Dickinson College's Laundry & Printing Quotas

Introduction

This page is the result of a collaborative group project for an environmental economics class taught by Dr. Nicola Tynan at Dickinson College.The following students are the authors of this page: Doni Hoffman '10, Vinca Krajewski '10, Grace Lange '12, Casey Michalski '10, Taylor Phillip '11.

Dickinson College is a leader in terms of environmental sustainability [1]. The College's goal is to become carbon neutral by 2020. In September 2007, President Durden '71 signed on to the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). A Climate Change Action Planwas submitted in fall 2009 and outlines how Dickinson will achieve carbon neutrality. In the fall of 2009, Dickinson College implemented both a printing and a laundry quotas which are both environmentally friendly progressive steps which also cut costs. Student reactions to these changes have varied. This Wiki page explores the different reasons for employing the quotas by exploring their social, environmental and economic impacts. We also offer a critique the existing quota systems and suggestions for improvement.It is our hope that this page will serve as an educational and reference tool to both the Dickinson College administration and students.

History of Quotas at Dickinson College

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.

In 2007, Facilities Management replaced the wash and dryer machines across campus with more efficient Energy Star appliances. This immediately decreased the consumption of electricity and water and also allowed less soap to be used when students washed their clothes. Esuds software was discovered in conjunction with this upgrade. Esuds is a program which is helpful to students because it allows them go online and view free washers and dryers in their building. Furthermore, a message is sent to a student when their load is complete. Apart from offering convenience, Esuds gave facilities management the ability to monitor and quantify the amount of laundry students do. Before the installation of this program there is no such data on laundry habits. The data showed that 95% of the student body was doing three loads or less per week. And, it was obvious that a small percentage of students were acting as outliers by doing an inordinate amount of laundry each week. After this realization a laundry allotment began to be discussed by Facilities Management and Dickinson SAVES. SAVES is a group of faculty, students, and staff interested in decreasing the environmental footprint of Dickinson College. The idea was soon presented to the Dickinson College Student Senate Student Senatewhich was headed by president Anya Malkov '08. At first Andrew Kamerosky '10, the environmental liaison brought up the fact that a quota was being talked about. Then the Interim Vice President of Campus Operations, Ken Schultes, addressed the senate and stated "I honestly think it (a possible laundry quota) will only affect a very small percentage of students who are taking advantage of unlimited laundry." Even so, the senate had a lengthy discussion about the idea of a quota. Having drying racks available for student use (Facilities Management put these in every dorm) as well as possibly have different quotas for athletes were two suggestions brought to the floor. In April of 2009, the Planning and Budget Committee decided that instituting a laundry quota of one full load (wash and dry) per week was one of the ways to balance the College's budget. The quota was put in for the fall 2009 semester.

Discussions at Dickinson College about how to save paper have been happening for over twenty years. In 1996, double sided printing began being available on most computers which became the default in March 2007. Then in 2002, paper which was made of 30% post-consumer material was purchased. In the spring of 2008,equitracwas put in place to monitor the amount of pages that students were printing. This software also made printing more convenient as students could print from any computer and swipe their ID card at any printer to get their document. Even though printing was free, the equitrac diminished paper waste because before it people would print and never go to the machine and retrieve it. In November of 2008, Dickinson College Information Technology and Services (ITS) began to worry about the increasing cost of Library Information and Services LIS. A printing quota was an effective method to cut costs. Again the issue was brought to the Student Senate and there was much discussion about it. Senators were worried that a quota would hamper academic needs and that some majors and class years need to print more than others. In the fall of 2008 the median pages printed per student was 588. Thus, a quota of 600 pages was set for each student for the fall 2009 semester. This was also looked at as a step towards a more environmentally sustainable future and the quota was thus dubbed the sustainable printing allotment.

Overall, the two quotas were done for an environmentally and financially sustainable future for Dickinson College. Currently, there is some controversy about whether the two quotas were fair for the students. Senators in the Student Senate has recently suggested that quotas be allocated based on major and class year instead of the same one for all students. The two quotas were mentioned in a 2009 TIME articleabout ways colleges were cutting costs.

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] 2. Kenyon College[3] 3. Gettysburg College[4] 4. Hamilton College[5] 5. Bucknell University[6] 6. Colgate University[7] 7. George Washington University[8] 8. Colby College[9] 9. Tufts University[10] 10.William & Mary College[11]

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.

Every Fall, the College Sustainability Report Card[12] is released. The Report Card grades college and universities in the United States on their overall sustainability achievements and programming. The criteria used to grade each school includes how sustainability is integrated into each of the following categories: Administration, Climate Change & Energy, Food & Recycling, Green Building, Student Involvement, Endowment Transparency, Investment Priorities and Shareholder Engagement.

For the second year in a row, Dickinson College was ranked as one of the most sustainable colleges in the nation and was given an A- for overall sustainability. Other schools that received this mark include Harvard University, Amherst College and University of Vermont. Dickinson's various sustainability initiatives, such as the LEED certification of various buildings, the college farm and the biodiesel plant. Below are the grades given to Dickinson's Top 10 Overlap schools: Franklin & Marshall (C+), Kenyon College (C), Gettysburg College (B), Hamilton College (B-), Bucknell University (C+), Colgate University (B-), George Washington University (B), Colby College (B+), Tufts University (B) and William & Mary College (B). Even though several of Dickinson's Overlap schools were given high marks, none of the ten overlap schools were given an A- like Dickinson.

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[13]. 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. [14] 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. [15]

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 [16].

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 the median of the students printing 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 for any additional printing 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, the MD, and the equilibrium point, no student should be going beyond the quota, because the costs of doing so are too high. What we have found however, is that some students have been going over the quota. This means that the school's economic analysis in determining the printing quota was flawed. This could be due to 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 and keep the quota where it is.

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.

Social Considerations

The implementation of a printing quota has also changed student behavior at Dickinson College. Students have noticeably changed their study habits as a reflection of the limits on paper usage. Many more students now read on the computer as opposed to printing out the documents for class; a handful of students even admitted to doing less reading over all, choosing instead risk their grades rather than go over their printing allotment. It would be interesting to look at the overall grades for the college both before and after the quota has been enacted to see if there actually was a noticeable difference between the two.

75% of students surveyed did feel that Dickinson did need some sort of printing quota although the majority felt the current quota of 600 pages to be unfair; however, it was interesting to note that an astonishing 95 percent had not yet gone over it. Students also believed that the quota should vary according to major; the general consensus was that seniors who are in seminars or a major with a heavy writing emphasis (i.e. English) be given higher quotas than students in the sciences. A factor that played heavily into the student body's attitude towards the quota was the belief that the students were actually having to pay for paper used. Students are still not paying for printing as the cost has been incorporated into the overall cost of tuition.

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 currently 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 any additional loads would change behavior. This means that up to 34 loads of washing (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.

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

3. They 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 additional load.

All three of these choices require a increase in the price per load when one exceeds the quota. The questions, similar to that of printing, still remain as to how much more we should raise the price, and whether certain students, or even any students, should be allowed a larger quota.

Social Considerations

The implementation of a laundry quota has also had social impacts for the students at Dickinson College. In light of the quota more students are now willing to extend the period of time between loads of laundry, as well as taking the time to air-dry their clothes as opposed to using the the machine dryer. Some students have also begun to share loads with friends in an attempt to decrease the number of times they do laundry.

67% of students surveyed believed that Dickinson should have some sort of laundry quota although they were divided almost in half as to whether or not the current one was a reasonable request. Some 58 percent felt that current quota is unfair; however, it was interesting to note that three-quarters of the students had not yet surpassed it.

Males were more likely to protest the quota than females, with some 71% feeling that the current quota was unreasonable. Interestingly, over a quarter of males surveyed had exceeded the quota whereas less than 1 percent of females had. 63 percent of athletes surveyed did not feel the need for a quota and almost 90 percent felt the current 1 wash and 1 dry quota was insufficient although three-quarters of athletes had not surpassed it.

A factor that played heavily into the student body's attitude towards the quota was the belief that the students were actually having to pay for the use of laundry machines. In fact, students are still not paying for laundry as the cost is incorporated into the cost of tuition. Several students noted that athletes should have a higher quota than non-athletes.

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 research and discussion is needed.

Sources

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

Dickinson College Student Senate Minutes http://www2.dickinson.edu/studentsenate/news/fall_2006.html

Laundry and Printing statistics retrieved from: Office of Campus Sustainability, Facilities Management, Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA.

Figures and Tables made by group.

Surveys developed by group (80 administered to Dickinson Students).