Dickinson laundry quota

Dickinson College Laundry and Printing Quotas

Grace Lange, Casey Michalski, Taylor Phillip, Doni Hoffman, Vinca Krajewski

+UNDER CONSTRUCTION+

In the fall of 2009, Dickinson College implemented both a printing and a laundry quota. Student reactions to these changes have varied. This Wiki page will explore the different reasonings for employing for both quotas and explore the social, environmental and economic impacts of the implementation. We hope this page will serve as a tool to both the Dickinson College administration and students. Information gathered will be used to critique the existing quota systems and to formulate suggestions for potential future changes.

History of Quotas and Sustainability at Dickinson College

• • UNDER CONSTRUCTION**

The laundry and printing quotas at Dickinson College are two policies which combine financial and environmental sustainability. Both quotas were implemented at the same time, but the discussions which culminated in these decisions are different. Therefore, it is important to provide their concise history in order to better understand the current policies, as well as re-evaluate them in order to make them effective and efficient. Such policies call for an appropriate amount of education about the decision and its implications to be available to students. The laundry quota was put in place for the fall 2009 semester.

What our Overlap Institutions are Doing

Dickinson College's overlap institutions are also characterized as small liberal arts colleges, that also have small class sizes and specialized global education programs. An overlap institution is a college that has similar characteristics to others, such as similar programs. Overlap institutions are ranked in terms of the schools that prospective students apply to in addition to that particular institution. Below are Dickinson College's Top 10 Overlap Institutions.

1. Franklin & Marshall College 2. Kenyon College 3. Gettysburg College 4. Hamilton College 5. Bucknell University 6. Colgate University 7. George Washington University 8. Colby College 9. Tufts University 10.William & Mary College

Each overlap institution was contacted and asked to provide information about their particular quota system. The following schools do not have a quota system in place for laundry or printing (therefore, printing and laundry is technically free and unlimited): Kenyon College, Gettysburg College, Colgate University and William & Mary College. Franklin & Marshall College does not have a limit to laundry use, but they charge students for all printing. Franklin & Marshall had a 200 page printing quota in place prior to charging students for printing. Hamilton College does not have a printing quota, but all students pay for their laundry. Bucknell University does not have a laundry quota, but there is a 500 page printing quota. Both George Washington University and Tufts University make students pay for all laundry and printing. Colby College also has their students pay for laundry, but there is no limit for black and white printing. Colby currently has a $10.00 printing quota for color printing.

Printing Quotas

Environmental Considerations

It would seem that the college wide printing quota must have positive effects on Dickinson College’s environmental footprint; conserving paper and toner ink decrease costs and environmental impacts caused by college printing. However, these effects are currently difficult to measure. The short time frame and lack of regular measurements regarding ink and paper use limit the potential analysis of the quota in regards to college-wide environmental impact. However, the far-reaching impacts of paper production, ink and toner manufacturing as well as electricity use are more easily understood. Paper production is often associated with terrible environmental degradation, deforestation and pollution from waste water are two key impacts. In 2008, the paper demand of the U.S. book and newspaper industry alone resulted in the harvesting of 125 million trees[1]. While the environmental impacts of paper production are generally understood, the environmental impacts of electronic media are far less researched.

---

One of the results of the printing quota is that more students are reading their articles and books on computer screens. Is this an environmentally positive change? The use of any electronic media requires electricity, which has arguably more detrimental impacts on the environmental that the impacts of print. Research from Sweden suggests that the carbon footprint generated by servers, storage devices and other electricity dependent equipment required to execute, host, protect, maintain and back-up online media is quite large. They have determined that reading online newspapers for more than thirty minutes a day is more than the impact of one year’s consumption of printed newspaper. [2] However, e-readers such as the Amazon Kindle throw a curve ball into this whole debate. The Amazon kindle is a portable, wireless reading device. Electronic paper, a revolutionary new display technology makes text on the Amazon Kindle sharp while reducing the strain and glare associated with reading on a computer screen. The Kindle's screen reflects light, rather relying on backlight, which significantly reduces its electricity demand. [3]

A study conducted by Cleantech Group, suggests that the carbon emitted over the lifetime of an e-book is offset after the first year of use and that an e-book displaces the purchase of 22.5 physical books. However, currently, e-books are having no positive impact on the environment because publishers are still publishing the same number of books. The Cleantech report concluded buying 3 e-books per month for four years produces about 168 kilograms of CO2, while the equivalent number of printed books would result in about 1,074 kilograms of CO2 [4].

However, it is important to remember that CO2 emissions are not the only environmental impact of print vs. electronic. Many electronics contain toxic materials and compounds, including PVC, the most noxious and carcinogenic substances on the planet. Paper can be recycled… the final resting place of electronics is less clear.

Important questions must be asked when analyzing the environmental impacts of the Dickinson College printing quota:

-Are these changes actually reducing college consumption of paper and toner?

-Does the quota have any effect on electricity use?

-Might the college want to invest in E-readers?

In order to analyze and assess the impacts of the Dickinson College printing quota, data pertaining to recycling tonnage, waste tonnage and electricity consumption must be recorded systematically and made available for student use.

Economic Considerations

The college used to median of the paper use from the previous year to determine the printing quota. The median was 580 pages, which they rounded up to get a 600 page printing quota. With this printing quota, the college estimated that charging $.10 per page that exceeds the quota would change the behavior of the students who used to print more. The implicit economic model behind this decision is as follows: The marginal willingness to pay curve (MWTP) and the marginal damages curve (MD)meet at the optimal price and quantity.

Up to 600 pages, the student will not have to pay anything. After 600 pages, the price jumps to $.10/page. If the college has accurately predicted the MWTP and the MD, no student should be going beyond the quota, becaue the costs of doing so are too high. What we have found however, is that students have been going over the quota. This could mean one out of three things: 1. The school has accurately measured the MD, but underestimated the students MWTP. This would shift the MWTP curve up to the right:

The new equilibrium would result in a higher quota and a higher price per page if one exceeds the quota. 2. The price/page is too low. A low price would not effectively change demand. The college should raise the price per page. 3. The have underestimated both the MD, which includes environmental and economic costs (see environmental considerations), and the MWTP. This would also mean that the college should raise the price per page.

All three of these possibilities have one thing in common: the price is too low. The question still remains as to how low, and whether or not the quota should be increased as well.

Laundry Quotas

Environmental Considerations

Washers: Each washer at Dickinson College uses 15 gallons of water per wash cycle and 0.56 kWh of electricity. During the 2009 fiscal year, before the laundry quotas were imposed, Dickinson students ran 98,536 loads of laundry. This averages about 20 loads of wash per students per semester (98,536 loads / 2500 students / 2 semesters).

Dryers: The college has 38 electric dryers on campus, and 54 driers that run primarily on natural gas. Electric dryers us 4 kWh of electricity per 50 minute load. The natural gas dryer use 0.2 kWh of electricity and 14 cubic feet of natural gas per 50 minute load. During the 2009 fiscal year, Dickinson students ran 90,055 loads of laundry through dryers. This averages about 18 dryer loads per student per semester (90,055 loads/ 2500 students/ 2 semesters).

With the imposed quota, students are allowed 34 cycles of laundry -- 17 wash & 17 dry or any combination of the two. Because the quotas were just imposed, we do not have any conclusive evidence, however, based on predictions, if each student uses the allotted 17 wash loads we will reduce our water consumption by 14%, electricity by 8% and natural gas by 6%. These savings change however, based on the combination of wash and dry loads.

---

To figure this out, data was placed into an excel spreadsheet. The following formulas were used to calculate values:

Water consumption:

Wash loads x 15 gallons x 2500 students

Energy consumption:

(wash loads x .56 kWh + dryer loads x (38/92) x 4 kWh + dryer loads x(54/92) x 0.2 kWh) x 2500 students [Wash Energy + Electric Dryer Energy + Natural Gas Dyer Energy]

Natural Gas consumption:

Dry loads x (54/92) x 14 cf x 2500 students

---

Chart Depicting the water, electricity and natural gas consumption associated with several scenarios:

Chart Depicting the reduction of water, electricity and natural gas consumption associated these scenarios:

As shown in the charts, these quotas can have significant reduction on the amount of electricity and natural gas we consume. However, the reduction of water use is less clear. If students wash only 17 loads, we reduce water consumption by 14%. However, if students wash over 17 loads, we end up using more water than we have in the past. Decreasing the use of electric and natural gas dryer loads by increasing the air drying of laundry on campus will have the most reductions on our environmental impacts associated with laundry.

In the Dickinson College Climate Change Action Plan, the Office of Sustainability has calculated that the implementation of a quota to limit wash cycles has the potential to mitigate 8 MTeCO2 of purchased electricity and 5 MTeCO2 of on campus fuel combustion (Natural Gas). By placing drying racks in dormitories and resident halls, the college hopes to divert 10% of cycles meant for the dryer. This has the potential to mitigate 5 MTeCO2 of electricity purchased and 4 MTeCO2 of on campus fuel combustion (Natural Gas). Therefore, the implementation of laundry quotas has the potential to mitigate 22 MTeCO2 of Dickinson College’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The college is currencly emitting 15,500 MTeCO2, so in the grand scheme of things, 22 MTeCO2 mitigated through laundry quotas might not seem impressive. However this is an inexpensive, simple and easy way to mitigate our emissions and we as students should do our best to make this change effective.

Economic Considerations

Similar to the printing quota, Dickinson estimated that a quota of 34 loads/semester, and a price of 2.25/load for anymore loads would change behavior. This means that up to 34 loads of laundry (or drying) are free. Any additional loads cost 2.25/load. If the college has accurately predicted the MD,the MWTP of the students, and the equilibrium point, then no one should be going over the quota.

Some students at Dickinson have indeed exceeded the quota. Like the printing quota, this could mean one of three things.

1. The school has accurately measured the MD, but underestimated the students MWTP. This would shift the MWTP curve up to the right: The new equilibrium would result in a higher quota and a higher price per load if one exceeds the quota.

File:Graph of laundry qouta.jpg

2. The price/page is too low. A low price would not effectively change demand. In this case, the college should raise the price per load.

3. The have underestimated both the MD, which includes environmental and economic costs (see environmental considerations), and the MWTP. This would also mean that the college should raise the price per load.

Conclusions

The college should raise the price each student has to pay for loads of laundry and printing after they have exceeded the quota. Whether or not Dickinson should also raise the quota itself is a still unsure. More reserach is needed.

Future Study

There is further research to be done to determine in what way the college has poorly predicted student behavior with laundry quotas. Do students actually need more? Is the price too low? For what reason?

We have also seen slight differences in major for the printing quota and in athletes for the laundry quota. The college should attain data on the amount each student has used of his/her quota, and if/how much they have gone over their quota. A more flexibile printing quota might be most efficient.

Other ideas such as the Amazon Kindle should also be persued.

Sources

Climate Change Action Plan Working Group. (2009, September 15). Dickinson College Climate Change Action Plan: Climate Neutral by 2020. Dickinson College, Carlisle PA.