Completed City Hall will get energy audit

It was a slow news day. Slowest of the year. I learned as a young letters-to-the-editor editor that no one writes the editor letters on Christmas or on the Fourth of July weekend.

And editors don't save juicy news stories for those dates, either.

But, surprise! Enterprising Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Kathy Mulady was sitting in my office at 4:30 p.m. the day before the three-day holiday with a startling set of figures: a comparison of energy use by the old clunky Seattle Municipal Building, long demolished, and our brand new Seattle City Hall, much admired for its environmental features.

Her figures shockingly revealed that the 1960s Muni Building, with its city departments crammed into 12 stories of low-ceilinged cells, outshone the brand-new seven-story City Hall, touted as an innovative "green building." Energy consumption between the two varied from 15 percent to 50 percent, with the old Muni Building winning the environmental sweepstakes.

The reporter asked me for a response.

I'm the chairwoman of the Energy and Environmental Policy Committee for the City Council. Energy conservation -- always a personal passion -- is now my middle name. I blanched.

My first thought was of Seattle City Light's expert team that assesses buildings old and new, and makes suggestions on how to improve energy conservation. I promised they would come to our aid.

Since that day, the story hasn't gone away. In fact, it has ballooned. It was the ideal slow news day story: Seattle City Hall is an "energy hog."

At first glance, the reporter's numbers looked unimpeachable. They seemed to show that the old building excelled in conservation even though the new City Hall has a green sod roof that gathers rainwater to flush toilets and water the landscape, and glass walls to reduce the need for lighting.

I quieted myself and started crunching numbers. The dates were the first clue. Energy use at the old building slid dramatically while city departments moved to other digs. Concurrently, energy use at the new City Hall started high. Still under construction, equipment was buzzing and draped tarps served as temporary walls (not an energy saver). Even today, a lower floor is still incomplete and open to the elements.

I realized also that the two buildings perform differently. The new City Hall is a people place with meeting rooms and open public spaces for night meetings and weekend receptions. With a soaring open design, it is an icon of transparency in government. Functional differences to meet that real goal include more computer terminals, copy machines, accessible computerized records and a state-of-the-art TV station broadcasting city business 24/7.

We now have the necessary post-9/11 security amenities and, more important, six efficient elevators rather than the agonizingly slow four of the old Muni Building.

There are numerous other differences between the two; enough to prove comparisons are moot. It's not apples and oranges; it's melons and soccer balls; peaches and raw eggs.

But comparisons of unequal entities sometimes do matter. Especially when you're measuring energy consumption. If you buy an SUV with better gas mileage than another SUV -- it's still an SUV.

So, let's look hard at what we've bought. And, if energy use is found to be excessive -- or even if it isn't -- let's take steps to make it more efficient.

That's why I intend to hold to my promise of an energy audit once the building is completed and the numbers are in to make sure Seattle's signature green building is held to the highest standards.

Jean Godden, former columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times, is chairwoman of the council's Energy and Environmental Policy Committee.

Add P-I Opinion headlines to