A Prophetic Approach to Energy Efficiency

Posted by Eric de Place

07/15/2008 06:50 AM

Taking a three-day weekend for the planet.

utah From the Beehive State, a gratifying way to reduce energy use (and carbon emissions): taking Fridays off. And it's mandatory. In part to deal with rising gas prices, Utah's republican governor John Huntsman introduced the measure for state employees. The move, of course, instantly reduces commutes by 20 percent.

The remaining four work days get longer -- state offices will now stay open from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. -- so that the total number of hours worked remains the same.

I'll bet there's a civic benefit too: the change may actually makes government offices more accessible by extending open hours beyond the tight 9-to-5 window that most citizens still work.

From the USA Today article:

Huntsman says the change will help Utah reach its goal of reducing energy use 20% by 2015.

Beyond the energy and financial implications, the four-day work week is a quality-of-life issue for many. Huntsman says it is especially popular among younger employees and that his action will make Utah more competitive in luring talent.

Good for energy use, good for employees, good for citizens... what's not to like? Plus, it's more proof that our energy habits are flexible. In lost-cost energy environments, we consume a lot. But when prices go up, it turns out that neither people nor institutions are sheeplike followers -- we adapt. This is precisely the sort of thing we might expect to see under good climate policy like carbon taxes or cap and trade.

Many places around the country already have optional flex schedules, but it's apparently becoming more common to make them the mandatory. In an accompanying article, USA Today points out that local governments from Alabama to Arizona and Vermont to Wisconsin are trying out the same idea on a smaller scale.

Permalink

Comments

Posted by Kip Pheil 07/18/2008 01:45 PM

Some concerns, though I generally think the idea has merit.

1) Pushing employees to four, ten-hour days will probably not work for many of them. Either in a sense of ability to focus clearly for that long or in the ability to reconfigure home life (before & after school care, etc.). On the plus size, a ten-hour day will seriously discourage those with a long commute. It could drive those folks to look for new living or working arrangements and reduce general commute mileage.

2) If people generally let their heating and cooling systems operate less when they are at work (not a sure assumption), the efficiency of conditioning a common space for dozens of people might be higher than keeping dozens of homes warm or cool enough.

3) If people use their three-day weekends to drive off into the sunset or sunrise more often they can easily squeeze in more miles than the commute would have demanded.

4) Improve transit infrastructure and the energy savings impact is reduced while more flexibility is created. You can maintain accessible services with overlapping shifts.