Cambridge’s Efficiency Goal Gap

Posted on by

Recently, we’ve begun some efforts to analyze and map energy use data in the City, and a volunteer created this compelling graph that roughly demonstrates how far Cambridge is from meeting its goal to reduce emissions to pre-1990 levels. Of course the graph actually plots electricity use, and not emissions but the two are well correlated, and we hope to have a more complete graph of emissions including natural gas in the future.

Cambridge Efficiency Goal

Cambridge's Efficiency Goal Gap

Note: Due to limitations in the available data, energy use for some apartments is included in “Commercial.”

If you’d like to learn more about improving energy use in your home or office and receive an audit visit the Cambridge Energy Alliance.

1 thought on “Cambridge’s Efficiency Goal Gap”

  1. We received a few comments about this post and would like to try to clarify:

    >City Council adopted the 20% reduction goal in 2002, not 1999.

    This is correct, the goal was set in 2002, but the intent to set and adhere to goal occurred in 1999. Had we managed to start then, we’d need have only adhered to the flatter lines shown, rather than stepper ones which begin in 2002 sloping to 2010.

    >The goal applies across all sectors: energy (electricity, gas,
>oil), transportation (gasoline and diesel), and waste. The goal did
>not intend to suggest that a 20% reduction must be applied evenly
>to all sectors or fuels. Also the graph does not take into account
>renewables, efficiency in transportation, etc.
…
>There are multiple paths to a 20% reduction in GHG emissions.

    That is correct. It was the simplest way to create the graph, and matches some conception of “fair,” although it is not necessarily the most efficient way of achieving the desired results, nor what the City or CEA are specifically pursuing.

    >The 20% goal applies to greenhouse gas emissions, not energy use per se.

    Correct, but barring large adoption of renewables to displace conventional fuels, they are highly correlated. See also graphs of citywide emissions based on municipal data.

    >It looks like the graph is showing electricity use trends only,
>but is labeled as “energy use”; natural gas and oil not included.

    Good catch, we’ve made the appropriate correction in this slightly higher quality graph:


    ICLEI2

Leave a Reply