NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

State Energy Efficiency 

Resource Standards: Design, 

Status, and Impacts 

D. Steinberg and O. Zinaman

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-61023

May 2014
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

State Energy Efficiency 

Resource Standards: Design, 

Status, and Impacts 

D. Steinberg and O. Zinaman

Prepared under Task No. DOCC.LT12

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-61023

May 2014
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 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 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. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

 Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. 
iii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Policy and Systems 

Analysis (DOE-EPSA). The authors would like to particularly thank Bryan Mignone, Erin Boyd, 

and John Larsen from DOE-EPSA for their support of this project and comments on earlier 

drafts. In addition, the authors would like to thank Doug Arent (NREL), Galen Barbose (LBNL), 

Aaron Bergman (DOE), Steven Capanna (DOE), Elizabeth Doris (NREL), Annie Downs 

(ACEEE), Carla Frisch (DOE), Judi Greenwald (DOE), Christina Halfpenny (MA-DOER), 

Jenny Heeter (NREL), Jeffrey Logan (NREL), Karen Palmer (RFF), Katrina Pielli (DOE), and 

Richard Sedano (RAP) for their careful review and comments on the paper, as well as the 

personnel at various state energy offices and public utilities commissions that participated in the 

compilation and review of data that underlies this report. Lastly, the authors would like to 

acknowledge and thank Billy Roberts (NREL) for work on maps for this paper and other related 

efforts. 
iv

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2 Status of State EERSs .......................................................................................................... 3

3 EERS Structure and Design................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Authorities ....................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Target Type...................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Target Stringency............................................................................................................................. 9

3.3.1 Examining Existing Targets.............................................................................................. 9

3.4 Responsible Entities and Covered Load ........................................................................................ 12

3.5 Eligible Savings Measures............................................................................................................. 15

3.6 Cost Recovery................................................................................................................................ 17

3.7 Cost Containment .......................................................................................................................... 18

3.8 Incentives, Penalties, and Decoupling ........................................................................................... 19

3.8.1 Incentives and Penalties.................................................................................................. 20

3.8.2 Decoupling...................................................................................................................... 21

3.9 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification .................................................................................. 21

4 Summary..............................................................................................................................25

References................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix A. Detailed Methods—Required Savings Analysis...............................................31

Load Projection .................................................................................................................................... 31

Covered Load ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Target Harmonization........................................................................................................................... 32
v 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Figures

Figure 1. Status of state EERSs, as of January 2014.............................................................................. 3

List of Tables

Table 1. Example Showing Differences in Savings Metricsa................................................................. 6

Table 2. State EERS Target Type, Units, Basis Type, Basis, and Nominal Targets in the Final Year of 

the Policy. ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Table 3. Estimates of the Required Savings in 2015 and 2020 as a Percent of Reference Case State 

Electricity Consumption.* .............................................................................................................. 11

Table 4. Responsible Entities and Covered Load................................................................................. 14

Table 5. EERS Cost Containment Provisions, Incentives and Penalties for Compliance/NonCompliance, and Decoupling......................................................................................................... 19

Table 6. Types of Savings Metrics Used for Compliance Assessment ................................................ 23

Table 7. Key Design Elements for Energy Efficiency Resource Standards for Electricity.................. 26

Table A-1. Estimates of the Required Savings in 2015 and 2020 Under Currently Specified State 

EERSs............................................................................................................................................ 34

Table A-2. Comparison of Analyses Estimating Electricity Savings Required Under State EERSs... 35
vi 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Abstract

An energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) is a policy that requires utilities or other entities 

to achieve a specified amount of energy savings through energy efficiency programs within a 

specified timeframe. These standards can require electricity savings, natural gas savings, or both. 

This paper reviews the key design features of EERSs for electricity, explores state-level design 

variations in EERSs, and provides an estimate of the savings required by currently specified 

EERSs in each state. As of January 2014, 23 states had active and binding EERSs for 

electricity. Assuming each state that has adopted an EERS achieves full compliance with their 

targets, we estimate that state EERSs will reduce electricity consumption by approximately 5% 

below the projected level of consumption by 2015 and 8%–10% by 2020. This corresponds to a 

reduction in national electricity consumption of approximately 3% in 2015 and 4%–6% in 2020. 

The level of savings required by the policies varies significantly across states—from as low as 

1% (in Texas) to as high as 15% (in New York) in 2015. In addition to the variation in savings 

required by the standards, variation in key design elements of EERSs across states leads to 

important differences in the suite of incentives created by the standards, the compliance 

flexibility associated with the standards, the balance of benefits and costs of the standards 

between utilities and consumers, and the certainty with which the standards will drive long-term 

savings. 
1 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

State and utility efforts to increase energy efficiency were first initiated following the energy 

crisis of the mid-1970s in order to reduce the impact of soaring energy prices on consumers 

(Nowak et al. 2011; Gillingham et al. 2006). Since then, states have implemented a diverse mix 

of programs and policies to promote investment in and overcome barriers to energy efficiency, 

including the development of building energy codes, minimum efficiency standards for 

appliances, rebates and tax credits, information programs, and consumer behavioral programs.1

In earlier years, these policies and programs were justified largely as a means of reducing costs 

to end-use customers, but over time this justification has evolved to include the contribution that 

efficiency policies make toward environmental, health, and economic development goals, such 

as reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and criteria pollutants.2 

Beginning with Texas in 1999, and increasingly in the past 5–10 years, many states have chosen 

to adopt a policy or standard that requires utilities or other entities to achieve a minimum amount 

of energy savings over a specified time period through energy efficiency programs. These 

policies are typically referred to as energy efficiency resource standards (EERSs) or energy 

efficiency portfolio standards (EEPSs).3 EERSs are distinct from other types of efficiency 

policies in that they do not mandate a specific efficiency measure or set of measures but rather 

require a minimum amount of savings and allow utilities and other obligated entities to choose 

how to best achieve those savings. 

Beyond offering flexibility, EERSs have a number of other potential benefits. First, they provide 

defined targets that utilities can incorporate into their strategic planning and that regulators can 

use to evaluate performance. Second, EERSs encourage utilities (and other obligated entities) to 

minimize the cost per unit of energy saved. In the past, some states had implemented minimum 

spending mandates for efficiency programs, which guaranteed investment in efficiency but 

provided no incentive to maximize cost-effectiveness. Lastly, because EERSs set a minimum 

level of required savings, they ensure that states make progress toward achieving overall 

efficiency goals, as well as associated environmental, health, and economic development goals. 

In addition to the potential benefits of an EERS, there are also a range of potential challenges and 

costs associated with the implementation and operation of an EERS. Administration of an EERS 

involves organization and communication between a broad group of entities, including the public 

utilities commission (PUC), load-serving entities (LSEs) or other obligated entities, efficiency 

program administrators, and program evaluators. Measurement and verification of energy 

savings resulting from energy efficiency programs can be a particular challenge, not only 

because of the multiple entities involved, but also due to the complexity of estimation methods. 

However, almost every state has experience administering some form of an efficiency program, 

 

1 See Gillingham et al. (2006) for a retrospective review of efficiency policy in the United States.

2 For example, see the New York Department of Public Service’s 2008 order establishing the Energy Efficiency 

Portfolio Standard (Case 07-M-0548, 

http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7BD9F7E0DF-A518-4199-84CCC2E03950A28D%7D) and California’s Assembly Bill 2021 

(http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb1/meetings/ab_2021_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf).

3

 In this paper we will use the term EERS throughout. 
2 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and with the wide variety of programs in operation nationally, there is a wealth of knowledge 

and capability to leverage.

Currently, 23 states have EERS programs. EERSs can require savings in electricity and/or 

natural gas consumption;4 however, this paper focuses solely on electricity EERSs. There is a 

large amount of variation across states in how EERSs are structured and administered, the level 

of stringency and timing of targets, the entities that are required to comply with the targets, the 

eligible savings measures that can contribute to compliance, how the programs are funded, how 

they are enforced, and how savings are measured. In this paper, we review the key design 

features of EERSs and the challenges and benefits of variations in those design features; to 

inform this design discussion, we also evaluate the relative stringency of existing EERSs by 

developing an estimate of the savings required under each state’s standard. 

Moreover, forthcoming regulation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

limiting GHG emissions from existing power plants has renewed interest in energy efficiency 

policy design and the extent to which energy efficiency can contribute to state GHG emissions 

reduction goals. Specifically, on June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a memorandum 

directing EPA to issue standards and guidelines for existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants.5 As 

part of this process, EPA is expected to release draft guidelines to states for reducing GHG 

emissions from existing power plants by June 2014, and final guidelines to states by June 2015. 

States must then submit implementation plans to EPA for review and approval by June 2016. 

Many states and stakeholders have called for inclusion of GHG reductions from state efficiency 

programs and policies, including EERSs, adding a new level of interest in the design of state 

EERSs, and approaches for allowing savings resulting from EERSs to contribute toward

compliance with forthcoming regulations.6,7

 

4 Twenty-three states have an EERS for electricity, and 15 of those states also have an EERS for natural gas. 5 Presidential Memorandum, Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards, June, 25, 2013, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollutionstandards. 6 Open letter to EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, from 15 state environment and energy leaders. Accessed 

January 15, 2014: http://www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/default/files/EPA_Submission_from_StatesFinalCompl.pdf. 7 Report on Emission Reduction Efforts of the States Participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and 

Recommendations for Guidelines under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 

Accessed January 15, 2014: http://www.rggi.org/docs/RGGI_States_111d_Letter_Comments.pdf. 
3 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Status of State EERSs

We define an EERS as any quantitative and legally binding obligation to achieve a specified 

amount of energy savings within a specified time frame. Again, this paper only considers EERSs 

for electricity. Currently, 23 states have active EERSs, 4 states have voluntary, uncertain, or 

underfunded EERSs,8 and 2 additional states allow energy efficiency savings to contribute 

toward their renewable portfolio standard (RPS).9 

Figure 1. Status of state EERSs, as of January 2014 

According to utility and state reporting, states have generally achieved full or near full 

compliance with EERS targets in recent years (Sciortino et al. 2011; Nadel and Shenot 2011).10

In addition, among those states with EERSs, the large majority have maintained or increased the 

 

8 In states where the EERS is voluntary there is no legally binding requirement to achieve a specified amount of 

electricity savings. In states where the EERS is underfunded, although a requirement was put in place to achieve a 

specified amount of savings, the regulatory commission has not approved the use of sufficient funds to achieve the 

savings targets, and therefore it is unlikely that compliance will be achieved.

9 In total, eight states allow energy efficiency to contribute towards RPS compliance. However, six of those states 

also have standalone EERSs. 

10 In addition to Sciortino et al., some state PUCs publish periodic reports on EERS compliance. For example, see 

the California PUC’s 2010–2011 Energy Efficiency Annual Progress Evaluation Report, 

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/89718A1B-C3D5-4E30-9A82-

74ED155D0485/0/EnergyEfficiencyEvaluationReport.pdf. 
4 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

stringency of their EERS targets, with the exception of New Mexico and Illinois. New Mexico 

recently lowered its statutory EERS targets,11 and in Illinois, while the statutory targets remain 

the same, the PUC lowered the utility specific requirements in order to bring EERS compliance 

costs below a statutory cost cap.12 

 

11 See New Mexico House Bill 267, http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0267.pdf. 12 See Illinois Final Order Docket No. 10-0568, 12/21/2010, and subsequent Plan submitted by Ameren Illinois 

Company, 01/20/2011.
5 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 EERS Structure and Design

At the most basic level an EERS requires three key features:

1. Quantitative targets specifying a required amount of energy savings over a specified 

period 

2. An entity or group of entities required to meet the targets and demonstrate compliance

3. A set of energy savings activities that can be used to meet the targets

How these three features are designed, as well as whether other provisions are included—for 

instance, incentives and penalties for compliance and non-compliance—determines the 

flexibility and coverage of the policy; the incentives created by the policy; the balance of 

customer and utility benefits, costs, and risks; and the overall stringency and impacts of the 

policy. In this section we review the key design features of an EERS, discuss the potential 

impacts of alternative design choices on policy outcomes, and report on the variation in design 

across states. Specifically, we examine:

• Authorities for creation and implementation 

• Target type 

• Target stringency 

• Responsible entities and covered load

• Eligible savings measures

• Cost recovery 

• Cost containment 

• Incentives, penalties, and decoupling 

• Evaluation, measurement, and verification of savings 

3.1 Authorities 

EERSs are enacted either through state legislation, or, alternatively, by order from the state PUC. 

In the latter case, the PUC can create the EERS under specific instruction from the state 

legislature or can establish the standard under its own authority—for example, as a means of 

minimizing costs to customers. Regardless of whether the EERS is enacted through legislation or 

by order from the PUC, the PUC always plays a central role in the design and implementation of 

the standard. In 16 of the 23 states with active EERSs, the policy was initiated through state 

legislation.13 

3.2 Target Type

Savings targets can be defined in a variety of ways, and indeed states vary significantly in their 

approaches to target specification. First, targets can be specified in either “incremental” or 

“annual” terms. These terms are not used consistently across states, which can complicate the 

 

13 EERSs were initiated through legislation in the following states: CO, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NM, 

OH, PA, RI, TX, VT, and WI. 
6 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

interpretation of the nominal14 targets. In this paper, our definitions for incremental and annual 

savings are consistent with those proposed in the State and Local Energy Efficiency Action 

Network’s Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide (Schiller 2012). 

Incremental savings refers to the reduction in electricity use in a given year resulting from 

energy efficiency measures installed in that year. Annual savings15 refers to the reduction in 

electricity use in a given year resulting from energy efficiency measures installed in that year and 

measures installed in prior years that continue to provide savings.16 Table 1 provides an example 

of the different types of saving metrics defined above for a hypothetical EERS starting in 2014. 

We define the reference consumption as the amount of electricity that would have been 

consumed in the absence of the EERS. 

Table 1. Example Showing Differences in Savings Metricsa

a

 It is assumed that savings measures installed prior to 2014 do not contribute toward the annual savings.

Second, in addition to variation in the type of target (incremental or annual), EERSs can also 

differ in the units in which targets are specified: They can either be defined in absolute terms 

(e.g., X GWh/yr) or in relative terms (e.g., savings equivalent to Y% of 20ZZ electricity 

consumption). Targets that are specified in absolute terms are straightforward to interpret, as the 

amount of savings required is explicitly stated. For targets specified in relative terms, one needs 

to define the quantity from which the relative (percentage) reduction is calculated. Following 

Palmer et al. (2013), we refer to this quantity as the basis. For example, New Mexico’s EERS 

requires annual savings equivalent to 8% of 2005 electricity consumption by 2020. In this 

example, the basis would be the level of electricity consumption in 2005. 

There are two types of bases: fixed and rolling. A relative target with a fixed basis (fixedrelative) uses electricity consumption in a fixed period to calculate the required level of savings. 

For example, Arkansas’s targets are specified relative to electricity consumption in 2010. The 

EERS requires that incremental savings in 2014 and 2015 are equivalent to 0.75% and 0.9% of 

electricity consumption in 2010, respectively. Because the basis does not change with the 

compliance year, it is a fixed basis. A relative target with a rolling basis (rolling-relative) uses 

electricity consumption in a moving period that changes with the compliance year. Rolling bases 

can be electricity consumption in the year prior to the compliance year, projected electricity 

 

14 Nominal targets refer to the targets as stated in the specification of the EERS. 

15 State statutes and PUC orders under which EERSs are implemented sometimes use the term “cumulative” savings 

to refer to what we define as “annual” savings.

16 Policies that use annual savings can define a base year that specifies the earliest year in which savings measures 

are eligible to contribute toward compliance. For example, see Arizona Corporation Commission Docket No. RE00000C-09-0427, 

http://www.swenergy.org/news/news/documents/file/Arizona%20EE%20Ruling%20Approved%2012-16-09.pdf. 

2014 2015 2016

Reference Case Electricity Consumption (GWh) 1000 1100 1200

Adjusted Electricity Consumption under an EERS (GWh) 950 980 1020

Annual Savings (GWh) 50 120 180

Incremental Savings (GWh) 50 70 60
7 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

consumption in the current year,

17 or an average of electricity consumption over multiple 

previous years. For example, Iowa’s targets are specified relative to average electricity 

consumption in the three years prior to the compliance year. Because the basis changes as the 

compliance year changes, it is a rolling basis. Table 2 shows how targets are specified in each 

state, including the target type, units that the targets are specified in, the basis (for relative 

targets), and the nominal target in the final year of the policy. 

Table 2. State EERS Target Type, Units, Basis Type, Basis, and Nominal Targets in the Final Year 

of the Policy. 

* Maryland targets are specified as a percent of per capita electricity consumption. † Texas targets are specified as a percent of electricity demand growth.

 

‡ In these states, targets apply to the specified year and all years following. § Given that the nominal specifications of the EERS targets are listed and the final year of the policy varies, these 

targets cannot be directly compared across states. 

Equivalent savings targets can be achieved using any of the above approaches for target 

specification. However, there are trade-offs associated with the different approaches. First, using

incremental targets reduces the complexity of assessing compliance relative to using annual 

savings targets. Compliance with incremental targets solely requires accounting for (or 

 

17 In cases where the rolling basis is electricity consumption in the current year, the electricity consumption 

referenced is the amount of electricity that would have been consumed in the absence of the EERS, or the reference 

consumption, as defined above. 

Target Type Unit

Basis 

Type Basis

Nominal Target as 

Specified in Final Year of 

Policy§

AR Incremental Savings % Fixed 2010 Consumpt. 0.75% (2014)

AZ Annual Savings % Rolling Previous Yr’s Consumpt. 22.0% (2020)

CA Incremental Savings GWh N/A - 1,968 GWh (2014)

CO Incremental Savings GWh N/A - 549 GWh (2020)

HI Annual Savings GWh N/A - 4,300 GWh (2030)

IA Incremental Savings % Rolling Avg. of Previous 3 Yrs’ Consumpt. 1.3% (2013)

IL Incremental Savings % Rolling Previous Yr’s Consumpt. 2.0% (2015 - )‡

IN Incremental Savings % Rolling Avg. of Previous 3 Yrs' Weather-Norm. Consumpt. 2.0% (2019)

MA Incremental Savings GWh N/A - 1,275 GWh (2015)

MD Annual Savings %* Fixed 2007 Per Capita Electricity Consumpt. 15% (2015)

ME Incremental Savings GWh N/A - 139 GWh (2016)

MI Incremental Savings % Rolling Previous Yr’s Consumpt. 1.0% (2012 - )‡

MN Incremental Savings % Rolling Avg. of Previous 3 Yrs' Weather-Norm. Consumpt. 1.5% (2010 - )‡

NM Annual Savings % Fixed 2005 Electricity Consumpt. 8.0% (2020)

NY Annual Savings % Fixed 2015 Electricity Consumpt. (forecasted) 15.0% (2015)

OH Annual Savings % Rolling Avg. of Previous 3 Yrs’ Consumpt. 22.0% (2025)

OR Incremental Savings GWh N/A - 491 GWh (2014)

PA Annual Savings % Fixed June 2009 - May 2010 Consumpt. 5.3% (2016)

RI Incremental Savings GWh N/A - 189 GWh (2014)

TX Incremental Savings %† Rolling Avg. of Previous 5 Yr’s Load Growth 30% (2013 - )‡

VT Annual Savings GWh N/A - 320 GWh (2014)

WA Annual Savings GWh N/A - 8,745 GWh (2021)

WI Annual Savings GWh N/A - 1,816 GWh (2014)
8 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

estimation of) savings from measures installed in the compliance year, whereas assessing 

compliance with annual savings targets requires accounting for savings from measures installed 

both in the compliance year and previous years (as specified by the policy), as well as any 

degradation or erosion of savings from measures installed in previous years. 

Second, although assessing compliance with annual savings targets is more complex than with 

incremental savings targets, the fact that compliance is dependent not only on the savings 

measures installed in the compliance year, but also in previous years, can enhance the certainty 

with which long-term energy savings goals are achieved. Under an EERS that uses annual 

savings targets, if savings are below the target in the year prior to a compliance year, it is 

necessary to achieve an increased level of savings in the compliance year. Alternatively, with 

incremental targets, compliance is only dependent on savings in the compliance year and, 

therefore, under-compliance in prior years does not require increased savings in the compliance 

year, potentially lowering savings relative to goals over the long term. Of course, a policy using 

incremental targets could be designed such that if targets are not met consistently, they are 

adjusted upwards in future years to keep a state on track toward meeting its longer-term 

efficiency goals, but this requires intervention rather than being automatic. 

Third, incremental and annual targets generate different incentives for utilities or obligated 

entities with regard to the persistence or lifetime of efficiency measures they install. Under both 

target types, obligated entities are incentivized to identify and pursue the most cost-effective 

efficiency measures. However, under incremental targets, obligated entities may choose to 

pursue low-cost, short-lifetime measures over more costly measures that save more energy and 

may be more cost-effective over the long term, as compliance is only dependent on the 

incremental savings in a given compliance year. Under annual targets, obligated entities are 

incentivized to identify low-cost measures that achieve both near- and long-term savings, as 

compliance in a given year is not only dependent on measures installed in that year, but also on 

measures installed in previous years that continue to provide savings. Furthermore, the 

importance of long-term savings under annual targets may induce more rigorous efforts by 

obligated entities to evaluate the long-term impacts of individual efficiency measures, in order to 

ensure that they are pursuing the most cost-effective options. 

Lastly, absolute targets and fixed-relative targets are easier to assess than rolling-relative targets. 

Absolute targets and fixed-relative targets require no calculations or limited calculations, 

respectively, while rolling-relative targets require new calculations each year. In addition, 

absolute and fixed-relative targets provide certainty to the policy administrator and to the 

obligated entities on the level of savings required. However, absolute and fixed-relative targets 

are not responsive to changes in system conditions, such as changes in electricity consumption 

due to population changes or market events. For instance, if there is unexpected growth in 

electricity consumption in future years, one might assume that a greater level of savings is 

justified. Unless absolute (or fixed-relative) targets are reassessed and adjusted, the change in 

consumption will have no impact on the required savings. Rolling-relative targets, on the other 

hand, scale relative to consumption in the basis year (or years), depending on the policy, 

resulting in a savings requirement that increases or decreases depending on trends in overall 

electricity consumption. Again, if targets are periodically reviewed, absolute or fixed-relative 

targets could be adjusted to account for changes in consumption or other conditions, but this is 

not automatic. 
9 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

In sum, incremental targets offer simplicity, whereas annual targets enhance the certainty with 

which longer-term savings goals can be achieved and incentivize investment in efficiency 

measures that provide the lowest cost savings over the long term. Absolute and fixed-relative 

targets provide greater simplicity and certainty than rolling-relative targets, but rolling-relative 

targets are more responsive to changing market conditions. These tradeoffs are important to 

consider when designing or revising EERSs. 

3.3 Target Stringency

The levels of the targets chosen by a state, the coverage of the policy, and how the targets are 

specified ultimately determine the amount of savings required by the policy. Additional 

provisions, such as cost caps or alternative compliance payments, have the potential to reduce the 

level of required savings, but the target levels and specification18 are ultimately what determine

the amount of savings that the policy is intended to achieve. As a result, setting the target levels

is one of the most important design elements of an EERS.

The appropriate level at which to set targets depends on policy objectives, the potential for 

efficiency improvements, and the cost-effectiveness of available efficiency measures, all of 

which vary by state. In theory, if the objective of the policy is to achieve all cost-effective 

efficiency potential, targets should be set at a level such that the marginal cost of a savings 

measure is equal to its marginal benefit.19 This requires an estimate of the level of savings at 

which this condition is met, which may be approximated through an efficiency potential study 

(including a cost-effectiveness analysis).

20 

In practice, many states carry out analyses in order to estimate the amount of cost-effective 

efficiency potential available within their state and use that as a basis from which to set targets.21

Alternatively, some states can set targets simply based on existing knowledge of the level of 

achievable efficiency potential, relying on previously published studies, experience with existing 

efficiency programs within the state, results or experiences from similar states, and/or 

expert opinion.22 

3.3.1 Examining Existing Targets

Given the considerable variation in how EERS targets are specified (e.g., incremental vs. annual, 

absolute vs. relative, fixed vs. rolling), it is difficult to directly compare the stringency or savings 

required by EERS policies across states based on the nominal targets. In order to carry out these 

 

18 Given specific targets—for example, for years 2014 and 2015, savings must be equivalent to 2% and 3% of 2013 

consumption—how those targets are specified greatly impacts the level of savings required. For instance, if these 

targets are specified as incremental, in 2015, the annual savings required would be 5% of 2013 consumption. 

Alternatively, if the targets are specified as annual targets, the annual savings required in 2015 would only be 3% of 

2013 consumption. Thus, states must be careful to consider target specification in conjunction with target level.

19 The marginal benefit of efficiency should theoretically include the full stream of benefits from efficiency (i.e., the 

full social benefit), including avoided energy expenditures, as well as the health and environmental benefits 

associated with emissions reductions. 

20 For additional discussion on target setting, see Kushler et al. (2006), Nadel and Shenot (2011), and Mosenthal and 

Loiter (2007). 

21 For example, see “Electric Energy Efficiency Potential for Vermont,” 2011, prepared by GDS Associates and the 

Cadmus Group. 

22 For example, see S. Straton and D. York, “A Review and Analysis of Existing Studies of the Energy Efficiency 

Resource Potential in the Midwest,” 2009. 
10 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

comparisons, we converted all nominal targets into consistent units, taking into account target 

specification, future electricity demand, and the portion of demand that the policy covers (policy 

coverage is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.4). A summary of the results comparing the 

stringency of state EERS targets as a percent of total state load is provided in Table 3, and a 

detailed description of the methods and results can be found in the Appendix, along with a 

comparison to related studies. 

Although we provide a detailed description of the results in the Appendix, it is important to 

highlight one key consideration about the estimates presented. A number of state EERSs have 

targets that terminate well before 2020. As a result, in order to estimate the required savings in 

years following the termination year, an assumption must be made about the future trajectory of 

these states’ targets. Given the high degree of uncertainty about whether and how different states 

will extend their targets in future years, the analysis was completed using two different 

approaches to extending targets. Under the first approach (Method 1), it is assumed that the 

annual savings required in the years without specified targets is equal to the annual savings 

required in the final target year. Given that we also assume that the savings from measures 

installed during the analysis period persist through 2020 with no erosion of performance, this 

methodology effectively assumes that no additional incremental savings are required beyond 

what is currently required by policy in the final year. This approach will generally make states 

with only near-term targets appear less stringent than states with longer-term targets, as the 

method implicitly assumes that states with near-term targets do not implement any future EE 

measures after the final year of the policy. Under the second approach (Method 2), it is assumed 

that the incremental savings required in the years without specified targets is equal to the 

incremental savings required in the final target year. In contrast to the preceding approach, this 

method may exaggerate the level of savings required by 2020 in states with near-term targets if 

those states require a significant amount of incremental savings in the final target year of the 

policy. Given the uncertainty in the projected targets for states with targets that terminate prior to 

2020, we stress the much greater degree of certainty in the 2015 results. 

There is a considerable amount of variation in the level of savings required by state EERSs. 

Table 3 shows the estimates of the annual electricity savings required by 2015 and 2020 by state

for all currently active EERSs. The values shown refer to the amount of annual savings required 

in the specified year as a percent of reference case consumption in that year. 
11 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 3. Estimates of the Required Savings in 2015 and 2020 as a Percent of Reference Case State 

Electricity Consumption.

*

 

*

The annual savings requirements are shown as a percentage of projected total state electricity consumption under 

the reference case—our estimate of the electricity that would have been consumed in the absence of the EERS. It is 

assumed that savings measures installed prior to 2010 do not contribute towards compliance.

Annual savings required by state EERSs range from approximately 1% to 15% of reference 

consumption in 2015, irrespective of the approach used to extend targets, and from 2% to 19% or 

2% to 27% in 2020, depending on whether target extensions are based on annual or incremental 

savings. 

The consumption weighted mean of the annual savings required as a percent of total reference 

load is approximately 5% in 2015. This suggests that in states with EERSs, if targets are fully 

met, on average, electricity consumption in 2015 will be 5% lower than it would have been in the 

absence of the policy. By 2020, we estimate that electricity consumption would be, on average, 

approximately 8%–10% below reference consumption in states with EERSs depending on how 

states extend their targets in future years. This is equivalent to achieving incremental savings of 

approximately 0.7%–1% per year. 

Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Vermont 

appear to require the largest amount of savings. These states all require annual savings of at least 

State

Final Year 

of Target

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2015

(% of State Load)

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2020

(% of State Load)

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2015

(% of State Load)

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2020

(% of State Load)

AR 2014 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 6.2%

AZ 2020 5.3% 11.4% 5.3% 11.4%

CA 2014 4.0% 3.8% 3.0% 6.5%

CO 2020 3.7% 7.7% 3.7% 7.7%

HI 2030 11.0% 19.0% 11.0% 19.0%

IA 2013 3.8% 3.8% 5.6% 10.0%

IL 2020 6.5% 14.4% 6.5% 14.4%

IN 2019 3.8% 9.2% 3.8% 10.7%

MA 2015 10.8% 10.6% 10.8% 21.1%

MD 2015 14.2% 14.7% 14.2% 27.2%

ME 2016 7.1% 8.2% 7.1% 12.9%

MI 2020 5.1% 9.7% 5.1% 9.7%

MN 2020 8.7% 15.3% 8.7% 15.3%

NM 2020 3.6% 5.2% 3.6% 5.2%

NY 2015 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 27.5%

OH 2025 4.6% 10.3% 4.6% 10.3%

OR 2014 4.7% 4.5% 5.7% 10.5%

PA 2016 4.3% 5.0% 4.3% 7.8%

RI 2014 8.4% 8.3% 10.8% 22.7%

TX 2020 1.1% 2.6% 1.1% 2.6%

VT 2014 9.9% 9.8% 11.8% 21.0%

WA 2021 4.7% 8.1% 4.7% 8.1%

WI 2014 2.7% 2.6% 3.3% 6.6%

Method 1 - Annual Savings Held 

Constant in Final Year of Target

Method 2 - Incremental Savings 

Held Constant in Final Year of Target
12 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5% by 2015 and savings of at least 10% by 2020.23 This represents incremental savings of 

approximately 0.8% per year between 2010 and 2015, and 0.9% per year between 2010 and 

2020. 

3.4 Responsible Entities and Covered Load 

The responsibility of compliance with an EERS can be placed on a state’s LSEs (or some subset 

thereof), a third-party organization, a government body, or some combination of these options. 

The obligated entity (or entities) are then responsible for designing, implementing, and operating 

efficiency programs. In some cases, the obligated entity carries out this work directly, and in 

other cases, they may rely on a third-party to design, implement, and operate the programs. 

There are various institutional, market, and political considerations that influence the selection of 

the obligated entity, and there are benefits and challenges to the different structures or 

approaches that states have taken.24 Currently the most common approach is to assign 

responsibility of compliance to LSEs. Historically, administration and implementation of energy 

efficiency programs have been carried out by LSEs (as utility demand-side resource 

investments), and as a result, in many states, LSEs have developed valuable infrastructure, staff, 

and relationships with efficiency professionals. Placing the responsibility of compliance on 

LSEs, allows this infrastructure and these capabilities to be leveraged, whereas placing the 

requirement on a non-LSE entity risks losing this institutional knowledge and infrastructure.25 In 

addition to the institutional knowledge and infrastructure held by many LSEs, there are two other 

benefits to placing the obligation on LSEs. First, many LSEs (either by choice or by 

requirement), include efficiency as a resource option within their integrated resource planning 

frameworks. Placing the obligation on LSEs, therefore, allows LSEs to include EERS 

considerations within their planning activities. Second, LSEs have direct relationships with 

customers and knowledge about their preferences and consumption patterns. This gives LSEs 

key insight into the probable success of different types of efficiency programs, as well as a direct 

line of communication through which to promote or advertise programs. 

There are two significant challenges associated with placing the obligation on LSEs. First, the 

traditional business model of an LSE is in conflict with investment in energy efficiency. 

Specifically, in the absence of mitigating policies, LSEs have a disincentive to invest in 

efficiency, as successful efficiency programs result in lower energy sales and lower utility 

revenues. As a result, states that place the obligation on LSEs typically allow for revenue 

decoupling and offer monetary incentives for performance in order to both remove this 

disincentive in efficiency investment and to encourage compliance. Second, the jurisdiction of an 

LSE is limited to the customers and amount of load served within the LSE’s service territory. 

Many states that place the obligation on LSEs choose to limit the obligation to LSEs that meet 

requirements with regard to ownership structure (e.g., all investor-owned utilities [IOUs]) and/or 

 

23 Depending on whether and how these states extend targets in future years, the EERSs could require savings 

ranging from 10% to 27% of reference consumption in 2020.

24 For a complete discussion of selection of obligated entities, see “Who Should Deliver Ratepayer-Funded Energy 

Efficiency? A 2011 Update,” Sedano, 2011.

25 If a state does choose to place the requirement on a third-party or government entity, efforts can be made to retain 

essential staff, knowledge, and relationships from prior utility-run programs.
13 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

minimum thresholds for their annual revenues or the size of their customer base.26 This typically 

serves to exempt smaller LSEs from compliance, including municipal and cooperative utilities, 

and reduce the portion of total state load covered by the policy. As a result of these exemptions, 

customers in these service areas may not have the opportunity to participate in energy efficiency 

programs, and the overall state savings requirements can be diminished relative to a standard that 

covers all load.

Placing the obligation on a third-party entity, either a non-governmental entity (as is the case in 

Indiana, Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin), or government body (as is the case in 

Illinois, Maryland, and New York), provides a mechanism to circumvent both of these 

challenges. Neither a non-governmental third-party entity nor a government body has any 

inherent disincentive to invest in energy efficiency, and neither have inherent jurisdictional 

boundaries that limit their ability to reach customers. In the case of a non-governmental entity, 

there is the additional benefit that the mission of the entity can be completely aligned with the 

policy objectives. 

Although there are clear benefits to the third-party approach, there are also costs and challenges. 

There are significant start-up costs associated with the creation of a new entity (or adaptation of 

an existing entity) charged with achieving compliance. Furthermore, there may be constraints on 

the ability of a new or recently adapted entity to ramp up in size (to grow staff, establish 

relationships and infrastructure), limiting the potential amount of achievable savings in the early 

years of a policy. 

Finally, placing the requirement on a government entity creates an additional set of risks. 

Changes in state politics or state policy goals have the potential to reduce focus on energy 

efficiency and erode funding for efficiency programs. Procurement restrictions on state 

government agencies may limit flexibility in contracting with efficiency program administrators, 

hiring restrictions could limit a state’s ability to onboard the most qualified staff, and the state 

entity may be viewed as a competitor to privately owned efficiency companies. 

As is evident, there are a broad range of considerations associated with the selection of the 

obligated entity, and as a result, we observe a broad range of approaches from states that have 

implemented EERSs. Furthermore, as states have gained experience with their programs, some 

have decided to transition from one type of structure to another, demonstrating that as conditions 

and markets change, the structure of obligation can change with it.

 

26 Exemption of smaller LSEs from compliance is sometimes a direct result of the jurisdiction of the PUC, while in 

other cases, states may choose to exempt these entities from compliance as small LSEs may face a higher burden of 

compliance due to fewer customers over which to share administrative costs of EE. 
14 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 4. Responsible Entities and Covered Load 

a Note that “All LSEs” encompasses all types of utilities (including IOUs, Munis, co-ops, and public utilities) 

serving load within a state.

* See additional notes for excluded entities.

State Responsible Entities* Covered Load Additional Notes

AR IOUs, Co-ops 87%

AZ All LSEs except excluded 59% Entities with under $5,000,000 in annual revenue are excluded 

CA IOUs except excluded 75% Only Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric and 

San Diego Gas and Electric are included

CO IOUs 57%

HI All LSEs except excluded 96% Kauai Island Utility Cooperative is excluded 

IA IOUs 75%

IL All LSEs except excluded, State Gov. 89% LSEs with under 100,000 customers are excluded; state 

government entity - Dept of Comm. and Econ. Opportunity

IN All LSEs except excluded, 3rd Party 81% 3rd party entity - Energizing Indiana ; Munis and Co-ops not 

under the jurisdiction of the PUC are excluded

MA IOUs 88%

MD All LSEs, State Gov. 100% State Gov. – Energy Administration, Dept. of Housing and 

Community Devel., Dept. of General Services

ME 3rd Party 100% 3rd party entity - Efficiency Maine

MI All LSEs 100%

MN All LSEs 100%

NM IOUs 68%

NY IOUs, State Gov. 100% State Gov.– NYSERDA; Munis and Co-ops are excluded.

OH IOUs, Retail Power Marketers 89%

OR 3rd Party 69% 3rd party entity - "Energy Trust of Oregon"; targets apply to 

Portland General Electric and Pacific Power service territories

PA IOUS except excluded 96% IOUs with under 100,000 customers are excluded

RI IOUs 99%

TX All LSEs 100%

VT 3rd Party 94% 3rd party entity - “Efficiency Vermont”; City of Burlington 

administers its own energy efficiency programs

WA All LSEs except excluded 81% LSEs with 25,000 customers or less are excluded

WI 3rd Party 83% 3rd party entity-“Focus on Energy”; IOUs are required to fund 

“Focus on Energy,” and targets apply to their service 
15 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3.5 Eligible Savings Measures

Traditional energy efficiency measures, such as rebate programs for energy efficient appliances, 

home weatherization, and lighting replacement programs are widely accepted for compliance 

across EERS policies. These programs have well-established frameworks for implementation 

and methodologies for measurement and verification of savings (e.g., Jayaweera and Haeri 

2013). In order to increase flexibility, a number of EERSs allow savings from a broader set of 

measures to contribute toward compliance, including changes to building codes and appliance 

standards, market transformation efforts, behavior-based programs, supply-side efficiency 

improvements, and combined heat and power or waste heat recovery applications. Broadening 

the definition of eligible savings measures allows for greater program ambition and more 

flexibility for compliance, and as a result many states are pursuing programs/measures from 

these categories. However, expanding eligibility to these measures also increases the challenge 

of producing accurate estimates of savings toward compliance, as methods for measurement and 

attribution of savings for some of these measures can involve a higher level of uncertainty. As a 

result, there is a significant amount of recent and ongoing work pursuing improved methods for 

estimating savings from these various measures. Methods continue to be refined, resulting in 

reduced uncertainty.27 This section considers the various energy efficiency measures beyond 

traditional measures that can contribute to compliance in some states and the challenges 

associated with estimating the savings resulting from these measures. 

Building Codes and State Appliance Standards: Increasing the stringency of codes and standards 

(C&S) and the level of compliance with C&S can result in significant reductions in energy 

consumption (Lee et al, 2013). As a result, it can be advantageous to allow utility-run programs 

that increase the rate of adoption and level of compliance with C&S to contribute toward EERS 

compliance. However, in order to allow C&S to contribute to EERS compliance, a robust 

methodology is required to estimate the overall savings associated with new or increased 

compliance with existing C&S and subsequently to attribute these estimated savings to 

individual utilities for their role in advancing C&S and improving compliance. These estimates

are inherently uncertain, and as a result, there is a risk of producing inaccurate estimates of 

savings, as well as allowing non-additional28 savings to contribute toward EERS compliance. 

Although these risks exist, given the potential for large levels of savings, some states, including 

California, have chosen to allow savings from C&S to contribute towards compliance. 

Furthermore, improved methods to attribute savings from C&S to compliance entities are under 

active development.

29 

Behavior-Based Programs: Behavior-based energy efficiency programs use a variety of 

strategies that seek to change consumer energy use behavior in order to achieve energy savings 

(Todd et al. 2012). Behavioral programs seek to change individual or organizational behavior 

and decision making about energy use through outreach, education, competition, benchmarking, 

and/or informational feedback programs. Examples of targeted behaviors include turning off the 

 

27 For additional information, see Jayaweera and Haeri (2013).

28 Additional savings are savings that would not have occurred in the absence of the policy. Non-additional savings

are savings that would have occurred in the absence of the policy. 

29 See “Attributing Building Energy Code Savings to Energy Efficiency Programs,” IEE/IMT/NEEP, prepared by 

The Cadmus Group, 2013. http://neep.org/Assets/uploads/files/emv/emvproducts/NEEP_IMT_IEE_Codes%20Attribution%20FINAL%20Report%2002_16_2013.pdf. 
16 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

lights and installation of smart thermostats. Rather than directly incentivizing these changes 

through monetary payments (e.g., rebates or awards), behavioral programs typically try to alter 

decision making about end-use consumption by leveraging key economic and non-economic 

drivers of energy use decisions. For example, one behavioral approach is to introduce 

competition among energy users over who can save the most. A third-party entity provides a 

household with information on how their energy consumption compares with that of their 

neighbors. Results from these types of programs demonstrate that consumers are often 

competitive and will try to out-compete their neighbors by taking actions to reduce their 

household energy consumption. Due to their demonstrated success (Ayres et al. 2012; Allcott 

2013), behavioral programs are becoming increasingly more common, and accepted methods for 

estimating the savings resulting from programs have been developed (Todd et al. 2012). 

Other Market Transformation: Market transformation programs are designed to remove 

impediments to the widespread adoption of energy efficient technologies. Such barriers might be 

a lack of consumer awareness of the cost savings and environmental benefits of efficiency 

measures, manufacturer uncertainty about future demand for energy efficient products, or 

misinformation about the durability and quality of energy efficient goods. Market transformation 

programs can potentially have a large impact on efficiency investment, and therefore result in 

large savings. However, the relatively abstract nature of activities associated with market 

transformation makes it difficult to estimate the savings that occur as a direct result of these 

activities.30 Thus, development of robust methods to estimate the savings resulting from market 

transformation efforts is crucial to ensuring that saving from market transformation efforts that 

contribute towards EERS compliance are real and additional. 

Supply-Side31 Efficiency Measures: Although efficiency improvements to generation, 

transmission, and distribution infrastructure do not directly impact end-use consumption, in some 

cases supply-side efficiency improvements can be more cost-effective than investments in new 

generation capacity. As a result, a number of states choose to allow supply-side efficiency 

measures to contribute toward EERS compliance. Supply-side efficiency measures typically 

involve improvements or replacement of components of large scale infrastructure. As a result the 

amount of savings resulting from these investments can be estimated with a relatively high 

amount of accuracy given that the calculations can be largely based on directly measureable 

physical changes to the generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure, without 

consideration of less quantifiable drivers, such as consumer behavior. Supply-side efficiency 

measures may have a lower administrative cost than running a traditional end-use efficiency 

program, and as a result, there may be a benefit to allowing these types of measures to 

contribute. However, given that the investment is on the supply side, individual electricity 

 

30 For example, if a homeowner makes the decision to replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs, and in the 

homeowner’s locality there is both an ongoing educational campaign about efficient lighting and a utility rebate 

program for LEDs, it is difficult to determine if the savings associated with this lighting retrofit are the result of the 

rebate program, the market transformation program (in this case an informational/education program), a 

combination of both, or neither.

31 We define “supply-side” efficiency measures as any measure to improve the efficiency of generation, 

transmission, or distribution. 
17 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

consumers do not directly benefit from reduced energy use, as they might from participating in 

an end-use energy efficiency program.32

Combined Heat and Power and Waste Heat Recovery: Combined heat and power (CHP), or 

cogeneration, is the simultaneous production of electricity and heat from a single fuel source. 

Every CHP application involves the recovery of thermal energy that would otherwise be wasted 

to produce additional power or useful thermal energy. Waste heat recovery is the use of 

otherwise wasted heat from an industrial source for other thermal applications such as space 

heating. Bottoming-cycle CHP or waste heat to power is the use of otherwise wasted heat from 

an industrial source for the production of electricity. A number of states (e.g., Massachusetts, 

Michigan and Connecticut) allow savings from CHP and waste heat recovery to contribute 

towards compliance (Hedman et al. 2013). When wasted heat is used to generate electricity, or 

when heat from an industrial process is applied towards a process that would have otherwise 

used electricity, crediting CHP and/or waste heat recovery is appropriate and relatively 

straightforward. However, when CHP or waste heat recovery reduces fuel use for applications 

other than producing electricity (e.g. natural gas used for space heating), such measures may be 

more suitable for crediting under other available policies (e.g. carbon policy applied to 

generation, renewable energy standard if using biomass, EERS for natural gas, etc.) versus under 

an EERS for electricity. 

3.6 Cost Recovery

The costs of implementing energy efficiency programs are typically recovered through PUCapproved adjustments in electricity rates. These charges are usually in the form of either a 

volumetric (per kWh) charge33 or a fixed charge on the customer’s utility bill. Volumetric

charges are, by definition, structured as a charge per unit of electricity consumed, and therefore 

customers that consume larger amounts of electricity pay a larger share of the program costs. 

Fixed charges, on the other hand, do not depend on total electricity consumption, and thus each 

customer pays the same share toward program cost, regardless of their electricity consumption.34

These charges could be explicitly called out on a customer’s electricity bill (indicating that the 

charge is directly for energy efficiency programs or public benefit programs), embedded in base 

electricity rates or other riders, or listed as some combination of both. 

LSEs are responsible for the initial collection of funds from the ratepayer; thereafter, funding can 

take several paths before it is ultimately spent by covered entities implementing programs. In 

states where LSEs are required to meet targets directly, they will typically collect and administer

funding themselves; in other states, public funds or trusts exist to hold and redistribute funds. 

 

32 There could be an indirect benefit to consumers as increased supply-side efficiency may mitigate future increases 

in electricity rates as a result of reduced need for new generation capacity.

33 Volumetric charges are either built into base rates or take the form of a rider on top of base rates. For efficiency 

programs, riders are often referred to as a system benefit or public benefit charge. Public benefit funds may be used 

for a variety of energy efficiency programs, as well as for other capital investments that provide a net benefit 

to customers. 

34 Note that rates for different costumer classes (residential, commercial, industrial) typically differ.
18 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

In addition to direct ratepayer charges, some states provide proceeds from forward capacity 

markets or carbon allowance auctions to supplement other sources of funding.35

3.7 Cost Containment

The cost of complying with savings targets and the net impact on electricity rates (and total cost 

to the customer) are key concerns of utilities and state regulators in implementing EERSs. 

Ultimately, the PUC is responsible for assessing the total costs, cost-effectiveness, and ratepayer 

impacts of individual energy efficiency programs proposed by utilities to meet targets. However, 

in order to address concerns of compliance costs directly, a number of states have put in place 

cost containment provisions that limit either the total amount that can be spent on efficiency 

programs or the increase in electricity rates required to recover the cost of these programs. 

Provisions that limit total spending on efficiency programs take the form of either an aggregate 

spending cap (e.g., total resources spent on efficiency programs may not exceed $X) or an 

alternative compliance payment (ACP). ACPs allow obligated entities who fail to meet their 

target (either due to unexpectedly low savings from installed measures or due to failure to 

identify or invest in savings opportunities) to pay a fee per kilowatt-hour of savings shortfall. 

These payments are often considered penalties for non-compliance; however, they also act as a 

cost-cap as they ensure that the total cost of compliance for an obligated entity will not exceed 

the product of the required savings and the ACP. Table 5 lists the states that have cost 

containment provisions in place. To date, Illinois is the only state in which a cost containment 

cap has been triggered; however, as EERS targets increase in stringency and the lowest-cost 

efficiency options become less abundant, triggering of cost containment provisions may become 

more common. 

Cost containment provisions provide certainty to the regulator and obligated entities that 

compliance will not become prohibitively expensive and will not result in increases in electricity 

rates beyond a chosen limit. As a result, inclusion of cost containment provisions may lessen

opposition to an EERS. However, inclusion of a cost cap introduces the risk of underinvestment 

in energy efficiency relative to the social optimum if the cap is set below the marginal social 

benefit of savings. Given that it can be difficult to accurately assess the marginal benefit of 

savings and, therefore, to select the economically efficient level of a cost-cap, this risk should be 

considered when introducing or including cost-containment provisions. 

 

35 For example, the majority of proceeds from the auction of greenhouse gas emissions allowances under the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) are directed towards funding efficiency programs. 
19 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 5. EERS Cost Containment Provisions, Incentives and Penalties for Compliance/NonCompliance, and Decoupling 

 

3.8 Incentives, Penalties, and Decoupling

Under a traditional regulatory structure, utilities earn revenue by selling electricity to customers. 

With this type of regulatory structure, procuring energy efficiency decreases overall electricity 

consumption, sales, and therefore, earnings to utilities. Although PUCs allow utilities to recover 

costs of energy efficiency measures from ratepayers, cost recovery does not account for the 

reduced earnings associated with the forgone revenue from decreased electricity sales.36 As a 

result, in the absence of compensating policies, utilities have little incentive to procure 

efficiency. This disincentive to implement efficiency programs and to comply with EERSs has 

been addressed by states in a number of different ways. 

 

36 Under a traditional rate case, if a utility invests in energy efficiency measures, electricity prices are adjusted to 

collect the necessary revenue in order to recover costs of efficiency measures, including a return; however, this 

adjustment does not reflect forgone revenue resulting from the efficiency measures. Furthermore, if additional 

efficiency measures are implemented between rate cases, revenue (and earnings) would be further eroded. 

Cost Containment Incentives Penalties Decoupling

AR X

AZ X X

CA X X X X

CO X

HI X X

IA

IL X X

IN X X

MA X X X

MD X

ME X X

MI X X

MN X X

NM X X

NY X X

OH X X X

OR X

PA X X

RI X X X

TX X

VT X X X

WA X X

WI X X X X
20 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3.8.1 Incentives and Penalties

States have designed a variety of incentives for compliance and penalties for non-compliance. 

Some states have implemented just one, while others have implemented both. 

Eighteen of twenty-three states with EERSs offer performance incentives (or “shareholder” 

incentives) to utilities for achieving compliance. These incentives are typically structured as a 

scalable bonus or reward that is tied to the level of compliance or to the estimated net benefits37

of a utility’s suite of efficiency programs. For example, in Minnesota, the incentive ramps from 

$0.00/kWh-saved at a minimal level of compliance (determined annually) to $0.07/kWh-saved at 

100% compliance. Utilities in Minnesota are further incentivized to over-comply with the targets

up to 125% of the goal at which point the incentive reaches its maximum of $0.0875/kWh. In 

order to cover incentive payments, PUCs will typically set aside a portion of funds raised 

through ratepayer charges from which they will allocate payments to qualifying utilities.38 

It is important to note that performance incentives represent a partial shift of benefits (or surplus) 

from electricity consumers to utilities/obligated entities. In the absence of incentives, consumers 

are the sole monetary beneficiaries of efficiency programs implemented under an EERS.

However, given that ratepayers are the ultimate source of funds used to cover program costs, 

including incentive payments, allocation of incentives to the obligated entities shifts a portion of 

the benefits from consumers to producers/obligated entities. Thus, allocation of incentives allows 

the PUC to share or balance benefits between the consumers and producers.39 

Nine states have established rules for monetary penalties for non-compliance; five of these also 

have performance incentives. Table 5 above shows states that have incentives and penalties 

associated with compliance and non-compliance. Penalty structures vary substantially across 

states. For example, Washington administers a flat volumetric fee for every megawatt-hour of 

energy savings shortfall below 100% compliance. In California, when utilities are below 65% 

compliance, utilities pay the larger of (1) a flat volumetric fee for each megawatt-hour of 

shortfall below 65%, or (2) the net-negative benefits40 of their suite of energy efficiency 

programs. 

Although penalties exist in nine states, to date not a single penalty has been levied on a utility for 

under-compliance with an EERS target. It remains unclear what this reveals about the relative 

effectiveness of penalties as an EERS design component. This could imply that the threat of 

 

37 Net benefits are calculated as an estimate of the monetary benefits of a utility’s efficiency programs accruing to 

customers minus the cost of implementing the programs. 

38 In cases where the full incentive payments are not distributed to obligated entities, the remaining value of the 

incentive is often applied to the following year’s program budget.

39 Furthermore, in cases where performance incentives drive obligated entities to achieve savings above the target, 

the result can be an overall increase in total combined consumer and producer benefits. 

40 In California, energy savings are assigned a PUC-adopted dollar value that reflects the generation, transmission, 

distribution, and environmental costs avoided by those savings. The benefits of achieved savings are therefore the 

product of this dollar value and the achieved savings. The net benefits are calculated as the savings benefits minus 

the total costs of the programs. Programs are only approved if the expected savings benefits exceed costs (i.e. there 

are net positive benefits); however, after implementation of a program, if the achieved savings are less than the 

expected savings, costs may exceed the benefits, in which case net-benefits are negative. For additional information, 

see California Decision 07-09-043, 

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/73172.PDF. 
21 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

penalty is sufficient to drive compliance, or alternatively, that the incentives, program cost 

recovery, and/or simply a mandate from the PUC is enough to drive compliance. Finally, it is 

worth noting that even in the absence of statutory penalties for non-compliance, it is within the 

PUCs jurisdiction to levy penalties (in various forms) on non-compliant entities.

3.8.2 Decoupling

In addition to incentives and penalties, many state PUCs also permit electricity revenue 

decoupling. Decoupling is designed to break the link between the amount of energy sold by a 

utility and the revenue collected by the utility. 41 To date, electricity revenue decoupling has been 

implemented in 13 of the 23 states with EERSs. In the context of energy efficiency, decoupling 

allows utilities to recover forgone revenue resulting from decreased electricity sales associated 

with demand-side efficiency improvements. In states where decoupling is available and 

implemented, the utility and the PUC agree on a fixed amount of revenue that the utility is 

entitled to receive, and the PUC allows periodic price adjustments between rate cases in order to 

achieve the authorized level of revenue. If efficiency improvements (or other changes) result in 

reduced sales, utilities are allowed to make up the lost revenue by increasing rates. On the other 

hand, if sales increase as a result of an increase in the number of customers served (or other 

effects), electricity rates are lowered to ensure that revenue does not exceed the agreed upon 

level.42 As such, decoupling shifts the risk associated with changes in market conditions from 

utilities to customers, which can make customers better or worse off depending on the particular 

circumstances (Sotkiewicz 2007). For example, consumers are worse off in the first case above 

(due to the rate increase), while they benefit in the second case (due to the rate decrease), relative

to a market without decoupling. 

Decoupling, in isolation, is not sufficient to induce investment in efficiency by utilities (Brennan 

2010; Eto 1997). Rather, decoupling, if successful, will eliminate a utility’s disincentive to invest 

in efficiency programs. Additional policy measures, such as an EERS that requires utility 

compliance coupled with performance incentives, may be necessary to drive utilities to invest or 

administer efficiency programs. Indeed, as Table 5 demonstrates, every state with an EERS that 

employs decoupling also uses compliance incentives to promote efficiency investment. 

3.9 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification

One of the most important components of an EERS is ensuring that electricity savings reported 

from programs implemented under the EERS are real, additional to any savings that would have 

been achieved in the absence of the EERS, and accurately estimated. Without a robust process to 

estimate and verify these savings, states risk obligated entities reporting exaggerated or inflated

estimates of program savings to the regulator and greatly reducing the effectiveness of the 

standard. In addition, it is important that states ensure that programs implemented under an 

EERS are cost-effective and operated efficiently; in order to achieve this, robust estimates of the 

amount of savings achieved under energy efficiency programs are necessary. 

In order to ensure robust estimates of savings and assess cost-effectiveness and efficiency of 

programs, states have developed evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) protocols. 

 

41 For a more complete discussion of decoupling, see “Revenue Regulation and Decoupling: A Guide to Theory and 

Application,” 2011, Regulatory Assistance Project. 

42 In some states, rate adjustments under a decoupling program normalize for weather and other conditions. 
22 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

There are three main types of EM&V: impact evaluations, process evaluations, and market 

evaluations. Impact evaluations have two primary objectives: (1) to verify that energy efficiency 

programs have been implemented and associated measures have been installed, and (2) to 

estimate the amount and cost-effectiveness of savings resulting from these programs. Process 

evaluations are systematic assessments of the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of a 

program, and market evaluations assess the impact of a program on the structure or functioning 

of a market and the behavior of market participants.43 The most crucial type of evaluation for 

ensuring the effectiveness of an EERS are impact evaluations, as they ensure that reported 

savings are real and have been measured or estimated using best practices available. We provide 

a brief overview of the key considerations in carrying out impact evaluations below. 

Impact evaluations estimate gross electricity savings, net electricity savings, or in some cases, 

both. Gross savings refers to the change in energy consumption resulting from program-related 

actions taken by all consumers participating in the program. For example, if a lighting program 

offered high-efficiency bulbs (e.g., compact fluorescents) at no cost, the gross savings from this 

program would be the reduction in energy consumption resulting from program participants

replacing low-efficiency bulbs with high efficiency bulbs. Gross savings are only generated by 

measures installed—if participants received efficient bulbs through the program, but did not 

install them, no savings would be associated with the distribution of those bulbs. Net savings is 

the change in energy consumption directly attributable to a program after accounting for: 

• Non-additional savings that would have occurred in the absence of the program, often 

referred to as “free-ridership” in this context

• Increased savings that occur as an indirect result of the program, known as “spillover” 

• Decreased savings as a result of “the rebound effect” or other induced market effects.44 

Returning to our lighting example, net savings removes the gross savings associated with

participants who would have purchased the bulbs in the absence of the program (free-ridership) 

and includes savings from non-participating consumers who were indirectly influenced by the 

program to purchase efficient bulbs (spillover).

45 In addition, net savings would ideally account

for changes in energy consumption resulting from the decreased cost of energy services (rebound 

effect), as well as any other induced market effect.46

If the ultimate goal of an EERS is to reduce energy consumption below the level that would 

have been achieved in the absence of the policy, net savings is the metric most appropriate for 

determining whether or not a state or an obligated entity has achieved the savings target and 

 

43 For a detailed description of EM&V protocols, see Schiller et al. (2012). 44 The rebound effect refers to changes in energy consumption associated with changes in demand for an energy 

service that has a reduced cost as a result of an efficiency improvement. For example, replacement of incandescent 

bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs greatly reduces the cost of lighting. As a result, an individual may choose to 

increase her use of the lights, as it costs much less to operate them. The rebound effect in this case is thus the 

incremental increase in energy use associated with the increased lighting demand following the efficiency 

improvement. 

45 Spillover occurs, for instance, if a friend of a program participant is made aware of high-efficiency bulbs after 

seeing them in the program participant’s house and as a result decides to replace her own less efficient bulbs. 

46 Other induced market effects include changes in energy consumption associated with reinvestment (or 

expenditure) of money saved as a result of the energy efficiency measure being evaluated. 
23 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

whether or not the policy has been effective.

47 However, estimation of net savings can pose 

additional challenges relative to estimation of gross savings, and as a result, many states choose 

to base compliance on gross savings (Kushler et al. 2012, Kushler et al. 2014). Of the states with 

an EERS, eight states use gross savings, nine states use net savings, and six states use both 

(Kushler et al. 2012). Within the group of states that estimate net savings there is a large amount 

of variation in methods for estimating net savings, as well as in the breadth of effects that are 

accounted for (Messenger et al. 2010; Kushler et al. 2012, Kushler et al. 2014). All states that 

estimate net savings attempt to account for free-ridership. Twelve of these states also attempt to 

account for spillover. To our knowledge, no states account for the rebound effect. Variation in 

the approaches and methods used to estimate savings makes it difficult to directly compare 

estimated savings across states, as well as to compare historical levels of compliance.48 

Table 6. Types of Savings Metrics Used for Compliance Assessment

 

 

47 Note that if instead, the primary objective of an EERS is to ensure that a minimum level of savings is achieved, 

irrespective of the additionality of savings, gross savings is a sufficient measure. 

48 There are a number of ongoing efforts to improve the consistency of EM&V across states. See, for example the 

Uniform Methods Project: http://energy.gov/eere/about-us/initiatives-and-projects/uniform-methods-projectdetermining-energy-efficiency-progr-0, accessed 5/22/14.

Net, Gross, or 

Both? Freeridership Spillover

AR Net Yes Yes

AZ Gross - -

CA Both Yes Yes

CO Net Yes No

HI Both Yes Yes

IA Gross - -

IL Net Yes No

IN Gross - -

MA Net Yes Yes

MD Both Yes Yes

ME Both Yes Yes

MI Both Yes Yes

MN Gross - -

NM Net Yes No

NY Net Yes Yes

OH Gross - -

OR Net Yes Yes

PA Gross - -

RI Net Yes Yes

TX Both No No

VT Both Yes Yes

WA Gross - -

WI Both Yes Yes

Effects Accounted for in Net 

Savings Estimates
24 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Another key consideration in carrying out impact evaluations is what entity is required to execute 

the assessment. In some states, the regulator will either carry out the assessment directly, or more 

commonly, will contract with an independent third-party firm to conduct the analysis. In other 

states, obligated entities are required to contract with a third-party analyst. Finally, in some 

states, the obligated entities are allowed to carry out the analysis themselves. Independent 

evaluations conducted directly by a regulator or by an independent contractor on behalf of the 

regulator, benefit from separating the obligated entity from the estimation of savings, and as a 

result mitigate the perverse incentive that obligated entities have (or that independent contractors 

working on behalf of the obligated entities have) to exaggerate or inflate savings estimates

(Kaufman and Palmer 2011). 
25 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Summary

Under an EERS for electricity, a requirement is placed on an obligated entity or set of entities, 

often utilities or LSEs, to achieve a specified amount of electricity savings by a specified date. 

This paper explores the design and status of EERSs across states, and presents the results of an 

analysis that estimates the savings required under currently active and legally binding state 

EERSs. To date, EERSs for electricity are active and binding in 23 states. Our results indicate 

that existing EERSs will yield an average reduction in electricity consumption of approximately 

5% below reference consumption by 2015 and potentially 8%–10% by 2020, in states with 

EERSs. However, the level of savings required varies significantly across states, ranging from 

approximately 1% (in Texas) to 15% (in New York) by 2015. 

Although the basic structure of EERSs is consistent across states—each has targets, obligated 

entities (or entity), and an EM&V and compliance assessment process—specific design elements 

vary across states, including how targets are specified, what entities are obligated to comply with 

the targets, what types of efficiency measures are eligible to contribute toward compliance, how 

savings are measured, if penalties and incentives for compliance and non-compliance exist, and 

ultimately, what level of savings is required by the policies. These design choices ultimately 

determine the stringency and flexibility of the policy; the balance of customer and utility 

benefits, costs, and risks; and the extent to which the policy will lead to achievement of longterm energy savings. As a result, as states consider revising or implementing new EERSs, these 

design options should be carefully considered. Table 6 presents a summary of the design options 

for state EERSs for electricity and the implications of alternative design choices.
26 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/pu

Table 7. Key Design Elements for Energy Efficiency Resource Standards for Electricity 

Energy Efficiency Resource Standards for Electricity: Key Design Elements

Target Specification 

An energy savings target is specified in absolute (e.g. MWh) or percent terms, and consists of a type and a basis. The type determines the vintage of measure

compliance. The basis is used when a target is specified as a percent, and is the quantity by which that percent is multiplied to determine an absolute amoun

Policy Design Element Definition Key Effects, Implications, & Considerations 

Target Type 

Incremental Savings in a given year resulting from energy efficiency measures installed in that year 

▪ Compliance assessment solely requires measurement of savingmeasures installed in the given compliance year (i.e. focus on 1st▪ May incentivize lower cost measures that provide only short-te

Annual 

Savings in a given year resulting from energy efficiency measures installed in that year and measures installed in prior years (as defined by the policy) that continue to provide savings 

▪ Compliance assessment requires measurement of savings from measures installed in the compliance year and previous years (i.lifetime savings) ▪ Incentivizes measures that provide both near- and long-term sa▪ Enhances certainty of achieving long-term savings goals ▪ Increases complexity of EM&V and accounting due to erosion omeasures 

Basis Type 

Fixed 

The static quantity, typically consumption in a fixed year, by which a percentage target is multiplied to determine an absolute amount of required savings 

▪ Provides certainty in the amount of required savings ▪ Amount of required savings is unresponsive to changes in mark

Rolling 

The dynamic quantity, often consumption in the previous year, by which a percentage target is multiplied to determine an absolute amount of required savings 

▪ May create uncertainty in the amount of required savings ▪ Amount of required savings adjusts to changes in market cond

Obligated Entities

Obligated entities are the institutions ultimately responsible for compliance with an EERS. Obligated entities can include all or a subset of a state's load servi

owned utilities, electric co-ops, or municipal or state providers), state government offices, or 3rd party entities. 

Load Serving Entities (LSEs) Investor owned utilities, electric cooperatives, and municipal and state electricity providers 

▪ Established customer relationship decreases barriers and cost tcustomers and promoting programs ▪ Ability to leverage existing infrastructure, staff, and relationshithrough past efficiency program administration▪ Potential to include EERS requirements within integrated resouactivities ▪ LSEs may have a disincentive to procure energy efficiency1▪ Restricts procurement of efficiency to within service territory ocomply 

3rd Party Private, non-LSE, often non-profit entities that receive ratepayer and public funding 

▪ Has no disincentive to procure energy efficiency ▪ Procurement of EE is possible across all service territories ▪ Potentially increases initial effort and cost of establishing the n▪ Potential comparative advantage of an entity dedicated solely implementation, and administration of EE programs 

State Government State Government offices, often those affiliated with energy, public housing, or potentially air quality 

▪ Has no disincentive to procure energy efficiency ▪ Procurement of EE is possible across all service territories ▪ Fiscal, procurement, and hiring rules may limit flexibility in conacquisition, and financial operations ▪ Efficiency funding could be at risk under changing state govern
27 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/pu

Eligible Savings Measures

Electricity savings from traditional2 energy efficiency measures, such as rebate programs for energy efficient appliances, home weatherization, and light-bulb 

accepted for compliance across EERS policies. Expanding the set of eligible measures to include building codes and appliance standards, behavior-based prog

efforts, supply-side efficiency improvements, and combined heat and power expansion increases flexibility for compliance with the standard and can potent

also increase the complexity of measuring savings. In addition, these additional measures have the potential to create market-scale and long term impacts. A

eligible measures may allow states to target a higher level of electricity savings. 

Building Codes and 

Appliance Standards 

Saving associated with improving compliance with current codes and standards, or advancing the adoption of more stringent codes and standards 

▪ Large potential savings▪ Increases challenge of attributing resulting savings to individuaentities 

Behavior-Based Programs 

Programs designed specifically to impact consumer decision making around energy use, often through the provision of tailored information to individual consumers 

▪ Large potential savings▪ Use of randomized-controlled trials3 can provide robust estima▪ Recent programs have demonstrated short-term impacts; longunclear 

Other Market 

Transformation Programs 

Broad activities designed to create lasting change in market behavior by removing identified barriers or exploiting opportunities to accelerate the adoption of energy efficiency 

▪ Large potential savings▪ Increases challenge of attributing resulting savings to individuaentities 

Supply-Side Measures Efficiency upgrades to generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure 

▪ Large potential savings▪ Customers benefit indirectly - there is no reduction in end-use consumption ▪ Robust measurement of savings can be achieved through simpbased calculations 

Combined Heat and Power; 

Waste Heat Recovery 

Facilities simultaneously produce electricity and heat from a single fuel source; facilities that use otherwise wasted heat (e.g. from industrial processes) for electricity generation (CHP, waste heat to power) or for other thermal applications (waste heat recovery) 

▪ Large potential savings▪ Customers beyond those that have CHP benefit only indirectly reduction in end-use electricity consumption), while customers tbenefit directly ▪ Determining the relative contribution to compliance presents a has been addressed by states such as Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Cost Containment Mechanisms 

Cost containment mechanisms are limits placed on either the total cost of the program or the increase in electricity rates required to recover the cost of the rate impact caps, annual spending caps (typically a percent of operating revenue), or caps on specific components of individual programs (e.g. administrative 

Cost Containment Mechanisms 

▪ Shields ratepayers from significant rate increases ▪ Increases the risk of under-investment in efficiency relative to limiting overall savings if mechanisms are triggered 

Ensuring Compliance

Compliance with energy savings requirements can be encouraged in a variety of ways. Financial incentives or penalties often exist that scale with compliancthe link between LSE revenues and sales volume, and therefore removes the disincentive to procure energy efficiency. 

Incentives 

Structured financial award, typically a volumetric, scalable bonus tied to the level of compliance or estimated net benefits of a suite of energy efficiency programs 

▪ Provides incentive to achieve full compliance, and potentially o▪ Shifts a portion of benefits from ratepayers to obligated entitie

Penalties Structured monetary fine, typically a volumetric, scalable fine tied to the level of compliance ▪ Provides disincentive for non-compliance 

Revenue Decoupling A mechanism to break the link between utility energy sales and revenues ▪ Removes LSE disincentive to procure EE ▪ Changes the exposure to market risk faced by producers and co
28 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/pu

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V)

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) is the process by which the amount and cost-effectiveness of savings from energy efficiency programs arcan be measured on either a gross or net basis (or both). The responsibility for conducting EM&V can fall on either the regulator, the obligated entity, or in although the ultimate responsibility falls on either the obligated entities, the PUC, or both, these institutions often rely on a 3rd party to carry out the evalua

Metric 

Gross 

Savings 

Savings resulting from program-related activities by all participating consumers, without consideration of savings that may have occurred in the absence of the program, or other secondary effects 

▪ Reduces the complexity of estimating savings ▪ Does not account for free ridership, spillover, program overlapeffects 

Net Savings 

Savings resulting from program-related activities by all participating consumers which deducts savings that may have occurred in the absence of the program and accounts for other secondary effects 

▪ Increases the complexity of estimating savings ▪ Can account for free ridership, spillover, and broader market erebound) 

Responsibility 

for 

Conducting 

EM&V 

Obligated Entities 

▪ Can create incentive to exaggerate savings estimates & minimiEM&V ▪ LSEs have significant experience carrying out EM&V of rate-payprograms 

Public Utilities Commission ▪ Creates incentive to seek out robust estimates of savings 

Notes: 1Disincentives to procure energy efficiency result from the fact that successful efficiency measures reduce electricity sales and therefore the potential for earnconcern for not-for-profit LSEs including co-ops, munis, and other publicly owned LSEs. 2Although we refer to programs/measures such as home-weatherization, light-bulb replacement, and appliance rebates as “traditional” measures, and other note that programs/measures considered “non-traditional” have been implemented successfully in a number of states and for many years. 3Randomized controlled trials can also be used to calculate robust estimates of the savings resulting from other types of measures/programs as well, although outside of behavioral programs. 
29 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

References

Allcott, H.; Rogers, T. (2013). “The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral 

Interventions: Experimental Evidence From Energy Conservation.” NBER Working Paper, 

conditionally accepted, American Economic Review. 

Ayres, I.; Raseman, S.; Shih, A. (2012). “Evidence From Two Large Field Experiments That 

Peer Comparison Feedback can Reduce Residential Energy Usage.” Journal of Law, Economics, 

and Organization. 

Barbose, G.; Goldman, C.; Hoffman, I.; Billingsley, M. (2013). “The Future of Utility CustomerFunded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United States: Projected Spending and Savings to 

2025.” Energy Efficiency (6:3); pp. 475-493. 

Brennan, T. (2010). “Decoupling in Electric Utilities.” Journal of Regulatory Economics (38); 

pp. 49-69. 

Eto, J. (1997). “The Theory and Practice of Decoupling Utility Revenues From Sales.” Utilities 

Policy (6:1); pp. 43-55. 

Gillingham, K.; Newell, R.; Palmer, K. (2006). “Energy Efficiency Policies: A Retrospective 

Examination.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources (31); pp. 193-237. 

Hedman, B.; Hampson, A.; Rackley, J.; Wong, E.; Schwartz, L.; Lamont, D.; Woolf, T.; 

Selecky, J.; (2013). “Guide to the Successful Implementation of State Combined Heat and Power 

Policies.” State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network. Accessed April 8, 

2014: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/ 

Jayaweera, T.; Haeri, H. (2013). The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining 

Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures. NREL/SR-7A30-53827. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Kaufman, N.; Palmer, K. (2011). “Energy Efficiency Program Evaluations: Opportunities for 

Learning and Inputs to Incentive Mechanisms.” Energy Efficiency (5:2); pp. 243–268. 

Kushler, M.; Nadel, S.; York, D.; Dietsch, N.; Gander, S. (2006). “Energy Efficiency Resource 

Standards: The Next Great Leap Forward?” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in 

Buildings. 

Kushler, M.; Nowak, S.; Witte, P. (2012). “A National Survey of State Policies and Practices for 

the Evaluation of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs.” Report Number U122. 

ACEEE. 

Kushler, M.; Nowak, S.; Witte, P. (2014). “Examining the Net Savings Issue: A National Survey 

of State Policies and Practices in the Evaluation of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency 

Programs.” Report Number U1401. ACEEE. 
30 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Lee, A.; Groshans, D.; Schaffer, P.; Rekkas, A. (2013). “Attributing Building Energy Code 

Savings to Energy Efficiency Programs.” Cadmus Group, Inc. Portland, OR.

Messenger, M.; Bharvirkar, R.; Golemboski, B.; Goldman, C.A.; Schiller, S. (2010). “Review of 

Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Approaches Used to Estimate the Load Impacts and 

Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs.” LBNL-3277E. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory. 

Nadel, S.; Shenot, J. (2011). “Setting Energy Savings Targets for Utilities.” State and Local 

Energy Efficiency Action Network (SEEAction). 

Nowak, S.; Kushler, M.; Sciortino, M.; York, D.; Witte, P. (2011). “Energy Efficiency Resource 

Standards: State and Utility Strategies for High Energy Savings.” Report Number U113. 

ACEEE. 

Palmer, K.; Grausz, S.; Beasley, B.; Brennan, T. (2013). “Putting a Floor on Energy Savings: 

Comparing State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards.” Utilities Policy (25); pp. 43-57. 

Regulatory Assistance Project. (2011). “Revenue Regulation and Decoupling: A Guide to 

Theory and Application.”

Schiller, S. (2012). “Energy Efficiency Impact Evaluation Guide.” State and Local Energy 

Efficiency Action Network. Schiller Consulting, Inc. Accessed March 18, 

2014: http://www.seeaction.energy.gov. 

Sciortino, M.; Nowak, S.; Witte, P.; York, D.; Kushler, M. (2011). “Energy Efficiency Resource 

Standards: A Progress Report on State Experience.” Report Number U112. ACEEE. 

Sotkiewicz, P. (2007). Advantages and Drawbacks of Revenue Decoupling: Rate Design and 

Regulatory Implementation Does Matter. Presentation to the Florida Public Service 

Commissions Workshop on Energy Eciency Initiatives, 2007. 

Todd, A.; Stuart, E.; Schiller, S.; Goldman, C. (2012). “Evaluation, Measurement, and 

Verification (EM&V) of Residential Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency Programs: Issues and 

Recommendations.” Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Accessed March 

18, 2014: http://behavioranalytics.lbl.gov. 
31 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix A. Detailed Methods—Required Savings 

Analysis

Given the substantial amount of variation in how EERS targets are specified—incremental vs. 

annual, absolute vs. percentage, fixed vs. rolling—it is difficult to directly compare the 

stringency and expected impacts of EERS policies across states based on the nominal targets. 

Here we present an analysis that compares the stringency of state EERSs by calculating the 

electricity savings required under existing and active state EERSs from 2010–2020. We control 

for the differences in how targets are specified as well as the percent of total load covered by the 

policy. We present the normalized savings targets in terms of annual savings. 

This appendix describes the methods used to calculate the savings required under state EERS 

policies from 2010–2020. 

Load Projection

First, we developed a load projection for each state using data on current state electricity 

consumption and projected load growth from the 2012 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO12). 

Regionally specific growth rates in electricity sales from the AEO2012 for the years 2011–2020 

were applied to reported electricity sales for the year 2010 for each state.49 This resulted in 

projected electricity sales by state for 2010 through 2020. This load projection is assumed to 

represent the annual quantity of electricity that would have been consumed in the absence of the 

EERS policy. We call this projection the reference case or the reference consumption

interchangeably. 

It is important to note that the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), which is used to 

generate the annual energy outlook projections, is calibrated to historical energy consumption 

and thereby implicitly assumes a continuation of historical trends in energy efficiency change. 

Given that many states with EERSs have had active energy efficiency programs for many years, 

some of the energy efficiency that could contribute toward EERS compliance may already be 

implicitly represented in the AEO baseline. We do not expect this to have a significant impact on 

our results, particularly the percent reductions reported; however, it could result in slightly 

exaggerated levels of required savings. 

Covered Load

For each state, we calculated the percent of total load that is effectively covered by the EERS. As 

discussed earlier, some states limit the coverage of the policy to IOUs, to utilities/LSEs with a 

minimum threshold of sales, or, in the case of a third-party administered program, based on the 

jurisdiction of the third-party entity. Although these entities typically account for the majority of 

electricity sales within a state, in many states some portion of a state’s total load is not covered, 

which reduces the overall impact of the policy at the state level. Covered load ranges from 57%–

100% of total load. 

 

49 The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), which is used to conduct the AEO, has 22 electricity regions 

within the Electricity Market Module (EMM). Load growth within each region is applied to all states falling within 

the geographic extent of the EMM region. 
32 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Target Harmonization

In order to directly compare the stringency of these policies across states, we use the nominal 

target specification and the projected reference consumption to estimate the annual electricity 

savings required by year in absolute terms. For states with nominal targets specified in absolute 

terms (i.e., in gigawatt-hours of savings per year or similar), no calculation was necessary

beyond converting between incremental and annual savings. For states with percentage targets, 

the methodology employed depended on whether the targets reference a fixed or rolling basis. 

For states that use a fixed basis, we first calculated the basis consumption level using historical 

load,50 excluding any portion of the load that is not covered under the policy. The required 

savings in future years was then estimated by multiplying the covered basis load by the annual 

percentage targets. 

For states that use a rolling basis, the calculation is somewhat more complex because the savings 

requirements in future compliance years are impacted by the savings achieved in prior years—

the basis changes with the compliance year. Given this, our approach requires that we 

dynamically update the basis, taking into account the impact of past year savings on basis. In 

order to do this we calculate the absolute savings required in sequential annual steps, continually 

updating the impact of prior year savings on the basis. It is easiest to understand this through an 

example. Assume that a state has a projected reference consumption of 1,000 GWh in 2013, 

1,110 GWh in 2014, and 1,200 GWh in 2015 and has incremental savings targets of 1% of the 

prior year’s load in 2014 and 2% in 2015. In order to calculate savings in 2014, we simply 

multiply 2013 load (1,000 GWh) by the target (1%), which results in required incremental 

savings of 10 GWh. Now, in order to calculate the required savings in 2015 we must adjust the 

2014 basis to reflect the additional savings of 10 GWh. Hence, the required savings in 2015 

would be the 2014 reference load minus the 2014 required savings, or 1,100 GWh, multiplied by 

the percentage target (2%), which yields 22 GWh. Estimates of savings in future years would 

follow this same process, whereby the basis is recalculated annually after accounting for the 

impact of savings from measures installed in prior years.

There are two implicit assumptions in this calculation. First, we assume that states achieve 100% 

of their target savings in all years. Second, we assume that savings from measures installed in 

early years of the analysis period continue to provide savings throughout the entire period 

without degradation of their performance. Additionally, we assume that savings from measures 

installed prior to 2010 do not count toward compliance. In some state programs, measures that 

were installed prior to 2010 are allowed to contribute toward compliance if those measures 

continue to provide savings; however, this only applies to a small number of states and should 

not significantly impact the results. 

Lastly, a number of states’ targets terminate before 2020. Therefore, in order to estimate the 

required savings in years following the termination year, we must make some assumption about 

the future trajectory of these states’ targets. Given the high degree of uncertainty in how different 

states will extend their targets in the future, we estimate the savings required under EERSs using 

 

50 Only one state, New York, has percentage targets that reference a future fixed year basis (2015). However, the 

New York State Public Service Commission, translates these percentage targets into absolute targets, and thus we do 

not need to use a projected electricity consumption in 2015 to estimate savings. Historical load data was compiled 

from the Energy Information Administration’s form EIA-860. 
33 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

two different approaches to extending targets. Under the first approach, we assume that the 

savings required in the years without specified targets are equal to the annual savings required in 

the final target year. This effectively means that we assume no additional incremental savings on 

top of what is currently required by policy in the final year. This approach will generally make 

states with only near-term targets appear less stringent than states with longer-term targets, as 

states can realistically implement much greater savings goals over a longer timeframe. 

Under the second approach, we assume that the incremental savings required in the years without 

specified targets is equal to the incremental savings required in the final target year. In contrast 

to the preceding approach, this method may exaggerate the level of savings required by 2020 in 

states with near-term targets, but only if those states require a significant amount of incremental 

savings in the final target year of the policy—most states do not have very high incremental 

targets in the final year, but this may be a concern with regard to estimates for Maryland, 

Massachusetts, and New York. In addition, we present the required annual savings in years 2015 

and 2020. Given that most states have targets specified at least through 2014 or 2015, the target 

extension approach has minimal impact on the 2015 values presented. Given the uncertainty in 

the projected targets for states with targets that terminate prior to 2020, we stress the much 

greater degree of certainty in the 2015 results. 

Table A-1 shows our estimates of the annual electricity savings required by EERSs in all states 

with currently active and legally binding policies. The annual savings requirements shown refer 

to the amount of annual savings required in the specified year. The method type refers to the 

approach used to extend targets for states with targets that terminate prior to 2020. 
34 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table A-1. Estimates of the Required Savings in 2015 and 2020 Under Currently Specified State 

EERSs

Our estimates show that annual savings required by state EERSs range from approximately 1% 

to 15% of reference consumption in 2015 irrespective of the approach used to extend targets and 

from 2% to 19% or 2% to 27% in 2020, depending on whether target extensions are based on 

annual or incremental savings. 

The consumption weighted mean of the annual savings required as a percent of total load is 

approximately 5% in 2015. This suggests that in states with EERSs, if targets are fully met, on 

average, electricity consumption in 2015 will be 5% lower than it would have been in the 

absence of the policy. By 2020, we estimate that consumption would be, on average, 

approximately 8%–10% below reference consumption in states with EERSs depending on how 

states extend their targets in future years. This is equivalent to achieving incremental savings of 

approximately 0.7%–1% per year. 

Arizona, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and Vermont appear to require the 

largest amount of savings. These states all require annual savings of 9% to 15% by 2015 and 

savings of 10% to 20% or 11% to 27% by 2020, depending on how states extend their targets in 

future years. Arkansas and Texas require the least amount of annual savings—between 1% and 

2.5% savings by 2015. 

Our estimates, in particular results from Method 2 that extend targets based on incremental 

savings, are largely consistent with prior analyses of state EERSs and ratepayer-funded energy 

State

Final Year 

of Target

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2015

(% of State Load)

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2020

(% of State Load)

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2015

(% of State Load)

 Annual Savings 

Required in 2020

(% of State Load)

AR 2014 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 6.2%

AZ 2020 5.3% 11.4% 5.3% 11.4%

CA 2014 4.0% 3.8% 3.0% 6.5%

CO 2020 3.7% 7.7% 3.7% 7.7%

HI 2030 11.0% 19.0% 11.0% 19.0%

IA 2013 3.8% 3.8% 5.6% 10.0%

IL 2020 6.5% 14.4% 6.5% 14.4%

IN 2019 3.8% 9.2% 3.8% 10.7%

MA 2015 10.8% 10.6% 10.8% 21.1%

MD 2015 14.2% 14.7% 14.2% 27.2%

ME 2016 7.1% 8.2% 7.1% 12.9%

MI 2020 5.1% 9.7% 5.1% 9.7%

MN 2020 8.7% 15.3% 8.7% 15.3%

NM 2020 3.6% 5.2% 3.6% 5.2%

NY 2015 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 27.5%

OH 2025 4.6% 10.3% 4.6% 10.3%

OR 2014 4.7% 4.5% 5.7% 10.5%

PA 2016 4.3% 5.0% 4.3% 7.8%

RI 2014 8.4% 8.3% 10.8% 22.7%

TX 2020 1.1% 2.6% 1.1% 2.6%

VT 2014 9.9% 9.8% 11.8% 21.0%

WA 2021 4.7% 8.1% 4.7% 8.1%

WI 2014 2.7% 2.6% 3.3% 6.6%

Method 1 - Annual Savings Held 

Constant in Final Year of Target

Method 2 - Incremental Savings 

Held Constant in Final Year of Target
35 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

efficiency programs. Palmer et al. (2013), in an analysis of the impact of state EERSs on 

electricity consumption, estimate that state EERSs will result in annual savings of 12.7% in 2020 

assuming all targets are met. Similarly, Sciortino et al. (2011) extrapolate state EERS targets out 

to 2020 and estimate the electricity savings required to meet these targets. Table A-2 compares 

state-level results from this study to those from Palmer et al. and Sciortino et al.

Table A-2. Comparison of Analyses Estimating Electricity Savings Required Under State EERSs

State-level results are largely consistent across studies; however, there are a few key differences 

to note. First, the estimates from this study are, on average, slightly lower than those from 

Palmer et al. (2013) or Sciortino et al. (2011). This is likely a result of the fact that both Palmer 

et al. and Sciortino et al. report 2020 annual savings as a percent of covered load, while we 

estimate savings as a percent of total load. Given that load coverage ranges from approximately 

50% to 100% across states, required savings as a percent of total load will always be less than 

required savings as a percent of covered load (except for the case when covered load is equal to 

total load). This difference in accounting also explains the significant difference in savings 

estimates for Colorado, as the load coverage in Colorado is relatively low at 57%. Lastly, 

differences across the three studies in their approaches to projecting future consumption, 

extending targets, and calculation of the percent of load covered by the policy also contribute to 

differences across studies. 

Finally, in a national analysis of the impacts of future investment in ratepayer-funded energy 

efficiency programs on electricity consumption, Barbose et al. (2013) estimate that ratepayerfunded programs (across all states, not just those with EERSs) will result in average incremental 

State

Final Year 

of Target

This Analysis

(Method 1)

This Analysis

(Method 2)

Palmer et al. 

(2013)

Sciortino et al. 

(2011)

AR 2014 2.5% 6.2% 6.2% 6.8%

AZ 2020 11.4% 11.4% 18.2% 22.0%

CA 2014 3.8% 6.5% 16.2% 12.9%

CO 2020 7.7% 7.7% 14.9% 14.9%

HI 2030 19.0% 19.0% 21.0% 18.0%

IA 2013 3.8% 10.0% 13.4% 16.1%

IL 2020 14.4% 14.4% 16.1% 18.0%

IN 2019 9.2% 10.7% 12.6% 13.8%

MA 2015 10.6% 21.1% 22.3% 26.1%

MD 2015 14.7% 27.2% 26.9% 26.7%

ME 2016 8.2% 12.9% 13.4%

MI 2020 9.7% 9.7% 9.6% 10.6%

MN 2020 15.3% 15.3% 14.7% 16.5%

NM 2020 5.2% 5.2% 8.7% 8.1%

NY 2015 15.0% 27.5% 27.3% 26.5%

OH 2025 10.3% 10.3% 11.1% 12.1%

OR 2014 4.5% 10.5% 10.4%

PA 2016 5.0% 7.8% 8.2% 10.0%

RI 2014 8.3% 22.7% 23.0% 25.3%

TX 2020 2.6% 2.6% 4.6%

VT 2014 9.8% 21.0% 25.3% 27.0%

WA 2021 8.1% 8.1% 17.2%

WI 2014 2.6% 6.6% 13.5%

2020 Annual Savings Requirement

(% of State Load)
36 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

savings of approximately 0.72% of national electricity consumption between 2010 and 2025 

(under their medium energy efficiency program funding-case), which is equivalent to annual 

savings of approximately 11.5% by 2025. In states with EERSs (as identified in this study), 

Barbose et al. projects incremental savings of 16.3 TWh, 20.8 TWh, and 27.1 TWh in 2015, 

2020, and 2025, respectively. Dividing these results by the reference case consumption 

projections developed in this analysis implies incremental savings as a percent of consumption in 

EERS states of approximately 0.8% and 0.9% in 2015 and 2020, respectively, which is in the 

middle of the range of savings required by state EERSs, as found in this analysis.