Some years ago, there was an energy-saving modernization project on a building in the Czech Republic. Manual HVAC controls were replaced by a modern automation system. The result? Surprisingly, worse energy performance.
Why? The building’s longtime technician had known its quirks inside and out. Fine-tuning the system was part of his daily routine. Automation, while technically advanced, couldn’t match the outcome of this hands-on, nor replicate that level of care.
Here’s the catch: this story is the exception, not the rule.
In most buildings, manual control isn’t a secret weapon – it’s a liability. Automation can optimize settings, but it can’t force anyone to care. And that’s the real issue: no accountability.
🧍 The Human Side: Comfort Without Consequences
In most organizations, energy consumption is invisible – and therefore irrelevant – to those who could influence it. Local employees focus on their own comfort. Whether the AC is overcooling or running at night is simply not their concern. Their performance isn’t tied to energy efficiency, and no one asks them to think about it.
Even local or regional managers, who might seem like natural candidates to champion savings, often have different incentives. Their bonuses may depend on employee satisfaction, making any step that could slightly reduce comfort a potential risk. In this context, comfort always wins because no one is rewarded for thinking otherwise
🔧 The Technical Side: Responsibility Without Accountability
Lack of accountability doesn’t end with office staff or managers – it’s deeply embedded in the technical and operational structure of many organizations. Even when people can influence energy performance, they often have no obligation or incentive to do so.
At Energy Twin, we’ve encountered this dynamic more than once. During an HVAC assessment of a large office building, the analysis revealed several opportunities for savings — some easy to implement. But when the findings were presented, the conversation stalled.
“We don’t pay the energy bill, so we don’t care,”
That’s what the building operator said. Only findings with potential impact on maintenance were taken seriously – even though several of the proposed energy-saving measures required minimal effort.
This isn’t an isolated incident. In many organizations, technical responsibilities are divided across roles, departments, and budgets. One team manages maintenance, another pays the energy bills, and a third oversees capital projects. No one is explicitly tasked or incentivized to focus on overall building performance. Efficiency becomes a shared interest, but nobody’s responsibility.
Some corporations are starting to recognize this gap. They’re building centralized energy teams, aligning KPIs across departments, or experimenting with internal cost accounting to make energy use more visible. But even in these cases, overcoming structural fragmentation is rarely easy. Without clear ownership and aligned incentives, energy optimization continues to fall between the cracks – known, measurable, but ignored.
Conclusion
The tools exist. The data is there. But without the motivation and mandate to act, insight becomes irrelevant. Real progress in building performance won’t come from more sensors. It will come from removing the human bottleneck: creating a culture where people can and want to optimize energy use.
HVAC systems may be technical, but the root of inefficiency is behavioral. If incentives reward comfort at all costs and ignore energy waste, that is exactly what buildings will continue to deliver.
