The work described in this report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F

Estimating customer electricity savings from 

projects installed by the U.S. ESCO industry 

Juan Pablo Carvallo, Peter H. Larsen, Charles A. Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Executive Summary

The U.S. energy service company (ESCO) industry has a well-established track record of delivering substantial energy 

and dollar savings in the public and institutional facilities sector, typically through the use of energy savings

performance contracts (ESPC) (Larsen et al. 2012; Goldman et al. 2005; Hopper et al. 2005, Stuart et al. 2013). This 

~$6.4 billion industry, which is expected to grow significantly over the next five years, may play an important role in 

achieving demand-side energy efficiency under local/state/federal environmental policy goals. To date, there has 

been little or no research in the public domain to estimate electricity savings for the entire U.S. ESCO industry. 

Estimating these savings levels is a foundational step in order to determine total avoided greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions from demand-side 

energy efficiency measures 

installed by U.S. ESCOs.

We introduce a method to 

estimate the total amount of 

electricity saved by projects 

implemented by the U.S. ESCO 

industry using the Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory 

(LBNL) /National Association of 

Energy Service Companies 

(NAESCO) database of projects 

and LBNL’s biennial industry 

survey. We report two metrics: 

incremental electricity savings and 

savings from ESCO projects that 

are active in a given year (e.g.,

2012).

Overall, we estimate that in 2012

active U.S. ESCO industry projects generated about 34 TWh of electricity savings—15 TWh of these electricity savings

were for MUSH market customers who did not rely on utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs (see 

Figure 1). This analysis shows that almost two-thirds of 2012 electricity savings in municipal, local and state 

government facilities, universities/colleges, K-12 schools, and healthcare facilities (i.e., the so-called “MUSH” market) 

were not supported by a utility customer-funded energy efficiency program.

LBNL-6877E
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 2

Introduction 

The U.S. energy services company (ESCO) industry has long been recognized for its role in project 

development and implementation services and in obtaining private-sector financing for energy efficiency 

and other “clean energy” investments and related energy services to customers with large and mediumsized facilities. 

ESCOs have had the most success targeting customers in the public and institutional facilities sector, 

typically through the use of ESPCs (Larsen et al. 2012; Goldman et al. 2005; Hopper et al. 2005, Stuart et al. 

2013). ESPCs allow public entities to implement equipment and facility upgrades to achieve energy and 

water savings with little or no up-front investment and offer another (often quicker) option than waiting 

for the appropriation of public funds (Bingaman et al. 2014). 

 We follow Larsen et al. (2012) and define an ESCO as: 

“A company that provides energy-efficiency-related and other value-added services and for which 

performance contracting is a core part of its energy-efficiency services business. In a performance 

contract, the ESCO guarantees energy and/or dollar savings for the project and ESCO 

compensation is therefore linked in some fashion to the performance of the project.”

The U.S. ESCO industry reported annual revenues of

$5.3 billion in 2011 with revenues expected to grow 

to ~$6.4 billion by the end of 2013 (Stuart et al. 

2013). Stuart et al. (2013) also estimated a remaining 

market potential of $77 billion to $133 billion in 

facilities commonly serviced by ESCOs. 

Given this context, state policy makers could consider 

implementing or expanding various types of policies 

and initiatives that support demand-side energy 

efficiency, such as energy efficiency resource 

standards (EERS), ESPC for designated market 

segments, building energy codes, retrofit on sale 

ordinances, and financing, among others. In this policy 

brief, we estimate incremental annual electricity 

savings and savings for projects active in a given year developed and implemented by U.S. ESCOs. 

Estimating these savings levels is a foundational step in order to determine total avoided GHGs from energy 

efficiency measures installed by U.S. ESCOs. ESCOs also report whether customers receive financial 

incentives from a utility customer-funded program. This allows stakeholders to disaggregate savings 

further and illustrates that we have the information and tools to avoid potential double-counting of savings 

(and GHG emissions) from projects developed by ESCOs. 

Questions

This policy brief addresses three specific questions:

1. What are the total electricity savings for U.S.

ESCO industry projects implemented in recent

years?

2. What fraction of those savings came from

public/institutional customers that are covered

by state (or local) legislation that supports

performance-based contracts?

3. What fraction of ESCO projects that target

public/institutional customers do not utilize

financial incentives or participate in utility

customer-funded efficiency programs?
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 3

Key Data Sources

For the past 15 years, LBNL has actively managed a database of U.S. ESCO projects, which currently 

contains 5,200+ projects representing over $12 billion in aggregate industry investment. We also conduct 

biennial surveys to determine the current and projected size of the U.S. ESCO industry (Goldman et al. 

2002; Hopper et al. 2007; Satchwell et al. 2010; and Stuart et al. 2013). We used these two data sources to 

estimate electricity savings provided by ESCOs in recent years. 

We estimate that the LBNL/NAESCO database contains about 18% of the existing ESCO market by 

revenue—since its inception. ESCO projects tend to be relatively homogenous (Hopper et al. 2005) and all 

ESCOs that are members of NAESCO, the industry trade association, provide a sample of their projects to 

LBNL as part of the NAESCO voluntary accreditation process for performance contractors (Larsen et al. 

2012). Thus, we are reasonably confident that projects in the LBNL/NAESCO database are representative of 

current industry practices and performance,

1 particularly those projects that target public/institutional 

customers. 

Approach

Electricity savings calculation

We estimate electricity savings from ESCO projects that have been implemented in recent years using the 

following approach. First, we determine the electricity savings for all U.S. projects in the LBNL/NAESCO 

database that provided information on actual (reported) electricity savings in millions of British thermal 

units (MMBtu) or kilowatt-hours (kWh) or, in its absence, reported guaranteed electricity savings.

2 Then, 

we convert reported MMBtu to MWh using the standard site energy conversion rate of 1 kWh = 3,412 Btu.

Next, we use estimates of the size of the U.S. ESCO industry from Stuart et al. (2013) to scale up the 

calculated electricity savings from projects in the LBNL/NAESCO database to obtain estimates of electricity 

savings from ESCO industry projects in aggregate. Specifically, we divide the total project investment level 

(i.e., project installation costs) from the sample of projects in the LBNL/NAESCO database by market size 

estimates from Stuart et al. (2013) to obtain an estimate of the ESCO market that was represented in the 

LBNL/NAESCO database compared to the total U.S. ESCO market in a given year. Finally, we use the inverse 

of this ratio and multiplied by annual electricity savings from the sample of projects in the LBNL/NAESCO 

database to estimate annual aggregate ESCO industry electricity savings, as follows:

1

ESCOSvgs SampleElecSvgs , 2003...2012

SampleProjectCost

IndustryProjectCost

t t

t

t

t

   

              

 (1)

See Appendix A for a more detailed explanation of other key assumptions in our approach.

 

1 Approximately 70% of ESCO projects in the LBNL/NAESCO database are ESPCs.

2 We exclude ESCO projects that did not report installation costs.
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 4

Fraction of savings from public/institutional sector market

We select the subset of projects in the ESCO database that targeted customers in the public/institutional 

sector that could be eligible for a state government performance contract program. We sum the electricity 

savings from these projects in each year to determine electricity savings for MUSH market customers and 

compare it to total electricity savings for all projects in the ESCO database. We estimate that 

public/institutional sector projects account for about 75% of all electricity savings achieved by U.S. ESCOs 

during the 2003-2012 period. 

Participation in utility customer- funded efficiency incentive programs

ESCOs are asked whether they utilized or customers received financial incentives from a utility customerfunded efficiency program when they provide project information that is entered into the LBNL/NAESCO 

database. We segment public/institutional sector projects in the database into two groups: (1) projects 

where customers (or ESCOs) received a financial incentive from a utility customer-funded energy efficiency 

program; and (2) projects where ESCOs indicated that the project did not leverage financial incentives from 

such programs. We then calculate electricity savings for the projects in these two groups. Given the 

relatively small number of MUSH market projects in the LBNL/NAESCO database in 2012, we decided to 

use data for a longer time frame (the last 10 years for which we have data, or 2003-2012) to get a more 

representative picture of the extent to which ESCO projects utilize and access utility customer-funded 

rebates or financial incentives. We find that approximately 64% of public/institutional sector projects in 

the LBNL/NAESCO database did not report utilizing utility customer-funded incentives or rebates in the 

2003-2012 timeframe.

3 These projects represent 61% of the total electricity savings in the 

public/institutional sector.

Incremental electricity savings versus savings from all projects active in a given year

We estimate both annual incremental electricity savings for ESCO projects and savings from all ESCO 

projects active in a given year. To illustrate our approach, Table 1 shows that projects A, B, and C produce 

incremental savings in years 1, 3, and 5 when each project installation was completed (bold figures). The 

savings for projects active in year X (in the example in Table 1, from years 1 to 12) are the sum of annual 

electricity savings that any active project is producing in a year. To determine whether a project is active or 

not, we calculate its useful life by using each project’s mean measure lifetime4. We therefore estimate the 

persistence of first-year electricity savings over the useful life of the set of measures installed by ESCOs 

from the date of installation. For example, project C in Table 1 is implemented in year 5 and produces 

savings until year 9 because its mean measure lifetime is only 5 years. Savings from active projects are then 

estimated by summing across projects for a given year, not by summing across time for a given project or 

set of projects.

 

3Given that an increasing number of states have adopted policies that support large-scale utility customer-funded efficiency, it is 

possible that our 10 year average may under-state the extent to which ESCOs (and their customers) utilize incentives in efficiency 

projects. However, we opted for a multi-year approach primarily because of sample size considerations.

4

The mean measure lifetime corresponds to the useful life of the Energy and Environment Conservation Measure (EECM) that best 

characterizes the project. We group projects into one of six possible retrofit strategies depending on the EECMs implemented: 

lighting, minor HVAC, major HVAC, distributed generation, non-energy, and other.
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 5

Incremental savings estimates are particularly useful 

in states where policymakers and program 

administrators have established an annual efficiency 

savings target (e.g., an EERS) and want to assess 

whether that target has been met. Savings for projects

active in a given year are a useful way of accounting for 

the lifetime savings contribution of ESCO projects that 

can potentially offset and avoid the impacts of 

generation options (and the associated GHG 

emissions) by reducing electricity usage in the long 

term. In short, savings for projects active in a given year reflect the annual contribution of any active energy 

efficiency project to reduce electricity consumption and associated GHG emissions.

Table 1. Calculation example of incremental savings and savings from projects active in a given year Project

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 - -

B 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

C 50 50 50 50 50 - - -

Incremental Savings 20 0 20 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Savings from Active Projects 20 20 40 40 90 90 90 90 90 40 20 20

Results

Incremental electricity savings

We report annual incremental electricity savings for the entire U.S. ESCO industry (Table 2); ESCO projects 

that are implemented by public/institutional sector customers only (Table 3); and ESCO projects in the 

public/institutional sector that did not utilize energy efficiency programs funded by utility customers 

(Table 4).

Annual incremental electricity savings for all ESCO projects range between 2 and 3 TWh in recent years, 

although it is worth noting that we are extrapolating savings based on a small sample size of projects from 

the LBNL/NAESCO database. We also report annual savings (and project cost) over a longer time period 

(2003-2012) for a much larger sample of projects (1,476 projects representing ~$5B in investment). 

Estimated annual incremental savings average about ~2.4 TWh/year for all ESCO projects (i.e., 23.7 TWh 

over 10 years, see Table 2).

We find that 75% of the incremental savings from new projects in the 2003–2012 period were produced in 

the MUSH market and 64% of those projects did not rely on incentives/rebates from utility customerfunded energy efficiency programs.

Savings Definitions

We report two values for electricity savings: 

Incremental savings are the sum of electricity 

savings from new projects in the year that they 

are installed. 

Savings from active projects are the sum of the 

savings that any active project (i.e., a new project 

or an older project within its mean measure 

lifetime) is producing in a given year. 
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 6

Table 2. Annual incremental electricity savings: U.S. ESCO industry

LBNL Database U.S. ESCO Industry

Project 

implementation 

year

# of 

projects 

Electricity 

savings

[GWh]

Project 

installation cost

[million $2012]

% of U.S. ESCO 

industry by 

revenue

Estimated annual 

savings

[TWh]

2010 139 269.6 464.5 9.1% 3.0

2011 162 246.0 624.2 11.7% 2.1

2012 147 228.4 593.8 10.0% 2.3

2003-2012 1,476 2,631.8 4,913.1 11.1% 23.7

Table 3. Annual incremental electricity savings: ESCO projects in the public/institutional market5

LBNL Database U.S. ESCO Industry

Project 

implementation 

year

# of

projects

Electricity savings

[GWh]

Project 

installation cost

[million $2012]

Market share of total 

U.S. ESCO market

Estimated annual 

savings

[TWh]

2010 118 189.8 396.8 85% 2.1

2011 129 187.7 472.7 76% 1.6

2012 132 195.5 464.7 78% 2.0

2003-2012 1,181 1,979.1 3,902.5 79% 17.9

Table 4. Annual incremental electricity savings: ESCO projects in the public/institutional market that did not utilize 

customer-funded EE programs6

LBNL Database U.S. ESCO Industry

Project 

implementation 

year

# of 

projects 

Electricity

savings [GWh]

Project 

installation 

cost [million 

$2012]

% of public/institutional 

market projects that did 

not utilize utility EE 

programs

U.S. ESCO industry estimated 

annual savings

[TWh]

2010 68 118.3 249.7 58% 1.3

2011 63 69.0 168.4 49% 0.6

2012 60 86.2 208.5 45% 0.9

2003-2012 751 1,206.4 2,443.5 64% 10.9

 

5 We estimate the market share of ESCO projects in public/institutional market by dividing the “LBNL Database - Electricity

Savings” column from Table 3 by the corresponding value in Table 2.

6 We estimate the percentage of public institutional market projects that did not utilize utility customer-funded EE programs by 

comparing the number of projects installed during the 2003-2012 period in Table 4 to the corresponding column in Table 3.
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 7

Electricity savings for projects active in a given year 

We estimate electricity savings for projects active in a given year for the entire U.S. ESCO industry (Table 

5), ESCO projects that are implemented by public/institutional sector customers only (Table 6), as well as 

ESCO projects in the public/institutional sector that did not utilize energy efficiency programs funded by 

utility customers (Table 7). Major findings include:

 About 2,000 projects in the LBNL database7 were still actively producing savings in 2012. 

Extrapolating those savings to the entire ESCO industry, we estimate that U.S. ESCO projects 

achieved electricity savings of about 34 TWh in 2012 (see Table 5). 

 Active ESCO projects targeted at public/institutional customers account for about three-quarters of 

the electricity savings among projects in the LBNL/NAESCO database or approximately 2.5 TWh in 

2012. Extrapolating those savings to the entire industry, we estimate that active ESCO projects that 

target public/institutional customers achieved savings of ~24 TWh in 2012 (see Table 6).8

 Among public/institutional customers, ESCOs reported that about ~63% of the projects in the 

LBNL/NAESCO database that were still producing savings in the 2010-2012 time period did not 

participate in utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs (e.g., receive rebates or other 

financial incentives). Extrapolating these results to the entire ESCO industry, we estimate that 

active ESCOs projects in the public/institutional sector that did not utilize utility rebates achieved 

savings of about 15 TWh in 2012 (see Table 7).

Table 5. Estimated electricity savings from ESCO projects active in recent years: U.S. ESCO industry

LBNL Database U.S. ESCO Industry

Year

# of 

active 

projects

Electricity savings

[GWh]

Project installation cost 

[million $2012]

% of U.S. 

ESCO 

industry

Electricity savings [TWh]

2010 1835 3,337.3 5,151.6 9.9% 33.6

2011 1919 3,426.5 5,640.9 10.2% 33.5

2012 1959 3,451.0 6,033.5 10.2% 33.7

Table 6. Estimated electricity savings from ESCO projects active in recent years: Public/institutional market

LBNL Database U.S. ESCO Industry

Year

# of 

active 

projects

Electricity

savings

[GWh]

Project installation 

cost 

[million $2012]

Public/Institutional customer 

market share of total ESCO 

market

Savings for 

public/institutional 

market

[TWh]

2010 1407 2,399.9 4,056.2 79% 24.2

2011 1482 2,466.9 4,420.8 78% 24.1

2012 1532 2,500.9 4,721.1 78% 24.4

 

7 We selected a sample of projects that had reported actual and/or guaranteed electricity savings and non-zero investment costs

from a total of more than 5,250 projects in the LBNL/NAESCO database. Then, our sample for this analysis is 2,547 projects.

8 We estimate the electricity savings for projects active in a given year in the public/institutional market for the entire ESCO 

industry based on the ratio of savings from projects in the LBNL database (i.e., for 2012, 3,451 GWh in Table 5 and 2,501 GWh in 

Table 6).
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 8

Table 7. Estimated electricity savings from ESCO projects active in recent years: Public/institutional market projects that 

did not utilize customer-funded EE programs

LBNL Database U.S. ESCO Industry

Year

# of 

active 

projects

Electricity

savings 

[GWh]

Project 

installation 

cost 

[million 

$2012]

% of public/institutional 

projects that did not 

utilize utility EE programs

Savings for public/institutional 

customers that did not utilize 

utility EE programs

[TWh]

2010 947 1,530.6 2,781.5 64% 15.4

2011 979 1,536.2 2,884.5 62% 15.0

2012 993 1,544.1 3,011.7 62% 15.0

It is important to note that 

financial incentives from 

utility efficiency programs 

typically account for only a 

small portion of total project 

costs in ESCO projects that 

target MUSH market 

customers. In the 1990-2012 

timeframe, these incentives 

accounted for only 16% of 

total project costs for MUSH 

market customers (see 

Figure 2). 

Conclusion

We use the LBNL/NAESCO database to estimate savings for the U.S. ESCO industry in recent years. This 

database contains detailed project level data sent by ESCOs as part of the voluntary NAESCO accreditation 

process. The database currently contains over 5,200 projects—installed from 1990 to 2013—representing 

over $12 billion in total project investment (or ~18% of all industry activity over that time period). We 

estimate that active ESCO projects saved 34 TWh in 2012 or ~2.5% of U.S. commercial electricity retail 

sales. We find that approximately three quarters of those savings occurred at projects installed in the 

MUSH market (municipal, local and state government facilities, universities/colleges, K-12 schools, and 

healthcare facilities). We also find that about two thirds of the MUSH projects active in 2012 did not use 

utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs incentives. For MUSH market projects that did report 

using these incentives, we find that these incentives only account for 16% of total project investment costs.

Policy makers should consider expanding the use of effective strategies including energy efficiency 

resource standards (EERS), ESPCs for designated market segments, building energy codes, retrofit on sale 

ordinances, and financing—among others. In addition, policy makers should consider utilizing and/or 

possibly enhancing the use of energy savings performance contracts including conducting a review of (1) 

the type of public entities that are eligible to enter into ESPCs (e.g., local governments, school districts, 

higher education institutions, and other state-supported institutions), (2) expanding the length of 
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 9

allowable term for performance contracts, and (3) eligible technical opportunities to reduce agency 

expenditures (Bingaman et al. 2014). Given the large remaining market potential for the U.S. ESCO 

industry and recent project savings levels, we believe that there are significant untapped opportunities for 

the industry to develop new projects which substantially reduce future GHG emissions.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following colleagues for providing constructive comments and 

suggestions on a review draft of this policy brief: Donald Gilligan (NAESCO); Clay Nesler (Johnson 

Controls); Dave Birr (Synchronous Energy Solutions); Jeff Genzer (Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer, and 

Pembroke); Timothy Unruh (DOE-FEMP); Steve Nadel (ACEEE); Alice Dasek and Ira Birnbaum (DOE-WIP) 

and Ed Vine, Phil Coleman, Steve Schiller and Lisa Schwartz (LBNL). We are also grateful to Dana Robson 

and Danielle Callaghan for her help formatting this policy brief and assisting us with outreach.

Appendix A

Important assumptions

In interpreting our estimates of electricity savings from ESCO projects, it is important to be cognizant of 

several key assumptions made by LBNL in our analysis. Table A-1 summarizes these factors and their 

potential effect on our estimates of annual incremental electricity savings and electricity savings from ESCO 

projects active in a given year.

Table A-1. Key assumptions and their potential effect on electricity savings estimates

Key assumption Effect on electricity savings estimates

We assumed that larger ESCOs provide representative 

sample of projects for the LBNL/NAESCO database with 

typical savings and costs.

In the NAESCO accreditation process, ESCOs are asked to 

provide a representative sample of projects 

(geographically and size of projects). LBNL cannot rule out 

the potential for selection bias. Reported savings levels for 

projects in the LBNL database may be higher compared to

the population of all ESCO projects completed in the past 

10 years.

We assumed that ESCO project savings are maintained 

over their useful lifetime (even after performance 

contract has ended).

Useful lifetime of measures installed in ESCO projects 

exceed the contract term in many projects (e.g., ~60% of 

projects in the 2003-2012 period had longer lifetimes than 

contract lengths). Estimates of electricity savings for 

projects active in a given year will be somewhat lower if 

savings do not continue after the contract term ends.

We assumed that first-year savings from performance 

contracts are maintained over the contract term, because 

of the guaranteed savings provision within an ESPC.

Under ESPC, ESCOs are obligated to achieve guaranteed 

savings. Actual, reported savings often exceed guaranteed 

savings, but are not a contractual commitment. Estimates 

of electricity savings for projects active in a given year may 

be somewhat lower if ESCO projects only achieve 

guaranteed savings in later years.
E S C O I N D U S T R Y B R I E F P A G E 10

References 

Bingaman, J., G. Shultz, D. Reicher, A. Seiger, N. Schuetz, E. Fu, J. Carl, and D. Fedor 2014. “The State Clean Energy 

Cookbook: A Dozen Recipes for State Action on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ”. Stanford University, 

September. 

Goldman, C., J. Osborn, N. Hopper, and T. Singer, 2002. “Market Trends in the U.S. ESCO Industry: Results from the 

NAESCO Database Project,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: LBNL-49601, May. 

Goldman, C.A., N.C. Hopper, J.G. Osborn. 2005. “Review of US ESCO industry market trends: an empirical analysis of 

project data.” Energy Policy 33, 387–405. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.008 

Hopper, N., C. Goldman, J. A. McWilliams, D. Birr, and K. McMordie Stoughton. 2005 “Public and Institutional Markets 

for ESCO Services: Comparing Programs, Practices and Performance.” LBNL-55002, March. 

Hopper, N., C. Goldman, D. Gilligan and T. Singer, and D. Birr. 2007. “A Survey of the U.S. ESCO Industry: Market 

Growth and Development from 2000 to 2006,” LBNL-62679. May. 

Larsen, P., C. Goldman, and A. Satchwell. 2012. “Evolution of the U.S. Energy Service Company Industry: Market Size 

and Project Performance from 1990-2008”. LBNL-5447E, July. 

Satchwell, A., C. Goldman, P. Larsen, D. Gilligan, and T. Singer. 2010. “A Survey of the U.S. Energy Services Company 

(ESCO) Industry: Market Growth and Development from 2008 to 2011.” LBNL Report 3479-E, June. 

Stuart, E., P. H. Larsen, C. A. Goldman, and D. Gilligan. 2013. “Current Size and Remaining Market Potential of the U.S. 

Energy Service Company Industry.” LBNL 6300-E.

Disclaimer 

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to 

contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of 

California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe 

privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States 

Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do 

not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of 

California. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.