Jennifer Pendergrass sat in her office, bundled in a sweater, on a hot September day.
At 63 degrees, the language and literature adviser's office was more Arctic than comfortable.
"I resorted to bringing sweaters," she said. "When it was 113 degrees outside, I was freezing inside."
While Pendergrass' office may be an extreme, most ASU facilities are far cooler than they're supposed to be under University standards, costing ASU nearly $1 million a year in excess cooling costs.
The State Press took more than 300 temperatures in 80 locations in 20 buildings across campus and found that the average room temperature was 68 degrees -- 8 degrees below the University standard touted as part of an energy efficiency program.
In fact, not a single location averaged the mandated 76-degree temperature for cooling indoor spaces.
Individual temperatures ranged from 60 degrees to 75 degrees, according to the data collected during two days in September and October, when the University's central cooling plant was still pumping chilled air to campus buildings.
While temperatures were not taken in ASU President Michael Crow's office, another office in the ASU Foundation Building, which houses ASU's top administrator, boasted the coldest average temperature on campus at 62 degrees.
The warmest temperature? One part of the Memorial Union, used primarily by students. The central south-end cafeteria had a recorded average temperature of 73.8 degrees.
Because the Foundation Building is privately operated with donor funds and ASU does not foot the center's air conditioning bills, The State Press did not include the building's temperatures in the University average of 68 degrees.
But that still left the Administration Building, which houses more University officials, as the coldest building on campus, with an average temperature of about 64 degrees.
The Law and Hayden libraries, along with Matthews Center, were the warmest places on campus with building-wide averages of 72.3, 71.8 and 71.2 degrees, respectively.
The State Press used an infrared thermometer -- similar to those used by the facilities maintenance department -- to take the readings. At each location, the temperature was taken four times and then averaged for the final reading.
On the dates the measurements were taken, Sept. 29 and Oct. 20, average outdoor temperatures were 86 and 78 degrees, respectively, according to the National Weather Service's Web site.
Each time a thermostat is lowered 1 degree, it represents a significant expenditure. Every degree change translates to at least a $113,000 difference in the ASU utility bill over the course of a year, said Tom Corwin, ASU superintendent of utilities.
If The State Press samples are indicative of how far off temperatures are during the course of the hot-weather months, it means ASU is spending an estimated $904,000 more on cooling than if the buildings were cooled to the standard.
Campus-wide chills
After dealing with the frigid temperatures for months, Pendergrass finally called ASU Facilities Maintenance. The response was quick. The control thermostat read 62 degrees, just one point below what The State Press recorded a couple of days earlier.
"My office now is considerably warmer, but it's still cold for me," Pendergrass said. "I think it's ridiculous for the weather outside.
And Pendergrass' office isn't the only problematic room on campus, she said.
"[A room] in the art building ... is constantly a freezer; this has been going on since fall 2004," she said. "It's not just me, it's the entire class shivering, freezing."
Nursing sophomore Kelly Hubbell can relate.
"I'm always freezing no matter where I go," she said. "It's a waste. The money could be going to much more important things.
"You don't think to bring a parka when it's 110 degrees outside."
Besides saving money, warmer rooms could also help with concentration, said plant biology senior Nate Hertzfeld.
"If I'm freezing my [butt] off, it gets in the way of paying attention," said Hertzfeld, who keeps his home thermostat between 72 and 76 degrees.
Education senior Maria Fernandez said the dramatic difference between the cooled classrooms and Arizona heat is nearly enough to make her sick to her stomach.
"I notice students will bring a sweater even when it's summer," she said. "They're losing money for a really simple thing."
Dial denial
Director of Facilities Maintenance Dean Hooks insisted that The State Press' numbers are wrong. ASU can't be wasting money on cooling costs, nor is the average temperature 68 degrees, he said.
Hooks said the method The State Press used to gather the readings doesn't give an accurate representation of room temperatures. The infrared thermometer used in the study captured only wall temperature, which can vary greatly from air temperature, he said.
"I think [68 degrees] is fairly unrepresentative of where temperatures are," he said. "I would say the true representatives are my utility bills, and they are tracking pretty near to where they should be."
ASU's cooling expenses have remained fairly even over the past few years with $3.44 million spent in fiscal year 2005 on buildings cooled through the central system. ASU spent $3.19 million in 2004, $3.02 million in 2003 and $3.26 million in 2002.
In an e-mailed statement, Scott Cole, ASU deputy executive vice president, backed up Hooks.
"[The State Press] was using an improper measurement device," Cole said. "Therefore, according to Dean, [the] data is in error. We have control systems in place that automatically call for the temperature set in the energy management system."
The problem, The State Press has learned, is that such systems are not installed in all buildings, and wall temperature can often be representative of air temperature.
Larry Nies, ASU mechanical services supervisor, said facilities maintenance uses infrared thermometers when it needs to manually check room temperature, despite possible inconsistencies.
"If a wall temperature was at 70 degrees, obviously the room temperature would have had to be 70 degrees at one time," Nies said.
ASU architecture professor Harvey Bryan is familiar with the difference in temperature type and he says an 8-degree difference between wall and air temperature doesn't add up.
"That sounds pretty high," said Bryan, a former member of the ASU Energy Conservation Committee. "I would say [an 8-degree difference] kind of surprises me.
"Generally, inside walls should run pretty close to air temperature."
Set it and forget it
ASU buildings are cooled two ways. The primary cooling method is through Central Plant, the University's cooling and heating hub.
All buildings between Mill Avenue and Rural Road and between University Drive and Apache Boulevard are covered by the plant, as are ASU buildings east of College Street and north of University Drive, Corwin said. Everything else, including south campus buildings, past Apache Boulevard, runs on separate systems.
Campus thermostats are adjusted twice a year, once in the winter to 72 degrees and once in the summer to 76 degrees, but there is no manual check to be sure central plant readings are accurate or that thermostats are properly set in between visits.
"The trouble is we don't have enough people to really launch into a strict official monitoring program," Hooks said. "We do have a [trouble-call] program when we get a call from someone who has a trouble with being either too hot or too cold."
The 76-degree set point is a compromise between comfort level and efficient energy use, said Corwin, the utilities superintendent. In keeping with state energy conservation mandates, ASU chose to standardize cooling to 76 degrees.
Hooks said he didn't know exactly how many thermostats were installed throughout the campus, but estimated more than 1,500. About 20 percent of those were installed with no-tamper covers; others can be adjusted by anyone, he added.
The thermostats are checked once or twice a year to see if they need recalibration, Hooks said. Some Tempe campus buildings are monitored constantly, however, through automated systems, he said.
"That's real-time constant monitoring there," Hooks ssaid. "In that respect, it's 100 percent real-time monitoring."
The building automation systems are installed in about 50 percent of ASU structures, but those readings are not manually confirmed on a consistent basis either, he said. Hooks did not have a list of the buildings in which systems have been installed.
The other 50 percent must be controlled manually by setting thermostats, he added.
"If the [automated system] were spread throughout the entire site ... [monitoring] would be easily done, but when you're talking about leg work over six-and-a-half million feet worth of buildings, it would take quite a bit of leg work ... to keep it all fine-tuned," Hooks said. "[The ASU cooling network] is a real patchwork quilt."
Varying degrees
Bryan, the architecture professor, said he doesn't think campus is too cold, but ASU should be more proactive about manually verifying temperatures.
"I would like to see more individual metering of buildings," Bryan said. "We tend to be more reactive; we're not proactive."
Another of Bryan's concerns is the cooling method the University uses to air condition and heat all buildings to the same base temperature.
"Setting all the buildings at one temperature is not the way to go," he said.
All buildings -- due to construction materials, orientation and windows -- react to cooling differently, Bryan said. So while a set point of 75 degrees may make one building comfortable, it could leave another excessively hot or cold, he said.
Hooks said a varied model such as the one Bryan suggests would be the best method, but it isn't very practical.
"We can't exactly control temperature and humidity in every building the way we are presently configured," he said. "Sometimes, the payback is so far out it's not worth the effort. You'd like to drive a Ferrari, but a Chevy is in the budget."
In addition, University buildings may be inherently hard to control, said Tom Hines, a spokesman for APS, ASU's energy provider.
"It can be very difficult ... to keep everything at an even temperature," Hines said. "Particularly in a classroom setting ... you're going to have fluctuations over the course of the day."
Retrofitting, or making improvements to an already-existing building, can sometimes be done in order to improve efficiency, Hines said.
But such upgrades often come with a high price tag -- Hooks estimated a complete retrofit of ASU's cooling system at more than $250 million.
"That's a big capital investment to replace a cooling system," Hines said. "[When an old system fails] there is a great opportunity to try and replace it with the most efficient equipment that is out there."
Glass not always greener
It may be easier to focus on energy conservation in new construction projects rather than retrofitting existing buildings, Bryan said.
"There are buildings on campus that have far too much glass and are prone to energy problems," he said. "The Coor Building is not a winner."
Coor, the newest classroom building on campus, was built with a largely glass exterior.
Vidar Lerum is another ASU architecture professor who said a building's design can be critical for energy conservation.
"The orientation of the window is important," he said. "Facing south, the sun is easy to control with shading devices. If you have a window that is facing east or west, it's much more difficult."
Constructing buildings with conservation in mind isn't new for ASU, said Ray Tena, associate director of engineering.
About two years ago, ASU began addressing the issue by looking into certification through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED. Members of the U.S. Green Building Council created the voluntary program to establish a common method of measuring how "green," or environmentally friendly, a building is. Facilities can apply for varying levels of certification based on a building's efficiency.
"The certification at least gives insurance that the design procedures had a scope of energy conservation and sustainability in mind," Tena said. The first building constructed at ASU under the program's standards was the Biodesign Institute, which is awaiting silver certification, he added.
For silver certification, buildings must receive a score of 33 on a 69-point scale, with points being awarded for everything from alternative transportation considerations to the use of recycled materials and innovative design.
Energy-efficient cooling systems also play a role.
"Air conditioning is one of the heavier expenses on a building in terms of energy ... it's one of the highest factors," Tena said.
The only other building on Tempe campus designed for LEED certification is the Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building I currently under construction. It, too, will be submitted for silver ranking.
Cooling off
Though ASU administration maintains campus-wide cooling during the summer months is not costing ASU millions, facilities management initiated a survey of building temperatures this month.
The project was put on hold early this week, when outside temperatures began to dip into the mid-60's and the University switched to heat.
"Unfortunately, we got into this in the change of season," Corwin said.
Pendergrass, the academic adviser, said if "green" buildings and general savings are a top ASU priority, overly cooled rooms should be the first to go.
"[President Crow] has a lot of ideas for revenue generation, but this would be a wonderful place to start on how to save money and be more efficient in today's world," she said.
Reach the reporter at ryan.kost@asu.edu.
Sidebar: Ice Cold
UA's award-winning air-conditioning system goes a step beyond chilling the water necessary to cool campus, to freezing it.
Air conditioners need cold water to use as part of the process to chill air. UA installed an innovative new system, which freezes ice over night while energy can be used cheaply and melts the blocks during the day. It came online late June 2004.
"Our director, Al Tarcola, is a very forward-thinking guy, and he wanted to get equipment that was environmentally friendly," said Gordon Bush, a UA senior staff technician in the utilities department. "We found that we could actually get a payback by getting equipment, so that was the driving force behind it."
The newly revamped UA cooling system cost an estimated $20 million to $30 million to install, and is expected to pay for itself in saved energy costs within five years.
Since the installation, UA has received an award from Gov. Janet Napolitano's office for its strides toward energy conservation with the revamped air conditioner.
UA has also installed new eco-friendly chillers over the past six years.
ASU's system underwent a similar switch to higher-efficiency chillers about 10 years ago to meet a University performance contract.
Because of the chiller retrofit, ASU is meeting the efficiency level required of the university by 2008 as stipulated in the governor's energy efficiency directive, said Tom Corwin, ASU superintendent of utilities.
"We are performing at the standard, and that is primarily the result of the increased efficiency chillers and the reduction in set points," he said.
Reach the reporter at ryan.kost@asu.edu.