Energy Forecasting vs. Reality: How CFOs Forecast Power Bills Across a Chain
For CFOs of brick-and-mortar businesses, forecasting expenses is a constant balancing act. Rent and payroll are predictable. Energy is not. Utility bills swing with weather, demand spikes, rate changes, and billing errors. For a restaurant spending 3–5% of revenue on energy providers or a retailer with margins as thin as 3–6%, these swings can derail forecasts and squeeze cash flow. Yet every CFO still has to answer the same question: “What will our energy bills look like next quarter?” Here are the most common forecasting approaches—and why they fall short.
1. Historical Averaging
The simplest method: take last year’s bills, average them, and adjust for expected growth.
- Pros: Easy to calculate, no outside tools required, can be done in an afternoon over an excel.
- Cons: Fails to account for rate changes, weather variability, or operational shifts. Last year’s “average” is rarely this year’s reality.
2. Weather-Normalized Forecasts
Energy costs track closely with heating and cooling needs. Some finance teams use weather models to normalize historical usage and estimate future spend.
- Pros: More precise than simple averages; accounts for seasonal patterns.
Cons: Requires access to weather data and still misses utility tariff changes or hidden billing errors. Requires a dedicated analyst.
3. Rate & Tariff Modeling
In regulated markets, businesses can model future spend based on utility rate schedules or brokered contracts.
- Pros: Useful in competitive supply markets; provides transparency into how different tariffs affect bills.
- Cons: Tariff structures are notoriously complex, and even small misclassifications can swing costs by thousands annually. Requires a dedicated analyst with deep context on energy markets
4. Energy Management Systems (EMS)
Some enterprises invest in software or IoT devices to monitor usage in real time, then forecast forward based on load curves.
- Pros: Delivers granular insight, including location-level anomalies.
- Cons: Requires capital investment, ongoing management, an ongoing vendor relationship with monthly subscription fees and often only works in combination with the other methods above.
5. Broker or Consultant Forecasts
Brokers and consultants may provide future cost estimates as part of their services.
- Pros: Outsources complexity.
- Cons: Forecasts are tied to broker incentives, which don’t always align with actual cost savings. Forecasts for a multi-unit business often cost $500K+.
The CFO’s Dilemma
Each of these methods has its place. But none eliminate the volatility in utility bills. Even the most sophisticated forecasts can be thrown off by a rate misclassification, unexpected demand spike, or regulatory change.
For CFOs, that means wasted time, uncertain budgets, and constant re-forecasting.
TrueMeter’s Alternative: Guaranteed Budgets
Instead of building complex models or outsourcing guesswork, TrueMeter gives CFOs a simpler answer: predictable bills, guaranteed.
- We shop across 3,000+ energy suppliers and lock in the lowest verified rates.
- We flatten usage into a fixed monthly price—just like rent or payroll.
- We guarantee your budget—if we can’t deliver the promised savings, we pay the difference.
No models. No weather data. No tariff spreadsheets. Just guaranteed cost control.
CFOs have long tried to tame the unpredictability of energy forecasting with spreadsheets, models, and consultants. But no matter how advanced, forecasts can’t change the volatility built into the system.
TrueMeter can. By guaranteeing predictable, fixed monthly energy costs, we remove the complexity and give CFOs what they really need: certainty.
👉 Learn how TrueMeter makes energy forecasting obsolete: truemeter.com
Resources
Learn more about energy savings
Stay up to date with our latest publications.
