The University is still deciding whether it will standardize thermostat settings for all campus buildings in an effort to save money, said Ken Crowe, director of energy services for the Physical Plant.

“Our proposal [sent to the Board of Regents last month], as part of our budget reduction, was that we should establish a standard,” said Ralph Johnson, associate vice president for the Plant, “and bring any areas that are outside of those parameters inside those parameters, so we can achieve savings.”

There is not a set campus-wide standard for thermostat temperatures at this time, Crowe said.

But if the University chooses to put the heating and cooling plan into action, thermostats across campus would be set to 75 degrees in the summer and 71 degrees in the winter – saving about $200,000 in utility costs, according to documents submitted to the Board of Regents outlining the University’s budget reduction proposals.

The projected cost for energy items on the University’s main campus is about $26 million for fiscal year 2010.

Crowe said an official decision about thermostat settings would be made within the next two or three weeks. The change would affect all campus buildings except for those in which research going on inside the building would require a different temperature level.

The budget reduction proposal also left room for a more drastic change – to 78 degrees during the summer and 68 degrees during the winter – if more severe cuts have to be made. These settings would save an additional $200,000 – a total of $400,000.

“We don’t really feel like that is an optimum range for our buildings,” Crowe said. “However, extreme times call for extreme measures, so we’ve opened the door that we could potentially go to that level.”

Johnson said the less extreme thermostat settings were within the ideal range for productivity and comfort in an office environment.

“If you think about it, sitting in a classroom when it gets warm and stuffy, people would tend to lose attention,” Johnson said. “We want [students] to have an optimal learning experience, so we don’t necessarily want to force the temperatures outside of those ranges that we feel are the most beneficial.”

Karl Langenbach, key accounts manager for Georgia Power, offered similar advice about the heating and cooling of large buildings.

“Obviously, if you set the temperature a little cooler during the winter and a little warmer during the summer, you will likely save money,” he said in a phone interview last week.

But, he said there was more to it than just changing the thermostat.

“Unlike a house, with a commercial building, it’s all very specific to what you’re doing within that space,” he said.

“There has to be a balance between ambiance, function and cost of operation.”

One student worker in the Miller Learning Center wasn’t so sure. He said he didn’t think a temperature change would affect his learning environment.

“If they can save money for the University, I definitely think they should,” said Justin Radcliffe, a senior from Conyers.

Though thermostat standards haven’t yet come into play, the Physical Plant is saving money in other ways, Crowe said.

He outlined other cost-saving projects – including improving lighting on campus and re-insulating the University’s steam piping system.

“We are – on a monthly basis – essentially using the same amount of power we did a year ago, and we have over 250,000 more square feet,” Crowe said. “We have 250,000 square feet more than what we had last year, but we haven’t seen the subsequent rise in our energy use.”

The Physical Plant spends between $200,000 and $250,000 on projects each year. The payback on that investment takes just one to two years, Johnson said.

“We’re going to continue to roll that money back into project work that will save us additional dollars in the future,” Johnson said.