By Daniel Engber

My electric bill last month was disgusting. I’ve kept my window air-conditioning units on for hours every day, and now I have to pay the price: the most expensive month of cooling that I’ve ever had. If there ever was a time to press my AC’s MONEY SAVER button, it would be now. But I don’t think I will, not this summer and not ever—because money-saver mode has always struck me as a sham.

In the murky world of home air-conditioning, “money saver” may go by different names. Some models have an ECO button, to signal that it’s more economically—or ecologically—sound. Others go with ENERGY SAVER. However it’s described, the benefit this setting claims to offer—a cheaper way to reach and hold your set-point temperature—seems too good to be true. If it were really possible to keep my living room at 72 degrees in money-saver mode, just like I do with normal cooling, then why should any other AC modes exist? (Wouldn’t they be a MONEY WASTER, by definition?) But if there is, in fact, some hidden trade-off here—if, for instance, using money-saver mode doesn’t really bring my living room all the way to 72 degrees, or keep it at that temperature—then the whole thing feels like misdirection. Why not just turn up the thermostat a few degrees myself? Wouldn’t that be like putting it in money-saver mode the old-fashioned way?My electric bill last month was disgusting. I’ve kept my window air-conditioning units on for hours every day, and now I have to pay the price: the most expensive month of cooling that I’ve ever had. If there ever was a time to press my AC’s MONEY SAVER button, it would be now. But I don’t think I will, not this summer and not ever—because money-saver mode has always struck me as a sham.

In the murky world of home air-conditioning, “money saver” may go by different names. Some models have an ECO button, to signal that it’s more economically—or ecologically—sound. Others go with ENERGY SAVER. However it’s described, the benefit this setting claims to offer—a cheaper way to reach and hold your set-point temperature—seems too good to be true. If it were really possible to keep my living room at 72 degrees in money-saver mode, just like I do with normal cooling, then why should any other AC modes exist? (Wouldn’t they be a MONEY WASTER, by definition?) But if there is, in fact, some hidden trade-off here—if, for instance, using money-saver mode doesn’t really bring my living room all the way to 72 degrees, or keep it at that temperature—then the whole thing feels like misdirection. Why not just turn up the thermostat a few degrees myself? Wouldn’t that be like putting it in money-saver mode the old-fashioned way?My electric bill last month was disgusting. I’ve kept my window air-conditioning units on for hours every day, and now I have to pay the price: the most expensive month of cooling that I’ve ever had. If there ever was a time to press my AC’s MONEY SAVER button, it would be now. But I don’t think I will, not this summer and not ever—because money-saver mode has always struck me as a sham.

In the murky world of home air-conditioning, “money saver” may go by different names. Some models have an ECO button, to signal that it’s more economically—or ecologically—sound. Others go with ENERGY SAVER. However it’s described, the benefit this setting claims to offer—a cheaper way to reach and hold your set-point temperature—seems too good to be true. If it were really possible to keep my living room at 72 degrees in money-saver mode, just like I do with normal cooling, then why should any other AC modes exist? (Wouldn’t they be a MONEY WASTER, by definition?) But if there is, in fact, some hidden trade-off here—if, for instance, using money-saver mode doesn’t really bring my living room all the way to 72 degrees, or keep it at that temperature—then the whole thing feels like misdirection. Why not just turn up the thermostat a few degrees myself? Wouldn’t that be like putting it in money-saver mode the old-fashioned way?

My electric bill last month was disgusting. I’ve kept my window air-conditioning units on for hours every day, and now I have to pay the price: the most expensive month of cooling that I’ve ever had. If there ever was a time to press my AC’s MONEY SAVER button, it would be now. But I don’t think I will, not this summer and not ever—because money-saver mode has always struck me as a sham.

In the murky world of home air-conditioning, “money saver” may go by different names. Some models have an ECO button, to signal that it’s more economically—or ecologically—sound. Others go with ENERGY SAVER. However it’s described, the benefit this setting claims to offer—a cheaper way to reach and hold your set-point temperature—seems too good to be true. If it were really possible to keep my living room at 72 degrees in money-saver mode, just like I do with normal cooling, then why should any other AC modes exist? (Wouldn’t they be a MONEY WASTER, by definition?) But if there is, in fact, some hidden trade-off here—if, for instance, using money-saver mode doesn’t really bring my living room all the way to 72 degrees, or keep it at that temperature—then the whole thing feels like misdirection. Why not just turn up the thermostat a few degrees myself? Wouldn’t that be like putting it in money-saver mode the old-fashioned way?

My electric bill last month was disgusting. I’ve kept my window air-conditioning units on for hours every day, and now I have to pay the price: the most expensive month of cooling that I’ve ever had. If there ever was a time to press my AC’s MONEY SAVER button, it would be now. But I don’t think I will, not this summer and not ever—because money-saver mode has always struck me as a sham.

In the murky world of home air-conditioning, “money saver” may go by different names. Some models have an ECO button, to signal that it’s more economically—or ecologically—sound. Others go with ENERGY SAVER. However it’s described, the benefit this setting claims to offer—a cheaper way to reach and hold your set-point temperature—seems too good to be true. If it were really possible to keep my living room at 72 degrees in money-saver mode, just like I do with normal cooling, then why should any other AC modes exist? (Wouldn’t they be a MONEY WASTER, by definition?) But if there is, in fact, some hidden trade-off here—if, for instance, using money-saver mode doesn’t really bring my living room all the way to 72 degrees, or keep it at that temperature—then the whole thing feels like misdirection. Why not just turn up the thermostat a few degrees myself? Wouldn’t that be like putting it in money-saver mode the old-fashioned way?