to me it is something that we really need to look at very seriously.66
CHP plants produce electricity and steam in an integrated process that maximizes the efficiency
with which fuel is consumed. Consequently, CHP systems can help mitigate carbon dioxide
emissions because they make more efficient use of fossil fuels than the utility power generation
they displace. According to a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “current
CHP designs can boost overall conversion efficiencies to over 80%, leading to cost savings ... and
hence to significant carbon-emissions reductions per kWh generated.”67 This level of efficiency
compares favorably to conventional coal-fired power plants, which typically operate at around
33% efficiency, or advanced coal plant technologies under development, which could improve
coal plant efficiency to around 46%.68 Consequently, a CHP plant might be a lower cost
alternative to the current practice of buying electricity for the Capitol complex from Pepco while
continuing to produce steam for Capitol complex facilities.69 Depending upon the type of fuel
used for Pepco’s electricity, power from a gas-fired CHP plant at the Capitol could result in lower
carbon dioxide emissions than current Pepco power supplies. The benefits from a biomass-fired
CHP plant would be even greater, by some estimates. When both steam production and power
generation are considered, the overall environmental benefits of a CHP plant could be large, by
some estimates.
In June 2008, the Architect discussed the benefits of cogeneration for the Capitol complex as part
of his testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
We believe the most cost-effective thing we can do is to move towards a co-generation
system at the Plant whereby we are generating some electricity that we can use for
emergency purposes, and when that need is not there, we can sell that electricity back to
Pepco, our utility provider. But we have the infrastructure available to create steam now, and
using much of that excess steam to help us generate electricity, we think, is the most cost-
effective approach at the Capitol Power Plant.... 70
CHP installations are potentially complex, seeking to balance steam and electricity requirements
which are variable and potentially countercyclical. Consequently, it is difficult to estimate the
potential size and cost of a CHP plant optimized for the Capitol complex. In the simplified case of
supplying 100% of the 105,856 MWh used only by the Capitol Power Plant itself in 2008, and

65 For background on CHP technology, see Anna Shipley, Anne Hampson, and Bruce Hedman, et al., Combined Heat
and Power: Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-
2008/224, Oak Ridge, TN, December 1, 2008, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/distributedenergy/pdfs/
chp_report_12-08.pdf.
66 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2007: Part 2 Fiscal
Year 2007 Legislative Branch Appropriations Requests, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 520.
67 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007, p. 284.
68 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Coal, 2007, pp. 115, 124.
69 Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Hearing, p. 14.
70 Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Hearing, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
13

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

assuming a capacity factor of 75%, a Capitol CHP plant would need to be sized at approximately
16 MW of generating capacity. Retrofitting existing boilers with a steam-driven generation
turbine could minimize capital costs for a CHP installation. Assuming a boiler retrofit scenario
with an approximate cost of $1.1 million per MW (35% of a full CHP project),71 such an
installation would have a capital cost of approximately $17.6 million dollars. A CHP installation
sized to serve the electricity needs of other buildings in the Capitol complex could be an order of
magnitude larger than 16 MW, with capital costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This type
of installation, or associated transmission infrastructure, could also be subject to approval by the
District of Columbia Public Service Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or
other regulatory agencies.
At these high levels of capital cost, Congress could consider turning over the CHP plant
development to an independent power company, which could build and operate the plant with
private capital, providing electricity and steam to Capitol complex facilities under a long-term
sales agreement. Such arrangements are commonplace in the private sector.72 If Congress wishes
to consider CHP as an alternative to the more limited boiler fuel conversion discussed above, the
full economic, environmental, technical, and regulatory aspects of a Capitol CHP plant would
benefit from further examination.
Conclusion
Measures taken to date at the Capitol Power Plant have already resulted in significant
environmental benefits, but there are operational and plant conversion options which may reduce
the plant’s environmental impacts even further. These options may be costly, however, both in
terms of fuel expenses and capital requirements—and may involve price and operational risk.
Consequently, careful comparison of all the options for “Greening the Capitol” may be useful to
ensure that the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial investments are made while
ensuring the continued supply of utility services to the Capitol.

71 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Technology Characterization: Steam Turbines, Environmental Protection
Agency, Combined Heat and Power Partnership, December 2008, pp. 11-12.
72 See, for example, Iberdrola Renewables, “About the Klamath Cogeneration and Klamath Peaking Plants,” Internet
page, http://www.iberdrolarenewables.us/klamath.html, March 3, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
14

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Appendix. Facilities Supplied by the Capitol Power
Plant
The Capitol Power Plant supplies steam to 24 buildings on or near Capitol Hill. The Architect of
the Capitol does not manage Union Station, the Folger Shakespeare Library, or Postal Square.
The buildings not managed by the Architect reimburse the Architect for services rendered. Table
A-1 lists the facilities supplied steam by the Capitol Power Plant.
Table A-1. Facilities Supplied with Steam by the Capitol Power Plant
Facility Buildings
House of Representatives
Cannon House Office Building
Longworth House Office Building
Rayburn House Office Building
House Page Dormitory
House East Garage
House West Garage
501 1st Street, S.E.
Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Hart Senate Office Building
Russell Senate Office Building
Congressional Buildings
U.S. Capitol and Capitol Visitors Center
Capitol Power Plant
Capitol Police Buildings
Legislative Garage
U.S. Botanic Garden
Library of Congress
Adams Building
Jefferson Building
Madison Building
U.S. Courts
U.S. Supreme Court
Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building
Other Federal Buildings
Government Printing Office
Non-Architect Managed Buildings
Union Station
Postal Square
Folger Shakespeare Library
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, Feasibility of Outsourcing the Management and Operation of the
Capitol Power Plant, GAO-08-382R, January 31, 2008, p. 16.
Notes: Union Station, Postal Square, the Government Printing Office, and the Folger Shakespeare Library are
not part of the Capitol complex. They are served by the Capitol Power Plant and are billed by the Architect of
the Capitol for services provided.
Congressional Research Service
15

.
The Capitol Power Plant: Background and Greening Options

Author Contact Information

Jacob R. Straus
Paul W. Parfomak
Analyst on the Congress
Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy
jstraus@crs.loc.gov, 7-6438
pparfomak@crs.loc.gov, 7-0030

Acknowledgments
Mike Culver, Congressional and External Relations Director, Architect of the Capitol provided information
and data. Stan Kaplan, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy, and Amy Abel, Section Research
Manager, Natural Resources and Earth Science, Resources Science and Industry Division; and Colleen
Shogan, Section Research Manager, Congress and the Judiciary, Government and Finance Division
reviewed drafts of the report.

Congressional Research Service
16