{"id":15384,"date":"2017-04-19T07:00:40","date_gmt":"2017-04-19T11:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=15384"},"modified":"2017-05-01T19:47:57","modified_gmt":"2017-05-01T23:47:57","slug":"proving-the-negative-the-challenge-of-calculating-energy-efficiency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/04\/19\/proving-the-negative-the-challenge-of-calculating-energy-efficiency\/","title":{"rendered":"Proving the negative: The challenge of calculating energy efficiency"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Andrew Barbeau, senior clean energy consultant for EDF, contributed to this post.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cEfficiency is good.\u201d That\u2019s the mantra, a known truth, shared by both business executives and environmentalists, who eliminate waste to increase profits and reduce pollution.<\/p>\n

When it comes to electricity, efficiency also has proven effective. Whereas power consumption a few decades ago was rising annually at more than 7 percent<\/a>, the introduction of inexpensive and efficient lightbulbs, refrigerators, and smart heating and cooling has recently led to slight declines in energy consumption, even as the economy boomed and population increased.<\/p>\n

Efficiency may be good and effective, but it is inherently hard to calculate. How do you prove the negative? Virtually every state has wrestled with the same questions of how and why electricity use didn\u2019t<\/em> happen. States with energy efficiency standards \u2013 requirements for local utilities to incentivize customers to reduce their energy use year after year \u2013 want to know if the investments are cost-effective. With new approaches to calculating energy efficiency, Illinois is tackling that question head on.<\/p>\n

Questioning efficiency\u2019s impact<\/strong><\/p>\n

Over the years, some have challenged the merits of energy efficiency programs. A particular target has been federal and state weatherization programs \u2013 public-sector investments to insulate low-income homes in order to reduce heating and cooling costs and improve quality of life for the people who live in them. \u00a0

The programs also were designed to improve the welfare of low-income residents and provide jobs in target communities.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/p>\n

A few studies have questioned whether these programs can be justified based on electricity cost savings alone, but this inquiry misses the bigger picture: The programs also were designed to improve the welfare of low-income residents and provide jobs in target communities.<\/p>\n

Others have wondered whether it\u2019s possible to measure the impact incentives have on efficiency changes. Catherine Wolfram, a director for the Economic and Analysis and Policy Group at the University of California, Berkeley\u2019s Energy Institute at Haas School of Business, appropriately describes<\/a> how measuring the impacts of energy-efficiency programs requires \u201cdisentangling which energy consumption changes can be credited to the program, and which would have happened anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, an important question for assessing energy efficiency programs is this: Is there a system in place to separate the direct results (gains in energy efficiency) from the reductions that would have happened regardless?<\/p>\n

Fortunately, most states with mature utility-run energy efficiency programs have been tackling this challenge for some time. State public utility commissions, which regulate utilities, typically implement the following measures:<\/p>\n