Jonathan G. Koomey, Chris Calwell,* Skip Laitner,** Jane Thornton,*** Richard E. Brown, Joseph H. Eto, Carrie Webber, and Cathy Cullicott*

Energy Analysis Department
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA 94720

*Ecos Consulting

**U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs

***International Business Machines

In Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 2002. vol. 27. Edited by R. H. Socolow, D. Anderson and J. Harte. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. (also LBNL-50499). pp. 119-158.

Students of public policy sometimes envision an idealized policy process where competent data collection and incisive analysis on both sides of a debate lead to reasoned judgments and sound decisions. Unfortunately, numbers that prove decisive in policy debates are not always carefully developed, credibly documented, or correct. This paper presents four widely cited examples of numbers in the energy field that are either misleading or wrong. It explores the origins of these numbers, how they missed the mark, and how they have been misused by both analysts and the media. In addition, it describes and uses a three-stage analytical process for evaluating such statistics that involves defining terms and boundaries, assessing underlying data, and critically analyzing arguments.

This article is available from the journal Annual Review of Energy and Environment.

Energy Star energy conservation energy savings energy efficiency environment climate change weatherization solar energy appliances energy audit energy tools efficient buildings energy education heating cooling heat pumps furnaces boilers air conditioners insulation ducts skylights windows thermostats fuel switching mechanical ventilation water heater water heating refrigerator freezer dishwasher clotheswasher clothes dryer miscellaneous energy home energy comfort remodeling residential energy.