Governor requires a 20% reduction in energy consumption.

Governor Tim Kaine today issued Executive Order 48, requiring all state agencies to cut their use of nonrenewable energy by 20% in the next three years, citing the $290M spent on it in 2006 alone. He specifically suggest switching to CF bulbs, renovating under LEED standards, installing photovoltaic arrays and green roofs (old hat to Albemarle County), providing E85 and B20 for state vehicles, maximizing the rate of telecommuting, requiring that all electronics be Energy Star compliant and — best of all — requiring that all new office space in metropolitan areas with mass transit be leased within a quarter mile of a bus, trolley, Metro, or commuter rail stop. (A quarter mile being a five-minute walk, the standard walkable radius for planning purposes.) Bravo to Governor Kaine for finding simple ways that the commonwealth can save $58M/year and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

5 replies on “Governor requires a 20% reduction in energy consumption.”

  1. If it’s as you describe it, then fine, I guess. But I’ve recently seen a post on another blog describing how Fairfax County is spending an extra $92,800/year to buy power from a W. VA. wind plant instead of the coal/nuclear (I assume) plant it would otherwise purchase electricity from. This smacks of government officials spending other people’s money in a misguided attempt to “prevent global warming,” or perhaps merely to flatter their own sense of moral superiority – I’m not sure which. Either way, it has no place in government procurement.

    The link to the blog post is:

  2. Global climate change doesn’t have to enter into the equation. Burning coal is enormously bad for air quality and the health of people for many miles around. Just do the math — how much does the county pay dealing with health problems resulting from poor air quality, how much would air quality be improved by buying their power from a non-polluting resource, and how much would that reduce those expenses? If the reduction is greater than $92,800/year (which would be a snap) then, yes, it’s worth it.

  3. At Mason they’ve been making a lot of changes to make us more energy efficient. Right now they are working on a project to make the air handling system in my building (a very old building) more efficient. Last semester they installed auto-shut-off lights in a lot of the offices and in the bathrooms. They have motion detectors so they turn off if no one is in the room, but if someone goes in they automatically turn on. It’s nice. Little things!

  4. “Externalities” such as those pointed out by Waldo are the thumb-on-the-scale of marketplace economics. To that I would had the SO4 contaminant from the West Virginia powerplants that has obscured the view from the Skyline Drive, and impacts the tourist bidness. The same contamination that former AG Jerry Kilgore supported in an effort to derail clean air technologies.

Comments are closed.