The National Park Service is investing $29 million in 81 individual energy efficiency and water conservation projects at national parks throughout the greater Washington region. This unprecedented commitment to reducing energy use and generating energy from renewable sources is the largest to date among the nine bureaus in the Department of the Interior.
The 23-year Energy Savings Performance Contract, awarded at the end of September to Siemens Government Technologies, will allow the NPS to conserve energy and water with no upfront costs and to accrue cost savings into the future. The project is funded by savings generated through the new energy conservation measures. Savings are guaranteed by Siemens and will allow NPS to advance President Obama’s vision that federal facilities generate 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.
“The National Park Service is committed to managing the future health and sustainability of our national parks proactively through this kind of ambitious energy and resource conservation program,” Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said. “The parks in the greater Washington region involved in this effort are demonstrating the kind of leadership that other parks and public lands across the country can follow to reduce our carbon footprint, energy consumption, and water usage.”
“The National Park Service’s mission to preserve our country’s natural and historic treasures also requires us to be responsible stewards of our planet’s resources and of Americans’ tax dollars,” acting Regional Director Lisa Mendelson-Ielmini said. “As we approach our centennial in 2016, we are committed to employing the best science and industry practices, and this energy savings contract provides a creative way to accomplish our goals.”
The new energy conservation measures will allow 13 D.C. area national parks to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint, water and energy consumption and deferred maintenance backlogs. Greater efficiency will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 4,000 tons each year, reduce water usage by 74 million gallons each year and reduce energy use by nearly 20,000 MBtus each year.
Specific projects include installing intelligent lighting and water controls that regulate themselves to be most effective and efficient for the conditions, replacing outdated and high energy use heating and air conditioning systems and installing photovoltaic solar arrays. Project installation is expected to begin in January 2015.
Project Examples:
National Mall and Memorial Parks: Park staff will know instantly when a light bulb burns out along the National Mall. Intelligent lighting systems with remote monitoring capabilities will not only allow the park to know when a new light bulb is needed, but also will smartly adjust to natural lighting conditions. New energy efficient lights will help the National Mall reduce energy use by 13 percent in the first year.
President’s Park: Sprinklers on the White House Ellipse in President’s Park will now only turn on when the grass needs water. Intelligent remotely monitored sensors will substantially reduce water use making irrigation more efficient and sustainable. In the first year of the new energy conservation measures, President’s Park will reduce its energy use by 36 percent.
Monocacy National Battlefield: The sun will provide all the energy needed to power the visitor center at Monocacy National Battlefield. A photovoltaic system of solar panels will be installed on the visitor center’s roof helping the park reduce its energy use by 30 percent in year one. Park rangers will be able to use the solar panels to educate visitors about climate change and renewable energy.
Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts: Intelligent lighting systems and energy-efficient bulbs will be installed at the Filene Center. The lights are designed to match the ambience and historic feel of the amphitheatre. All told, projects like this at Wolf Trap will help the park reduce its energy consumption by 15 percent in the first year.
Participating Parks:
Antietam National Battlefield (Md.)
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (DC, Md., Va.)
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park (WVa., Va., Md.)
Manassas National Battlefield Park (Va.)
Monocacy National Battlefield (Md.)
National Capital Parks- East (DC, Md.)
National Mall and Memorial Parks (DC)
George Washington Memorial Parkway (DC, Md., Va.)
Prince William Forest Park (Va.)
Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts (Va.)
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
ec - I won't even try to unravel those figures, except to say without the various tax breaks the company received (however we choose to define them) its taxes would almost certainly have been even higher. Whether that would be good national economic policy is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Despite the taxes the company paid, things seem to be going pretty well at Exxon. According to a company statement, “ExxonMobil delivered strong business results in 2013 while remaining focused on improving profitability and long-term shareholder value. ... In 2013, the Corporation distributed $26 billion to shareholders through dividends and share purchases to reduce shares outstanding.”
And, back to the original subject, it would be good to have some clarity on the long-term costs vs. savings for the NPS project. If the total cost to the NPS for the improvements over the life of the contract exceeds the savings realized, it could be argued that the difference amounts to a "subsidy" of sorts. Some would argue that there are non-economic benefits from the project that justify those expenditures.
So lets see if I say I am going to tax your $60 billion more because you are an oil company but I will give you a $1 billion credit because you are an oil company, the oil company is "subsidized"? Absurd.
You know why? Because it is you, not the Exxon Mobil that ultimately pays the tax.
I have no doubt the NPS will come out ahead but it will be at the expense of American taxpayers. Whether that would be good national economic policy is beyond the scope of this discussion.
It would be nice to read stuff here without every little thing turning into a rant from Fox and Friends.
According to Exxon, in 2013 they paid $9.8 billion in total US tax. That is state, local, property, sales, income, etc. According to Exxon, their effetive tax rate was 35%, but that includes all forms of taxes, not just federal income tax.
The $24 billion number might be income tax nationally and internationally; they do pay a lot of taxes to other countries, particularly Bahamas.
Yes dahkota, my numbers were total. And yes, they paid $9.8 billion in total US tax. Their net US income was $8.4 billion. That hardly fits the definition of subsidized.
But your numbers have nothing to do with whether or not Exxon is subsidized. The company itself states they paid 35% in total taxes to the United States. Their Federal Income tax rate was closer to 17%. They do get very large tax breaks and tax credits; it is a matter of semantics whether or not you want to call them subsidies.
Special classes of tax payers received tax breaks/credits available to no other classes. A quick example: homeowners with a mortgage who itemize their taxes. No other class of taxpayers is eligible for the tax break. The same holds true for tax breaks and credits aimed at oil companies; there are credits and deductions specifically for oil companies as a class of taxpayers. Because these tax breaks/credits are aimed specifically at oil and gas companies, to the exclusion of any other taxpayer, some call them subsidies.
How much one pays in taxes has no relation to the number of tax credits/deductions/breaks one gets.
Use the IGNORE button to prevent trolls from limiting comments on the site.
They have everything to do with whether they are subsidized.
They pay big taxes that other companies dont pay. You can't claim subsidies out of one side of your mouth and ignore the forfieture of other taxes out of the other. On a net basis, they pay a higher, not lower than average tax. On a net basis they are overly burdened not subsidized.
But hey, I have the solution to the argument. Eliminate corporate taxes all together. That way we aren't favoring one industry over another. In the process we lower prices, increase demand, eliminate a chunk of the IRS, reduce the cost of compliance, eliminate inversions and bring billions of cash and millions of jobs back to the US.