External air pollution costs of telework

Background, Aims and Scope  Telework is associated with a number of costs and benefits, including reduced company overhead costs, need for office and parking space, office energy consumption, increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, retention of specialized employees, reduction in transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution, and many others. This paper applies a systems model to telework and nontelework scenarios to quantify direct energy and fuel costs and external costs related to air emissions from transportation, heating, cooling, lighting, and electronic and electrical equipment use both at the company and the home office, including rebound effects. Methods  E-COMMUTair, a scalable web-based tool created by the authors and designed to assess the air pollution effects of individual or company telework programs versus nontelework is employed along with Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis. E-COMMUTair is using the latest available U.S. energy use and air emission factors. The external costs of air emissions are estimated. The role of telecommuting frequency is emphasized, and differences between various states are explored. The paper identifies the drivers of external costs, and presents an example breakeven analysis focused on CO₂ and key model parameters. Results and Discussion  Nontelework’s external costs are equal to or higher than telework’s costs for every model component, demonstrating that telework programs could provide benefits, including monetary benefits, to society. Transportation is the major contributor to the total costs, with home heating and cooling, and office cooling following. Most of the monetary costs associated with transportation are borne by individuals rather than society. Teleworking employees increase their home-related expenses but reduce their travel-related expenses, ending up with smaller total costs. Energy and fuel costs get reduced in the office space when telework programs are applied, resulting in benefits to companies. Energy and external costs decrease as telework frequency increases. When compared to not teleworking, 5-day telework scenarios on cooling days in California can have about 50–70% lower total costs. The probabilistic analysis confirms the results of the deterministic analysis. The sensitivity analysis reveals that for the nontelework scenario, transportation-related variables such as commuting distance and average number of passengers affect CO₂, CO, and NO_x emissions, while for the telework part, frequency and the number of roundtrips are the most relevant. Conclusions  Both analyses show that telework programs have the potential to lower both energy and external costs creating a favorable bottom line for society, employees, and companies by decreasing tailpipe emissions, lowering transportation costs, and decreasing energy costs at the company office. However, important parameters such as telecommuting frequency, characteristics of the office and home space, climate patterns, and rebound effects that determine external costs along with the price of gasoline, electricity and natural gas in the state where the program is implemented can greatly influence the final results, and should be carefully examined. Recommendations and Perspectives  The effects of telework programs on people’s daily lives are complex and difficult to predict and quantify. The current analysis showed that significant financial benefits can be expected from telework programs, but as seen often in environmental policy-making, the details of implementation will make or break the success of a program. formerly Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California, Berkeley ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Gerald Rebitzer (Gerald.Rebitzer@alcan.com)