Why your least efficient site might not be the biggest

Running a standard cost and consumption report across a portfolio of sites will show which ones spend the most and which ones use the most energy. Head office will probably be near the top, alongside the largest warehouse and production sites. This information will be accurate, but not particularly useful, because it doesn’t tell us anything about efficiency, just what’s biggest.

Energy intensity reporting takes a different approach. Instead of ranking sites by how much energy they consume, it compares consumption against a metric that’s specific to the particular business. That might be floor area, footfall, turnover, production output, or something else entirely. The result is a ranking that shows not which sites use the most energy, but which sites use the most energy relative to what they’re doing; a fundamentally different, and more useful, question.

How does an energy intensity report work in practice?

The report we produce splits the data by electricity and gas, because the consumption profiles are different and the efficiency picture can look quite different across the two. For each utility, we produce a set of headline figures – total kilowatt hours, average per site, number of meters, and the average intensity figure – followed by league tables.

These league tables are the core of the report, detailing the top ten best performing sites and the top ten worst performing, ranked by kilowatt hours per unit of whatever metric we’ve chosen together. For example, floor area becomes kWh per square foot. The report also shows the top ten highest and lowest consuming sites in raw terms, so we can compare: a site might be your third highest consumer overall, but if it’s also one of your largest by floor area, it could sit comfortably in the middle of the efficiency table. Conversely, a mid-sized site that barely registers on the raw consumption list might turn out to be wildly inefficient per square foot.

It’s this insight that is missing from a standard report; two stores that are virtually identical in size and turnover, but one is using twice the energy per square foot. This tells you what to investigate and address first.

How do we choose the right metric?

The comparison metric is important, and it has to be relevant to your own business, so we can build the report – and the insight – around whatever is most relevant to how you operate. In retail, floor area and footfall tend to work well, while in manufacturing, production output or number of shifts might be more meaningful. For local authorities or public sector organisations, it could be headcount, building type, or service delivery volumes.

The key point is that it needs to be something the business already measures and something that makes the comparison fair. Comparing a high-turnover retail unit against a low-traffic back office on the same raw consumption figure isn’t going to tell us anything meaningful. But comparing them by kWh per square foot, adjusted for what each one actually does, tells us a lot.

How can this insight support decision making?

Without intensity data, investment decisions can come down to instinct, or to whoever makes the most vocal case internally. If someone on a site is keen on solar panels, or a regional manager has a pet project they want to push through, resources could get directed there without a clear evidence base. The intensity report changes that approach.

Showing a finance director a ranked list of your least efficient sites, with a clear metric behind each one, shifts the conversation to be evidence-based. It’s no longer about persuasion, but data and accessible insight. For example, demonstrating which five sites should be prioritised for investment in efficiency measures – building management, lighting, insulation or on-site generation – to deliver the most meaningful return.

Crucially, you can then prove the impact afterwards by running the same report systematically after the intervention. We’ll be able to see whether those sites have moved down the table. If they have, you’ve got a measurable result to take back to the board. If they haven’t, we know where to look again.

That before-and-after capability is one of the most undervalued aspects of this type of reporting; it’s not just about finding the problems, but proving what you did to fix them worked.

How do I make this an ongoing process?

The most effective way to use intensity reporting is as part of an ongoing cycle, ideally running reporting quarterly so priority sites can be identified, measures put in place, and impact measured. The sites at the top of the worst-performing list will change over time as you work through them, with savings from early quick wins funding the next phase of investment.

There’s a well-known principle in the energy industry that the cheapest unit of energy is the one you never use. That’s true, but it’s only actionable if you know where the waste is. Energy intensity reporting gives you that visibility.

How can this be part of a broader energy strategy?

Energy intensity reporting shouldn’t sit in isolation. The sites it flags as inefficient may well be the same sites where a conversation about procurement strategy, on-site generation, battery storage, or wider energy strategy is most likely to be productive. The insight also provides the starting point for a more consultative relationship with your energy partner; one that goes beyond the transactional and into genuine, measurable impact.

Carbon Reporting calculates the CO2 associated with your electricity and gas consumption and ranks your sites by carbon intensity, giving you a measurable baseline to track progress against regulatory obligations or internal sustainability targets.

Find out more here

Chris Tarr, Head of Bureau Services, Equity Energies

Projected savings, payback periods and operational benefits will vary depending on site demand profile, tariff structure, system design and future market conditions.