Why Energy Isn’t Power—And Why That Distinction Still Confuses Policymakers

Power gets headlines. Energy keeps the grid alive. Understanding the difference isn’t academic—it’s essential.

In energy policy, infrastructure planning, and even investor briefings, one conceptual error appears so often it’s nearly invisible: the conflation of power and energy. Engineers know the difference. But across state commissions, ESG reports, and federal procurement language, these terms are used interchangeably—with consequences that ripple through system design, capital allocation, and public trust.

This isn’t pedantry. This is physics. And it’s precisely the kind of foundational misunderstanding that can undermine the energy transition itself—by overestimating what renewables can provide, underestimating what backup resources must do, and misaligning incentives across the power system.

Section 1: Defining the Difference—Watts vs. Watt-Hours

Let’s begin at first principles.

• Power is the rate at which energy is transferred or converted. It’s measured in watts (W), kilowatts (kW), or megawatts (MW).

• Energy is the quantity of work done—power delivered over time. It’s measured in watt-hours (Wh), kilowatt-hours (kWh), or megawatt-hours (MWh).

Power is instantaneous. Energy is cumulative.

Analogy:

Think of power as speed and energy as distance.

• Driving at 60 mph is like delivering 60 kW of power.

• After one hour, you’ve traveled 60 miles—or delivered 60 kWh of energy.

Section 2: Why the Confusion Persists

In part, this confusion arises from how energy systems are marketed. We tend to announce new capacity in megawatts, not megawatt-hours. Solar and wind projects, in particular, are described by their peak power rating, even though their output is non-continuous and highly variable.

Example:

“This solar farm generates 250 megawatts—enough to power 100,000 homes.”

That statement is misleading unless it includes:

• Capacity factor (e.g., 20–30% for solar)

• Duration (daily, seasonal output patterns)

• Dispatchability (can it respond to demand when needed?)

• Peak coincidence (does it produce power during system peaks?)

Without that, we're left comparing nameplate capacity to a generic demand profile—an apples-to-oranges proposition that systematically overstates renewable reliability.

Section 3: Duration Matters More Than People Realize

Let’s say a utility battery is rated at:

• 150 MW / 600 MWh

This tells us:

• It can discharge 150 MW for 4 hours

• Or 100 MW for 6 hours

• Or 75 MW for 8 hours

Now imagine grid planners treat this as equivalent to a 150 MW peaker plant. That only works if the event lasts 4 hours or less. During prolonged high-demand windows (e.g., a winter cold snap or evening peak in August), the battery will run out of energy—regardless of how high its power rating is.

Real-World Case:

In Texas (ERCOT), the February 2021 storm exposed this exact issue. Energy was available—wind had overproduced in some regions—but power was constrained. There was insufficient dispatchable capacity to meet load when solar dropped, gas plants froze, and demand soared.

Planners had energy, but not the ability to deliver it fast enough, long enough.

Section 4: Misleading Narratives and Grid Misdesign

Confusing energy and power leads to real design errors:

• Overbuilding intermittent renewables without matching flexible backup

• Relying on short-duration storage to solve long-duration problems

• Assuming capacity factor doesn’t matter because "we’re adding more megawatts"

• Mispricing firm capacity in market auctions, leading to scarcity during stress

Example:

A policymaker may announce 5 GW of new solar. But on cloudy days, output may be only 500 MW at noon—and zero by 5 p.m. Without storage or peaking resources, that portfolio contributes nothing during evening ramp-up.

Now imagine you retired 2 GW of thermal capacity to make room for this “clean” generation. The grid just lost 2 GW of guaranteed, dispatchable power in exchange for something that disappears when the sun does.

That’s not decarbonization—it’s de-stabilization, unless compensated for properly.

Section 5: Energy Markets Acknowledge the Difference—Do Policymakers?

Modern electricity markets already account for the distinction.

• Energy markets reward actual MWh delivered

• Capacity markets pay for MWs available when needed, regardless of whether dispatched

A peaking unit may deliver few MWh per year but still receive significant revenue for being on call. Batteries with short duration may clear auctions for “non-spinning reserves,” but they often cannot support a multi-hour peak event.

Example:

PJM or ISO-NE market operators evaluate Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) of renewables and batteries. ELCC explicitly acknowledges that not all megawatts are equal—especially during critical hours. Yet many public-facing procurement documents still use raw nameplate capacity, perpetuating false equivalencies.

Section 6: Demand-Side Confusion

This distinction isn’t only a supply-side issue.

Take a commercial facility:

• It may have a demand charge for drawing 5 MW at peak

• But its total daily consumption is only 80 MWh

These are different metrics:

• One reflects instantaneous burden on the grid

• The other reflects total energy cost

Rooftop solar or batteries may offset energy charges but fail to meaningfully reduce demand charges—unless sized and programmed to peak shave, which requires precise power-time coordination.

Section 7: Planning a Resilient System Means Thinking in Both Dimensions

A well-designed grid must answer:

• Can we deliver enough energy across the day, week, or season?

• Can we deliver enough power at every minute—especially the most critical ones?

These are not the same question.

Failing to distinguish them leads to:

• Underbuilt contingency plans

• Oversold clean energy portfolios

• Shortfalls that emerge not from lack of energy, but lack of deliverability under stress

The real art of grid design lies in balancing:

• Power (MW) for fast response

• Energy (MWh) for depth

• Flexibility (ramping, duration) for reliability

• Location (transmission) for delivery

Conclusion: This One Distinction Is the Foundation for All Others

Watts vs. watt-hours isn’t an engineering detail—it’s the dimensional scaffolding of electricity itself.

Power tells us how fast energy is moving. Energy tells us how much we’ve used or stored. Misunderstand one, and every downstream decision—generation, transmission, storage, pricing—becomes less accurate.

If there’s one concept every policymaker, executive, and citizen should understand before weighing in on energy planning, it’s this. Because no matter how green, smart, or digital your grid is, if you’re confusing power with energy, you’re still getting the physics wrong.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY 4.0
Feel free to share, adapt, and build upon it — just credit appropriately.