If someone offered Harvard University the chance to save millions of dollars on electricity, you'd think President Neil L. Rudenstine wouldn't be able to whip out his pen fast enough to cross the t and dot the i's of his presidential name, right?

Wrong.

In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency's money-saving "Green Lights" project has already run into a stop sign at University Hall once in past years. Now, Undergraduate Council Representative Randall A. Fine '96 is working to run "Green Lights" at Harvard for good.

The basic premise of "Green Lights" is to switch all of the light sources at a given site from the kilowatt-crunching fixtures of the present to more energy-efficient versions of the fluorescent bulb. Fine reports that these bulbs "don't flicker or buzz" as do the vast majority of fluorescents now in use on campus. In addition to saving up to 35 percent of normal energy use, these newer bulbs last for up to 10 years, according to information distributed by the EPA.

It's not as if the EPA project is an untested and risky venture. In the Ivy League, Brown and Columbia have already implemented the program. Even closer to home, just down Mass. Ave. at MIT, "Green Lights" is creating about $3.6 million per year in savings on electricity. Furthermore, an EPA flyer states that the use of "Green Lights" at MIT has decreased pollution in an annual amount "equivalent to taking 5,381 cars off the road."

Why, then, did Harvard turn down the EPA's idea, especially during a budget crunch? Perhaps the initial investment would have been too hefty or the level of administrative concern was just not high enough. In fact, Fine said, there need not be any cost at all to the University. Columbia converted its lighting system for free, since "power company rebates paid for the costs."

An EPA "Light Brief" provides a financing arrangement that would minimize cost by eliminating middle managers. Institutions such as Harvard could avoid banks and lenders by contracting installation of the new system directly with power companies. Savings on electricity in one building or set of buildings would be applied to the installation of systems in other buildings. Some power companies are also willing to provide the initial investment, if the client pays them a percentage of the savings each year for a period of up to 10 years.

The program also requires the university or corporation in question to sign a "Memorandum of Understanding." This document is a non-binding pledge to install, within a maximum of five years, "Green Lights" systems in all the U.S. workspaces owned by participating institutions.

In return for this pledge, Harvard would receive a slew of positive benefits: (more) national exposure, state-of-the-art technological training for its staff and money-saving incentives from power utilities. This memorandum should not be seen as a deterrent in light of the program's potential gains.

When Fine first brought up the program at the council's Residential Committee meeting on November 17, questions arose about possible job losses because of "Green Lights." It would seem that some in the room haven't been listening to Vice President-elect Al Gore '69 too closely. He said time and time again during the presidential campaign that helping the environment does not necessarily mean cutting jobs, as in the example of the Northern spotted owl.

"Green Lights," by all indications, is a program in which the environmental benefits do not cause excessive harm to the work force. Harvard students change their own light bulbs anyway, and there's a lot more than screwing and unscrewing to the jobs of the maintenance crews. It seems clear that no jobs would be lost at Harvard. If anything, jobs would probably be created in the Cambridge community because of the gigantic scale of the project.

On a national level, the "Green Lights" program might cut into the labor force dedicated to manufacturing standard fluorescent and incandescent light bulbs and fixtures. However, there was a similar mass job loss in the carriage-making industry when the automobile appeared on the industrial scene. If the job-loss argument had been heeded then, it would still take a full day to get to New York. Because alternative light sources are a growing industry, the net job loss over a course of several years would likely be small or nonexistent.

The deteriorating condition of the environment gives the "Green Lights" program special urgency. Each square foot of workspace lit by this more efficient system would save three kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Stemming future emissions of "green-house gases" has a great enough importance to justify whatever small job loss could occur on the national level.

At such a politically correct institution as Harvard University, the "Green Lights" program should be met with open arms.

Soon enough, the University will see whether a first-year with a good idea can overcome administrative inertia. Is Provost Jerry R. Green too busy looking over the Harvard Management Company's shoulder to contemplate a new money-saving venture? In Fine's own words, "There is no logical reason why anyone would oppose this program. It is to the benefit of the students, the faculty and the world at large." The question is whether Harvard is even listening.