Michael Silence has a comment in today’s News Sentinel that (contrary to his intention) helps to underline just how difficult it can be for governments to make meaningful reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. He says that it would be silly for the state to require vending machines on state property to either use energy-efficient lights for advertising or have the advertising lights removed, because he figures that business owners should be removing those lights to save money. It’s not that simple!
I’m pleased and proud to be able to say that the City of Oak Ridge has removed the advertising lighting from vending machines (they kept the lighting that helps people use the machine, but removed the lights that only illuminate a soft drink company’s name) after TVA recommended this as a way to save energy and costs. TVA said the city could save $95 annually per machine. I figure it’s just $80 at current rates, but it’s not small change.
It’s not that simple to cut these lights everywhere though, because the owner of the vending machine usually doesn’t pay the electric bill for the power that lights the machine. When I suggested that my employer (ORNL) should follow the city’s lead and cut off the advertising lights on its vending machines as part of its “Sustainable Campus Initiative,” I was told that the vending machine owner doesn’t want to do that — mostly because they figure the lights might help their business, and they think it would be a waste of the perfectly good light bulbs that the vendor bought to light the machines. So the vendor doesn’t need to consider the real cost of his actions, and ORNL continues to foot the bill for useless lighting, while missing out on what should be an easy opportunity for reducing energy consumption.
I have no doubt that the same situation prevails at the vending sites in state buildings, at state parks, etc. That is, the vending companies that receive the benefit of the lighting in their machines don’t pay the costs of that lighting — instead they pass it along to the state’s taxpayers — so they have no economic incentive to do the right thing. I don’t know who in the legislature proposed this legislation, but whoever it was deserves our thanks.
This is just one example of how difficult it can be to curtail activities that have a negative impact on our environment. In general, consumers of energy aren’t being charged the full costs of their (our!) actions, so they (we!) don’t have the necessary economic incentive to change their (our!) behavior.
I was gratified when the Oak Ridge City Council and city staff took the first steps toward a program of “greening” the city. I hope we will be able to continue to follow through with actions, even when those actions won’t always provide a clear near-term economic benefit.
Added on March 23: The bill (SB 395 – HB 616) has a fiscal note indicating that it would save the state $438,000 annually. What’s silly about that?
Do you guys have Vending Misers on your machines – these devices do not interfere with sales or advertising but will cut the electricity usage nearly in half.
No, we don’t have Vending Misers here. Apparently (based on this information sheet) this is a plugin controller for cold drink machines that turns off the compressor when there are no people nearby.
With our low TVA electric rates, there hasn’t been much of a market for products like that one, but it’s certainly something we should be looking into.