This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Debunking Common Energy Efficiency Myths

Sara Hayes's picture
  • Member since 2018
  • 3 items added with 1,364 views

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Energy efficiency can be difficult to conceptualize. There’s not a representative device like a solar panel or wind turbine. Rather, it’s a collection of technologies, strategies, and policies involving our houses, businesses, transportation, and behavior that improve the way we live. There are often misunderstandings or “myths” about how we verify that energy efficiency is working and measure what benefits it’s providing. Four measurement and verification (M&V) myths are debunked below.

MYTH 1: Energy efficiency is an idea, a call to action, not a tangible thing. There is no reliable standard for measuring or verifying energy savings resulting from efficiency measures.

The lack of a national standard for M&V of efficiency-driven energy savings has left states to develop their own protocols. These efforts have resulted in a well-developed and rich source of experience and information that can inform the development of a national standard. Currently more than half of all U.S. states have efficiency targets and are measuring their progress towards achieving those goals. In addition to states, utilities have been demonstrating energy savings resulting from efficiency measures for decades. In many cases, a utility’s authority to collect revenues is based on its ability to verify, with substantial certainty, the amount of savings that occurred. This has caused utilities to invest significant resources into solid M&V methods that stand up to the scrutiny of regulators and ratepayer advocates. 

MYTH 2: Lots of factors affect energy use making it impossible to tell when a change in energy consumption is due to efficiency improvements or other factors.

There is an entire profession of highly experienced energy program evaluators that has developed over the last 30 years, and they utilize evaluation methodologies that have repeatedly been accepted in utility regulatory proceedings across the nation. When an old, inefficient piece of equipment (e.g., a furnace, motor, refrigerator, etc.) is replaced with a new, high-efficiency model, the energy savings that result can be measured quite reliably. While other factors (e.g., the weather, economic activity) may affect total energy use, statistical methods have been developed to separate out these effects. The evaluation methodologies that have been developed can measure and verify the energy savings from energy efficiency measures and programs with a great deal of confidence. 

MYTH 3: I can’t rely on efficiency to meet energy demands because I can’t call on it when I need it and I don’t know how much I’m going to get when I do.

Efficiency is not a “demand response” approach or a peaking resource that is “called upon” when demand is high. Rather, it is a “baseload” resource that once put into practice continues to produce energy savings at all times the device is in operation. The lifetime of an efficiency resource will depend on the type of measure that is installed (e.g., CFL bulbs, a new air conditioner, adding insulation to a building, etc.), and energy savings can reliably last anywhere from 3 to 20 years or more. Furthermore, while many clean energy sources rely on external conditions that cannot be controlled, efficiency measures produce energy savings year-round regardless of the weather. 

MYTH 4: Potential benefits from energy efficiency are small and aren’t worth measuring.

Energy efficiency is our nation’s greatest energy resource. Energy savings from efficiency are real and save Americans money. Since 1970, efficiency improvements have reduced U.S. energy costs by about $700 billion from what they would have otherwise been in 2005 alone. Those dollars are reinvested in the economy to support businesses and create jobs. Available cost-effective energy savings from all sectors is predicted to range from 16 to 30% of current consumption by 2025 (see here for more information). 

To download the fact sheet, click here.

Sara Hayes's picture
Thank Sara for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member


Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
james ferguson's picture
james ferguson on Nov 26, 2011

The comment by John Kennedy

The majority of europe has taken the same efficiency measures some 2 years before the US.

seems to me to overlook a number of things.

I work in advising on energy efficiency in buildings.  Sometimes I get to see the very best, of the very best, this covers buildings as diverse as Head offices of Banks, Data centres, The Tower of London, The University of Zurich (ETHZ), London Guild Hall Offices and so on. The one obvious problem is that in both Europe and Asia, we have not taken reasonable efficiency measures.

Example areas which are poor in over 90% of buildings would include,

time-clock and schedule control (I recently used Fourier analysis on Smart meter data and found that under 1% of building load profiles account for Summer Daylight saving) ; ventilation controls (delivering the fresh air required and no more unless free cooling is required) ; enthalpy control, boielr sequencing, basic compensation, zone controls, PID loop tuning AND SO ON.

If Europe sits on its high-horse pointing fingers at the US (where efficiency is truly appauling) and as a result BRIC and CIVET countries use Europe as an example we will have a greater disaster on our hands,

We are lazy, unimaginative, have indadequate standards and education, and build and maintain buildings on a lowest common denominatior benchmark system that ensures complacency as an average.

One only has to look at the A+++ rating on household goods to realise that in ANY population (however poor) there will always be some “Best” performers.  This says nothing for the qualiy of best performers which may still be dreadful. In energy in buildings it still is. 

I recently wrote a blog post on exactly this issue should you care to read it

 More effort is put into highlighting one or two “centres of excellence” as marketing PR fluffery, than is applied as cold hard engineering, where the quieter unsung heroes continue their work , poorly directed under resourced and inadequately trained.

Bit or a rant – You can follow me if you choose on




Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »