From the inbox:
ASU Energy Conservation Plan
As we are all aware, the economy today is in the midst of serious crisis. When our economy struggles, state revenues shrink, and government must develop a plan to deal with the budget shortfall. As part of that effort we have developed an energy conservation and reduction plan. The concept of this plan is simple. It aims to ensure that we use only what we need, and only for as long as we need it.
The plan will put the following steps in place for all academic and administrative buildings as quickly as possible:
1. Where possible, thermostats will be adjusted to a new daytime (occupied) setting of 68 degrees in winter and 74 degrees in summer.
2. Where building automation systems or programmable thermostats exist, temperatures will be adjusted to a new nighttime (unoccupied) setting of 65 degrees in winter and 78 degrees in summer. ...
3. Where technically possible heating systems will be turned off whenever outdoor air temperatures are above 60 degrees except in temperature sensitive areas listed above.
4. The use of portable space heaters will not be allowed.
In order to meet these guidelines, the Physical Plant will monitor energy consumption for each building and consult with Deans and University administration as needed. We also ask for your assistance in monitoring lighting and plug loads. Please remember to:
· Turn off the lights when leaving office areas during extended periods of time, e.g. when leaving the office during the lunch hour or leaving for a meeting in another area.
· Turn off all classroom lights when not in use.
· Turn off your computer and all peripheral devices such as speakers and printers in offices and computer labs at the end of each work day. Academic Computing Services will notify the campus when it is necessary to leave computers on for overnight software downloads.
· Close laboratory exhaust hoods when not in use.
· Dress appropriately for the lowered temperature settings.
· When you see energy waste, speak up! Remind your friends, co-workers, or fellow students to conserve energy.
Emphasis added. A note to my colleagues: If you disobey these guidelines I'll turn you in faster than you can say "Et tu, Brute?"
Waste is bad. Conservation is good. In fact, I would claim that conservation is a pure good: it reduces negative externalities, and frees resources for higher value added economic activity, while saving resources for the conserver.
If I conserve for my employer, I am (merely) making him more profitable. If I conserve for myself (by turning off a light at home) I am earning money completely tax-free. We like tax-free income, don't we?
A small note: all the measures listed above are conservation measures (turning things off, foregoing consumption), not efficiency measures (energy efficient lighting, appliances, HVAC). While both are valuable, I believe they are economically quite different. Efficiency has capital costs (usually higher), conservation has opportunity costs at most (I think).
But I'm ignoring the crux of your post, that calling for conservation is very, very bad. It makes you a narc, a ratfink, a squealer, a spoilsport. If you are a president, it gets your speech labeled "the malaise speech" and gets you thrown out of office.
Behavioral economists and marketers (at some utilities) are experimenting with methods to encourage conservation without enraging their customers. Apparently ASU did not employ their best techniques.
May I suggest, as politely, and humbly, as I can, that conservation can be encouraged, that it can (and perhaps should!) be studied by economists, and that we can have a healthy, free market economy without cheerleading mindless consumption.
Thank you.
Posted by: Mark Shapiro | January 09, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I good point, and one that occurred to me as we discussed refrigerators. If I buy an efficient fridge and save $100/yr. I keep it. If I put the same money in a bank CD and earn $100/yr, I pay taxes on it.
Posted by: odograph | January 09, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Odograph - yes, BUT: an efficient fridge is an efficiency measure via capital investment, rather than conservation. Yes, it has an ROI, tax-free to an individual.
Conservation, like turning out a light, literally earns you money, tax free, at the flip of a switch. It requires no capital investment at all. It is pure income (and did I mention it was tax free?).
Some conservation measures are even better. If, while buying that energy efficient fridge, you buy the the next-smaller model, you save money upfront (a negative capital cost delta) as well as saving even more money per year, all tax free.
How do economists measure ROI on a negative investment cost?
Posted by: Mark Shapiro | January 09, 2009 at 01:31 PM
There are gizmos that turn the light off if there is no motion in the room. Occasionally you have to wave at it, but they do save money, esp in office buildings
Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Where does running two computers on one desk figure into the plan?
Posted by: JDC | January 11, 2009 at 02:11 PM
JDC,
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: John Whitehead | January 12, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Some time ago, I decided to take it all in, and be the spoilsport. My approach was to be humorous about it, and feigning an exaggerated worry about a light being turned on more than necessary. And to be the first example of doing what I say: when there's a light being left on, I just go there (even if there's someone closer) and turn it off at everyone's sight. Gets their attention.
The thing is, I'm living in a campus. All expenses paid since September, so there little of no incentive for anyone to conserve - there's simply no price in the energy consumed.
Posted by: Carlos Ferreira | January 21, 2009 at 01:25 PM