State-Level Energy Efficiency Analysis: Goals, Methods, and Lessons Learned 

Maggie Eldridge, R. Neal Elliott, and Max Neubauer, 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

ABSTRACT 

The past few years have seen a resurgence of interest in state-level energy efficiency 

studies. These studies have been undertaken for a range of reasons and have had a variety of 

scopes and approaches—some more effective than others. In the interest of sharing lessons 

learned and developing effective strategies for state-level analyses, this paper will first review 

recent studies done by others to examine themes in approaches and scope, and then look at recent 

studies that the authors have been involved with and explore their goals, approaches and 

effectiveness. Based on these experiences, the authors will present their recommendations on: 

guidance on identifying the goal/goals for the study; what are the appropriate scopes and 

methods to meet different goals; and what other project elements are critical to an effective study 

release. In addition, the authors discuss some of the data and analytical challenges that are faced 

by state-level energy efficiency assessments and how the analysis results are most effectively 

presented to a state-level policy audience. 

Introduction 

An energy efficiency potential study is a tool to help states advance smart energy policies 

and programs by providing critical data resources that inform decision makers. These studies are 

typically a first step taken by states interested in building the case for efficiency policies. A study 

could support a number of state needs for designing efficiency policies and programs, such as 

setting energy savings goals, incorporating energy efficiency into the integrated resource 

planning (IRP) process, or determining funding levels for efficiency programs and policies. The 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Guide for Conducting Energy Efficiency Potential 

Studies (see EPA 2007) is an excellent resource for parties interested in advancing energy 

efficiency in their own state, region, or program area. 

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in state-level energy efficiency 

studies. In 2007, ACEEE completed energy efficiency potential analyses for the states of Texas, 

Florida, and Michigan (Elliott et al. 2007a&b; Laitner & Kushler 2007). Similar studies were 

recently completed for Utah (Geller et al. 2007), California (Itron et al. 2007), North Carolina 

(GDS 2006) and others. Following the publication of the Florida and Texas studies, several 

additional states contacted ACEEE requesting a similar study for their own state. In response to 

this surge in interest, ACEEE launched its State Clean Energy Resource Project (SCERP) in the 

fall of 2007, with the goal of completing about four state studies each year for the next 3 years. 

In 2008, ACEEE completed a study for Maryland (Eldridge et al. 2008) and plans to complete 

studies for Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania by the end of 2008 or early 2009. Based on these 

experiences, and past experience dating to the late 1980s, ACEEE has gained some important 

insights into how to effectively plan, undertake and use these state potential studies. We will 

attempt to share these lessons learned in hopes of increasing the effectiveness of future efforts. 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-63
The numerous energy efficiency potential studies that have been conducted over the past 

decades have played an important role in motivating and shaping energy policies at both the state 

and national level. In this paper, we will first the review the elements of an efficiency potential 

analysis and examine the approach of several recent efficiency studies. Then, we explore how 

experiences with these studies have lead ACEEE to identify and provide insights on the 

following elements of a successful and effective analysis: 

• Clearly identify goals that the study is intended to achieve 

• Match the level of analysis to goals 

• Engage stakeholders early in the analysis process 

• Match analysis to available data 

• Plan for and implement an effective media strategy 

• Plan and budget for analysis follow-up 

Elements of a Potential Analysis 

While energy efficiency potential analyses have been prepared for decades, there has 

been some inconsistency in how the studies have been conducted and how terms are defined. 

Our meta-analysis of efficiency potential studies (Nadel, Elliott and Shipley 2004), and recent 

updates in 2006 and 2008 (report forthcoming) revealed these differences in term definitions. 

These reviews did find, however, that a common approach was generally used. Our recent 

studies, however, have found that this “traditional approach” is not always the most effective for 

some purposes. 

Traditional Approach 

In the traditional approach of energy efficiency potential studies, there are three broad 

categories of efficiency potential: technical, economic, and achievable. These are generally 

characterized by the following definitions: 

• The technical potential represents an ideal scenario which sums all energy efficiency 

measures that are feasible given technology limitations. The technical potential bears no 

consideration of technology costs. 

• Economic potential represents the fraction of the technical potential that is cost-effective, 

which can be evaluated in several ways. Some options include the Total Resource Cost 

(TRC) test or, from the consumer’s perspective, such as a participant’s cost of saved 

energy (CSE). 

• Finally, the achievable potential represents a fraction of the economic potential that is 

attainable given actual program infrastructure and both societal and market limitations. 

Recent Studies 

ACEEE recently reviewed seven state and regional potential studies in addition to those 

we reviewed for our 2004 meta-analysis (Nadel, Elliott and Shipley 2004): California (Itron 

2006), New England (Dunksy Energy Consulting 2005), New Mexico (GDS 2005), North 

Carolina (GDS 2006), Québec (Optimal Energy 2004), Utah (SWEEP 2007), and Vermont (GDS 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-64
2007). The New Mexico study focused solely on analyzing potential savings from natural gas 

energy-efficiency programs, while the California, New England, and Utah studies incorporated 

both electricity and natural gas into their analyses. Most of these studies were conducted at the 

behest of state governments (New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah, and Vermont); the rest were 

commissioned by non-governmental organizations (California, New England, Quebec). 

 The scope, detail, and duration of these studies vary significantly. Four of the studies 

analyze the technical, economic, and achievable potential across all sectors of the economy, 

whereas three of the studies focus solely on achievable potential. Five of the studies aggregate 

achievable potential across all sectors, which is the estimate that policymakers consider to be the 

most important when analyzing state efficiency potential. 

The definition of "achievable potential" varies among studies, which necessitates a 

rigorous perusal of the methodologies. For example, the North Carolina and Vermont GDS 

studies refer to the "Achievable Cost-Effective Potential," which they define as the "realistic 

penetration of energy efficient measures that are cost-effective [...] and would be adopted given 

aggressive funding [...]" The GDS New Mexico study refers to achievable potential as 

"Maximum Achievable Cost-Effective Potential" and defines it as "the potential for maximum 

penetration of energy efficient measures that are cost-effective [...] and would be adopted given 

unlimited funding [...]"Optimal Energy’s study of New England similarly refers to achievable 

potential as "the potential for maximum market penetration of energy efficient measures that are 

cost-effective [...] and that would be adopted through a concerted, sustained campaign 

[...]"Achievable potential savings for electricity across all sectors in these studies ranges from 

0.6% (Itron 2006) to 4% (Optimal Energy 2004) per year beyond normal reference case 

improvements (see Figure 1). The Utah study (SWEEP 2007) takes a slightly different approach, 

modeling several policy scenarios and estimating the energy and economic impacts of the 

policies, and estimates about 1.7% savings per year. This is similar to the policy scenario 

approach used in ACEEE’s recent state studies, which is discussed in the next section. 

The majority of the studies utilize the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test to determine costeffectiveness when estimating economic and achievable potential savings. Two studies, North 

Carolina and Quebec, rely on a levelized cost of conserved energy (CCE) as the metric for 

measuring cost-effectiveness. ACEEE’s recent state studies use this same approach, with costeffectiveness defined as having a CCE less than the end user’s retail cost of energy. The 

Vermont study uses a societal cost test, which quantifies the benefits, such as reduced emissions, 

and costs to society as a whole as opposed to just utilities and ratepayers. All of the study results 

show net positive benefits for the measured efficiency potential. 

Table 1 shows the results of several electricity efficiency potential studies from the past 

eight years, most of which follow the traditional approach outlined above. The recent ACEEE 

studies and the SWEEP 2007 study followed a slightly different “policy scenario” approach for 

estimating achievable potential, as is discussed in the next section. This figure incorporates 

results from the 2004 meta-analysis by ACEEE (see Nadel, Elliott and Shipley 2004), a few 

studies completed in 2005 and late 2004, and a recent update in 2008. The meta-reviews also 

examined natural gas studies, though we present electricity study results here only. The average 

study identified an electricity savings technical potential of 2.3%, 1.8% economic, and 1.5% 

achievable, averaged annually over the study time period. Studies that did not include one or 

more of a type of potential were not incorporated into the average annual percent savings for that 

specific type of potential. 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-65
Table 1. Meta-Analysis of Electricity Energy Efficiency Potential Study Results 

 

Total Efficiency Potential over 

Study Time Period (%) 

Average Annual Efficiency Potential 

(%) 

Region of Study Technical Economic Achievable

Study Time 

Period 

(years) Technical Economic Achievable

U.S. (2000) NA NA 24% 20 NA NA 1.2%

Mass. (RLW 2001) NA 24% NA 5 NA 4.8% NA 

Calif. (Xenergy/EF 

2002) 18% 13% 10% 10 1.8% 1.3% 1.0%

Southwest (SWEEP 

2002) NA NA 33% 17 NA NA 1.9%

NY (NSERDA/OE 

2003) 36% 27% NA 20 1.8% 1.4% NA 

Oreg. (2003) 31% NA NA 10 3.1% NA NA 

Puget (2003) 35% 19% 11% 20 1.8% 1.0% 0.6%

Vermont (2003) NA NA 31% 10 NA NA 3.1%

Quebec (Optimal 

2004) NA NA 32% 8 NA NA 4.0%

NJ (Kema 2004) 23% 17% 11% 16 1.4% 1.1% 0.7%

Conn. (GDS 2004) 24% 13% NA 10 2.4% 1.3% NA 

New England (Optimal 

2005) NA NA 23% 10 NA NA 2.3%

Northwest (NW 

Council 2005) 25% 17% 13% 20 1.3% 0.9% 0.6%

Georgia (ICF 2005) 29% 20% 9% 10 2.9% 2.0% 0.9%

Wisc. (ECW 2005) NA NA 4% 5 NA NA 0.7%

Calif. (Itron 2006) 21% 17% 8% 13 1.6% 1.3% 0.6%

North Carolina (GDS 

2006) 33% 20% 14% 10 3.3% 2.0% 1.4%

Florida (ACEEE 2007) NA 25% 20% 15 NA 1.7% 1.3%

Texas (ACEEE 2007) NA 30% 18% 15 NA 2.0% 1.2%

Utah (SWEEP 2007) NA NA 26% 15 NA NA 1.7%

Vermont (GDS 2007) 35% 22% 19% 10 3.5% 2.2% 1.9%

Average NA NA NA NA 2.3% 1.8% 1.5%

As noted in Nadel, Elliott and Shipley (2004), the technical potential is a somewhat 

problematic construct because it is intended to capture all the efficiency opportunities available 

without consideration of the cost of implementing the efficiency improvements. In reality, 

analysts may restrict their assessments to measures they think will likely be cost-effective, and 

therefore blends the traditional definition of economic and technical potential. As a result, the 

actual estimate is only a partial estimate of the technical potential, and is not particularly 

meaningful in a policy context. ACEEE’s recent studies for Texas, Florida and Maryland have 

not included an assessment of technical potential but rather focus specifically on the economic, 

or cost-effective, potential. In addition, rather than an assessment of “achievable” potential, 

which is defined in a number of different ways among study authors, we now estimate the 

impacts of what we term a “policy scenario.” In the next section we suggest this alternative 

approach as an effective means of informing policymakers at the state and regional levels. 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-66
Alternative Approach 

Recently, ACEEE has taken an alternative approach to the traditional energy efficiency 

potential studies, one which has been successful for our recent energy efficiency studies for 

Florida, Texas, and Maryland. Keeping in mind that the audience for these state analyses, 

including policy makers and state advocates, is not familiar with the traditional language of 

efficiency potential studies, this framework moves away from the terms described above toward 

what we hope is a more transparent discussion to a lay audience. 

First, we substitute the term “efficiency resource assessment” for “economic potential.” 

This construct puts demand-side energy efficiency in the same framework as supply side 

resources. The same metrics of cost-effectiveness apply, though it helps to frame energy 

efficiency as a resource similar to the manner in which utilities assess the potential for new 

generation or transmission resources. EPA’s guide for potential studies describes this type of 

analysis as requiring mid-level detail and time to complete (EPA 2007). We discuss in the next 

section the range of analysis levels of detail. 

Second, we perform a policy scenario assessment by modeling a specific suite of 

efficiency policies that can be implemented at the state-level. These typically include building 

energy codes, appliance efficiency standards, combined heat and power (CHP) initiatives, and 

energy efficiency resource standards (EERS), among others. The policy assessment draws upon 

the overall efficiency resource assessment for data on costs and savings potential for policies. 

Again, by framing the analysis from the state policymaker’s standpoint, we offer actions that are 

understandable and can be readily implemented. In addition to the energy impacts of the policy 

scenario assessment, our state studies also examine the macro-economic impacts, i.e. jobs, 

consumer energy bill savings, wages, and GSP, using a input-output model called DEEPER (see 

Laitner et al. 2007). These results are highly effective for informing state policymakers’ 

discussions of benefits to the state from energy efficiency. 

This alternative approach provides effective framing for policymakers, a key audience for 

many efficiency studies. In addition, this approach offers flexibility to use different levels of 

analysis, depending on the needs of a state’s specific request. We discuss later how to identify 

the appropriate level of analysis. 

Identifying the Goals of an EE Potential Study 

The first steps in undertaking an efficiency potential study are to identify the following: 

why has the study been requested (or what the goals are), who is your audience, and what is the 

scope of the analysis. 

It is crucial to first have a clear understanding of why the study is being undertaken. In 

other words, what is the ultimate goal? Is the study to support legislation and/or regulatory 

hearings? Is it to establish energy savings targets or levels of funding for efficiency 

investments? Is it to develop specific efficiency programs? Once the need is defined, the next 

thing to be considered is: has there already been an efficiency potential study done for the state 

or region? If so, does the existing study meet the need driving the request? Only if these last 

two answers are no should a state or region pursue its own energy efficiency potential 

assessment. Then, understanding why the study is being undertaken will be the key driving force 

behind the level of analysis needed, which is discussed in the next section. 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-67
Next, who is the audience for the study? Who are the players that can use the critical 

data provided in a potential study to help make the goal happen? Typical audiences for efficiency 

potential studies are policymakers, state agencies, advocacy organizations, and program 

implementers. Understanding who your audience is will help drive the focus and framing of the 

analysis. Engaging key stakeholders, which is discussed shortly, is an important part of this 

process. 

Finally, what is the scope? This includes the sectors and fuel types analyzed, analysis 

time period, and the necessary information on costs and benefits. Scope is largely dependent on 

the region and the specific needs of the state requesting the study. Recently, our studies have 

focused primarily on electricity and peak demand in the residential, commercial, and industrial 

sectors, though we have also received requests for natural gas and oil savings, onsite renewable 

energy, and transportation. Many policy makers and consumers do not differentiate between 

different energy markets and types of energy the way most energy experts do, so a restrictive 

focus can create confusion for a broader audience. 

Levels of Analyses 

There is no one size fits all for state-level efficiency assessments—they can vary in their 

level of detail and complexity of the analysis. ACEEE has found that assessments fall into three 

broad categories: high-level, policy scoping; policy planning and analysis; and detail program 

planning and targeting. The EPA efficiency potential study primer (EPA 2007) very similarly 

captures these levels of analyses, from low detail to high, as: building the case for efficiency; 

identifying alternatives to supply-side investments; and detailed planning and program design; 

these are captured as a continuum graphically (see Figure 1). Understanding the goals for a 

potential study is crucial to inform the level of analysis, and can help deter spending more time 

and money than is needed or investing in a study that does not provide the level of detail needed. 

High-Level Policy Scoping 

These analyses draw upon publicly available data and past program experiences to 

provide a first-order indication of the magnitude of the energy efficiency resource available in a 

state at the sector level (e.g., residential, commercial and industrial). These studies can be 

completed fairly quickly and cost in the range of $25,000 to $50,000. These studies are 

appropriate to beginning a discussion of the role of energy efficiency resources in a state’s 

energy policy portfolio. 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-68
Figure 2. Considerations for Determining the Appropriate Level of Analysis 

Source: EPA 2007 

Policy and Planning Analysis 

These assessments have a greater level of detail, providing a more detailed desegregation 

of energy efficiency resources and the policies and programs that could be implemented to 

realize the efficiency potential. These studies—ACEEE’s study of Maryland (Eldridge et al. 

2008) is a good example—take five to six months to complete and can cost between $100,000 

and $150,000 depending on scope. These assessments are appropriate for informing state-level 

policy development. 

Detailed Program Planning and Targeting 

These highly detailed analyses are intended to inform the design and implementation of 

individual energy efficiency programs. Key sector and measure opportunities are assessed, 

detailed suggestions are made on specific program approaches, and key market allies are 

identified. These assessments are intended for program administrators and may not be 

comprehensive, focusing only on key markets that have been already identified for program 

development. These analyses can be very time consuming, depending upon the amount of 

original field data collection that is undertaken (e.g., equipment saturation surveys), and because 

the scope varies so much their cost can range from $100,000 to well over $500,000. 

Stakeholder Engagement 

One of the frequently overlooked elements of state-level potential studies is stakeholder 

engagement prior to the start of the data collection and analysis. While this may not seem an 

analytical task, it is critical to developing an effective assessment. Clearly, understanding what 

policies are politically tenable among the key stakeholders is important. In addition, one should 

consider what data sources are credible among the various stakeholders. We have encountered 

this latter issue with reference forecasts of energy consumption and energy prices., For example, 

the electricity and capacity forecast released by the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

(FRCC), which is a regional organization of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-69
(NERC), was deemed more favorable among in-state players, particularly the utilities, than the 

Florida Public Service Commission’s (FPSC) published forecast. Choosing an accepted forecast 

can confer credibility to the analysis with these audiences. 

One less intuitive aspect of the process is using in-state experts. While this would seem to 

confer credibility to the assessment, we have found that this frequently creates unanticipated 

political complications. Most in-state subject matter experts are also involved with state-level 

programs and policies, and their involvement with the team can create unanticipated credibility 

problems. For example, in one study our renewable expert was representing the industry in a 

state proceeding causing some groups to discount the analysis because it was perceived as being 

prepared by an “advocate.” Having national-level experts can confer a level of independence to 

the study that can increase its effectiveness. 

Data Limitations and Recommendations 

One of the biggest challenges ACEEE has faced in undertaking efficiency potential 

studies has been the availability of consistent data and forecasts for states. This problem is 

common in most states we have analyzed, and results from a combination of factors. The 

movement in the 1990s toward utility restructuring not only resulted in the suspension of most 

energy efficiency utility programs, but also led to termination of many energy data collection and 

market surveying activities. This problem is not unique to states. Budget cuts over the past 

decade have resulted in the termination of important data sources by federal agencies such as 

DOE’s Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Census Bureau. While collection of 

original survey data is always an option, this increases the time and budget significantly, and 

may not be warranted for a policy-focused study. 

Although there is some regional data available from public utility commissions and nonprofit energy efficiency organizations, often, especially for the commercial sector, we need to 

use regional data from EIA to derive estimates for data not available at the state level. Even 

regional data from EIA, however, is badly out of date. For example, although EIA’s 

Commercial Building Consumption Survey (CBECS) was updated in 2003 (EIA 2005), it has not 

examined electricity consumption at the end-use level since its 1995 version (EIA 1997). There 

is also very little detailed state-level energy data for the industrial sector. This lack of data is a 

particular problem because of the variation in the nature of the efficiency resource among 

different, individual industries within a state. As a result, ACEEE has been forced to rely upon 

national energy intensity and state and regional economic information (see Eldridge et al. 2008 

for a discussion of this approach). 

A key recommendation to states is that, if they are serious about realizing the benefits of 

energy efficiency resources, the states and utilities must be focused and strategic about 

identifying data needs and following through on collection of these data resources. They should 

work together to develop and implement a coordinated plan for collecting this information in 

order to effectively design and evaluate the performance of efficiency programs. 

To accomplish this task, a state agency such as the public utility commission or state 

energy office should be designated as the energy data coordinator for the state. While some 

utilities are resuming the collection of some of this data, it is important that the collection is 

comprehensive and consistent across the state. This entity should consider developing data 

resources including the following: 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-70
• A consensus statewide electricity and peak demand reference forecast on which to base 

the current and future efficiency targets. 

• Appliance saturation surveys (similar coordinated surveys conducted by each utility, or 

perhaps a single survey with each utility on the stakeholder list and the study designed to 

provide utility-specific breakdowns). 

• New construction baseline surveys (e.g., a statewide survey with utility-specific 

information). These should include building size and key features suggestive of energy 

efficiency. 

• End-use load-shape studies to help identify the contribution of each major sectoral enduse to peak electrical demand. Power costs are particularly high during peak demand 

periods, and understanding and reducing the major loads at times of peak demand can be 

very cost-effective. 

• Measurement and verification studies using common methodologies and reporting 

formats to provide data on program costs and savings. 

• Avoided costs to utilities. 

By having a single entity with the responsibility and resources to collect and analyze 

energy data, states will be able to verify that its policies are achieving their goals, and future 

analysts will have the necessary data to identify energy efficiency opportunities and design 

programs to realize these energy efficiency resources. While having good data and forecasts will 

not save energy by itself, it represents an important enabling infrastructure. 

Effective Media Release Strategy 

As important as the analysis of energy efficiency potential is, it will have limited value if 

the target audiences are not aware of it. Policymakers get much of their information from 

general media channels, so media coverage is an important element of the project. ACEEE has 

learned from experience that most analytical organizations do not have the internal expertise to 

manage the successful release of a report. For example, ACEEE used an in-state media 

consultant to support the released of its Florida, which proved very effective because the 

consultant understood how to frame the message so that it responded to local issues and was able 

to effectively bring the story to the attention of local media leaders. We have used media 

consultants who have state-specific expertise to support the release of two of our recent studies 

(Florida and Maryland), and achieved much greater earned media coverage than in states where 

we handled the release or relied upon a local partner organization. Media professionals are 

called “professionals” for a reason—they focus all of their efforts on planning the study’s release, 

including framing of messaging, coordination of the press event and follow-on reporting, and 

placement of op-eds. 

Follow-Up with State 

Once a study has been released and the target audiences become aware of it, the authors 

must then be prepared to respond to the questions and requests for additional information. An 

effective stakeholder engagement process can reduce this somewhat by identifying key issues 

and responding to them in the report. However, the study will spark questions that cannot be 

anticipated. Many efforts underestimate the time and resource requirements, which can 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-71
compromise the effectiveness of the effort or create stress for analysis staff. Planning for the 

required staff time and structuring the analysis in ways that can allow the exploration of different 

scenarios can make this phase of the project much more manageable. 

Conclusions 

ACEEE’s recent studies have yielded both significant successes and challenges. In 

Florida, our study provided a timely framework that was embraced by Governor Charlie Crist 

who was seeking to address electricity supply and global warming concerns, and the study 

showed that energy efficiency represented a least-cost resource that could address these 

challenges while creating new “green-collar” jobs. Among the challenges, we note especially the 

potential politics associated with collaborating with in-state players, the data limitations, and the 

transparency of our study results to policymakers. 

Likewise, our study for the state of Maryland provided analytical support for 

policymakers and aided passage of significant energy efficiency legislation in the state. Again, 

stakeholder engagement was critical to the process, and could have benefited from even more 

time than we allowed. 

Based on these experiences and others, we have identified several elements, as outlined 

in this paper, which are crucial to a successful report and dissemination of results. While the 

focus of preparing a study is frequently on the analysis and preparation of the report, these other 

project aspects are at least as important: stakeholder engagement, release strategy, and follow-up 

with policymakers. These non-analytical elements can determine how effective and useful a 

report proves to be to policy makers. 

References 

Dunksy Energy Consulting, Optimal Energy, Inc., and Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. 

2004. Opportunities for Accelerated Electric Energy Efficiency in Quebec: 2005-2012. 

Montreal, Quebec.: Dunksy Energy Consulting. 

 [EIA] Energy Information Administration. 1997. 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 

 . 2005. 2003. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Energy. 

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Guide for Conducting Energy Efficiency 

Potential Studies. Prepared by Philip Mosenthal and Jeffrey Loiter, Optimal Energy, Inc. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Eldridge, M., R.N. Elliott, B. Prindle, K. Ackerly, J.S. Laitner, V. McKinney, S. Nadel, M. 

Neubauer, A. Silverstein, B. Hedman and Ken Darrow. 2008. Energy Efficiency: The 

First Fuel for a Clean Energy Future—Resources for Meeting Maryland’s Electricity 

Needs. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-72
Elliott, R.N., M. Eldridge, A.M. Shipley, J.S. Laitner, S. Nadel, P. Fairey, R. Vieira, Jeff Sonne, 

A. Silverstein, B. Hedman, and Ken Darrow. 2007a. Potential for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy to Meet Florida's Growing Energy Demands. ACEEE Report E072. 

Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Elliott, R.N., M. Eldridge, A.M. Shipley, J.S. Laitner, S. Nadel, A. Silverstein, B. Hedman, and 

M. Sloan. 2007b. Potential for Energy Efficiency, Demand Response and Onsite 

Renewable Energy to Meet Texas’ Growing Electricity Demands. ACEEE Report E073. 

Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

GDS Associates, Inc. 2005. The Maximum Achievable Cost Effective Potential for Natural Gas 

Energy Efficiency in the Service Territory of PNM. Madison, WI.: GDS Associates, Inc. 

———. 2006. A Study of the Feasibility of Energy Efficiency as an Eligible Resource as Part of 

a Renewable Portfolio Standard for the State of North Carolina. Madison, WI.: GDS 

Associates, Inc. 

———. 2007. Vermont Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Study. Madison, WI.: GDS 

Associates, Inc. 

Itron, Inc., KEMA-Xenergy, RLW Analytics, Inc., and Architectural Energy Corporation. 2006. 

California Energy Efficiency Potential Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric. San 

Diego, CA.: Itron, Inc. 

Laitner, S. & M. Kushler. 2007. More Jobs and Greater Total Wage Income: The Economic 

Benefits of an Efficiency-Led Clean Energy Strategy to Meet Growing Electricity Needs 

in Michigan. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Laitner, John A. “Skip,” M. Eldridge, and N. Elliott. 2007. The Economic Benefits of an Energy 

Efficiency and Onsite Renewable Energy Strategy to Meet Growing Electricity Needs in 

Texas. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Nadel, S., A. Shipley, and R.N. Elliott. 2004. “The Technical, Economic, and Achievable 

Potential for Energy-Efficiency in the U.S.—A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies.” From 

Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 

Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Optimal Energy, Inc. 2005. Economically Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential in New 

England. Prepared for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. Bristol, VT.: Optimal 

Energy, Inc. 

[SWEEP] Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. Geller, H., S. Baldwin, P. Case, K. Emerson, T. 

Langer, & S. Wright. 2007. Utah Energy Efficiency Strategy: Policy Options. Boulder, 

Colo.: Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. 

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8-73