Be prepared to execute a world-class eye roll. It seems the US Dept. of Energy stinks at, well, saving energy in their use of IT hardware. The report Department of Energy Efforts to Manage Information Technology Resources in an Energy-Efficient and Environmentally Responsible Manner [30 page, 1.2 MB PDF], by none other than the Depart of Energy, says:

Despite its recognized energy conservation leadership role, the Department had not always taken advantage of opportunities to reduce energy consumption associated with its information technology resources. Nor, had it ensured that resources were managed in a way that minimized impact on the environment. In particular (from the summary cover letter):

• The seven Federal and contractor sites included in our review had not fully reduced energy consumption through implementation of power management settings on their desktop and laptop computers; and, as a consequence, spent $1.6 million more on energy costs than necessary in Fiscal Year 2008;
• None of the sites reviewed had taken advantage of opportunities to reduce energy consumption, enhance cyber security, and reduce costs available through the use of techniques, such as “thin-client computing” in their unclassified environments; and,
• Sites had not always taken the necessary steps to reduce energy consumption and resource usage of their data centers, such as identifying and monitoring the amount of energy used at their facilities.

We concluded that Headquarters programs offices (which are part of the Department of Energy’s Common Operating Environment) as well as field sites had not developed and/or implemented policies and procedures necessary to ensure that information technology equipment and supporting infrastructure was operated in an energy-efficient manner and in a way that minimized impact on the environment. For example, although required by the Department, sites had not enabled computer equipment power management features designed to reduce energy consumption. In addition, officials within Headquarters programs and at the sites reviewed had not effectively monitored performance or taken steps to fully evaluate available reductions in energy usage at their facilities. Without improvements, the Department will not be able to take advantage of opportunities to reduce energy consumption and realize cost savings of nearly $23 million over the next five years at just the seven sites reviewed. We noted that the potential for reduced energy consumption at these sites alone was equivalent to the annual power requirements of over 2,400 homes or, alternatively, removing about 3,000 cars from the road each year.

In a word: Ouch.

In more than one word: When some entity–individual, business, government office, university, whatever–fails to take steps that save energy, reduce environmental impact, and return an instantaneous financial benefit for no cost, then someone has screwed up.

Which begs the question: How diligent are you in taking these steps? Did you put your electricity vampires on cheap switched outlets? Do you use the power settings on your computers? Do you use ceiling fans (assuming you have them) to minimize your use of air conditioning? And, yes–did you change your light bulbs?

Have you taken any steps to make your workplace or your kids’ schools more energy efficient?

If the answer to any of these is no, then how much of a financial benefit (or guilt avoidance) do you need to make you overcome your inertia and take action?