Conservation and Efficiency | Energy Justice Network

By: Energy Justice Network  09-12-2011

Conservation and Efficiency have a large potential to reduce our electricity needs. Government, industry and independent analyses have shown that cost-effective energy efficiency improvements could reduce electricity use by 27% to 75% of total national use within 10-20 years -- without impacting quality of life or manufacturing output. Cutting our energy use by 50% would make us as energy efficient at Japan and Europe already are.

The projections that have been made for maximum technical potential of efficiency savings are as follows:

Author Projected Reduction Quotes / Source(s)
(in 12 years)

OTA's own analysis concluded that cost effective, energy-efficiency measures could yield savings of one-third in total energy use in the residential and commercial sectors by 2015 over a business as usual scenario. In fact total energy use in these sectors would decline somewhat under an aggressive efficiency strategy. These two sectors combined are often dubbed "the buildings sector" because energy use for building systems (space heating and conditioning, ventilation, lighting, and water heating) has made up the overwhelming bulk of energy consumption in these two sectors. Reported energy use for the buildings sector includes building systems, appliances, office systems, and other electrical equipment.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, , OTA-E-518 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1992), p. 3.
27% to 44%
(in 10 years)

"The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has estimated that if the existing stock of equipment and appliances were replaced with the most efficient commercially available technologies, projected U.S. electricity use in the year 2000 could be cut by 27 to 44 percent without any diminution of services."
(in 20 years)
Arnold P. Fickett, Clark W. Gellings, and Amory B. Lovins, "Efficient Use of Electricity," , September 1990, pp. 65-74.

We need to maximize conservation and efficiency tactics so that this increase stops and overall demand decreases over time.

While the potential for demand reduction seems to differ greatly in the studies cited above, the Office of Technology Assessment's 33% and Rocky Mountain Institute's 75% figures fall within the same trendline range that the Electric Power Research Institute says is possible. This is because RMI's figure is over a longer time period. See below:

OTA = U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1993 report)
EPRI = Electric Power Research Institute (1990 report)
RMI = Rocky Mountain Institute (1990 report)

Rocky Mountain Institute chart on how to reduce electric use by 3/4ths in 20 years:

For more info:

Contact Energy Justice Network


Print this page

Other products and services from Energy Justice Network


No Such Thing as "Transition" Fuels

Ocean power and some special wind and solar applications aren't ready to commercialized on a mass scale yet, but they're close and deserve investment dollars to bring them to market as soon as possible. A good example of a genuine transition strategy is the transition from internal combustion engine vehicles to hybrid cars to plug-in hybrids to full electric vehicles.


Solutions | Energy Justice Network

We need politicians without connections to dirty power industries so that we can direct public and private investment dollars towards clean energy solutions, rather than a continued reliance on dirty, unsustainable energy sources. These solutions have the potential to fill all of our energy needs, without needing nuclear power, fossil fuels, biomass/incineration, or even large hydro dams.


Clean Renewable Energy Can Meet All Our Needs

As of November 2007, there are plans for 120 new coalfired power plants in the U.S., at least 25 new nuclear reactors, two new oil refineries, 190 new ethanol biorefineries, dozens of biomass incinerators, and around a dozen coal-to-oil refineries. The remaining 4.1% comes from wood and waste burning, wind, solar, geothermal, and other minor sources.