"You can't manage what you don't measure." How many times have we heard a variation of this statement? It has become a cliché because the words are usually followed by ... nothing.

Unfortunately, most of our buildings have antiquated, inaccessible mechanical meters that just keep going, like brain-dead Eveready bunnies. As it turns out, just measuring isn't enough. It makes a difference what you measure and how you measure it. If you don't ask the right questions, you won't get the right answer. Even if you get the right answer, it doesn't mean you'll take the right action.

So how do we untie this Gordian knot of generalities?

Let's start with the first premise: measure. Both the producer (utility) and the consumer (you) have an incentive to measure energy. However, under the present perversely incentivized regulatory regime in most of the U.S., the producer wants to measure in order to optimize its own operations, ideally while keeping the consumer in the dark (figuratively, not literally).

At this point, I expect (not fully undeserved) howls of protest to emerge from the good and committed folks who work for utilities helping people save energy. They are out there in the thousands and for the most part these programs do save decent amounts of energy, especially where they are coupled with intelligent regulatory policy as in California. However, these situations are the exception, not the rule.

In most states, utilities earn their returns by selling kilowatt-hours; most save energy because they are forced to do so by a few enlightened state utility regulatory commissions. If you're lucky enough to be in the service territory of one of these states, 1 percent to 3 percent of utility revenues might go to supporting consumers reduce energy, including the installation of smart meters and all other "public benefits." Given the size of a state's utility bill, 1 percent to 3 percent is not chump change, but it is also gives an indication of the importance of efficiency to the producers and their regulators.

A residential smart meter might cost $400, or about $0.01 cents per square foot (levelized over 15 years equipment life), while nonresidential building management systems might cost up to $0.05 per square foot, levelized. The hardware is only about half of the cost of supporting a largescale smart metering effort, which might cost billions of dollars -- and some feel that these costs are usually underestimated.

While we don't have a lot of experience with the demand response result of smart meters in the residential sector, analysis from Pacific Gas & Electric suggests that there is a net economic benefit, even to the utility. In the nonresidential sector, conversations with various analysts suggests that measurement-induced savings range from 10 percent to 15 percent of costs, stemming from the ability to schedule loads for less expensive time periods and identifying and correcting energy waste. Wireless systems like those from ArchRock can be very flexible, monitoring individual circuits as well as get as granular as monitoring the load on an individual plug, though it may not always make sense to get down into the weeds at this level.

As George Ahn notes in his conversation with Yale's Dan Esty this week, soon there should be tens of billions of dollars in green stimulus funds available to states to support smart metering and other energy-saving strategies. As noted above, local energy efficiency finance funds are available now in many states, but they tend to run out before the year is over, so time is not your friend. One can hope that the new joint effort of the USGBC (disclosure: I am a USGBC Board member) and the Clinton Climate Initiative to promote "Climate Positive" cities will help funnel more resources in this direction.

To find an energy saving or renewable energy incentive program that serves you, check out the U.S. DOE-funded DSIRE database at http://www.dsireusa.org/.

So, we're looking at a 30 percent to 50 percent nearly risk-free ROI (not including the potential cost reductions from incentive programs), why aren't more people doing it?

Well . . . this is a management issue. Most of the folks at HQ don't understand this physical stuff, and besides, it's terribly boring compared to 1,000-cell Excel spreadsheet models. Naturally, in the full spirit of "no good deed goes unpunished," every time an energy manager saves operating costs s/he's rewarded with a budget cut, and maybe a pat on the back.

Maybe if we used intelligent accounting that capitalized green building investments instead of expensed them and the hardworking folks in the boiler room actually got to keep some of the savings they generated (I mean they, themselves, not just the overall budget), we might actually see some real green stimulus that makes both dollars and sense.

Check out the Google Smart Grid article on GreenerBuildings.com for more on this particular topic.

Rob Watson is executive editor of GreenerBuildings.com. You can reach Rob at rob.watson@greenerworldmedia.com.

_{Number Wheel -- Image CC licensed by Flickr user HeavyWeightGeek.}