JULY 2009

2008 WEATHERIZATION AND

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

(WIP) MARKET REPORT

Energy Efficiency &

Renewable Energy
Table of Contents 

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iv 

Acronyms........................................................................................................................................v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... vi 

Background.............................................................................................................................. vi 

Structure of this Report........................................................................................................... vii 

Forecast.................................................................................................................................... ix 

1. STATES ..................................................................................................................................... 1
 

1.1 Historical and Current Market and Performance Data ......................................................... 1 

Drivers................................................................................................................................. 1
 

Energy Efficiency Performance .......................................................................................... 3
 

Renewable Energy Performance ......................................................................................... 8
 

Biomass ................................................................................................................. 18 

Hydroelectric Generation...................................................................................... 22 

Geothermal ............................................................................................................ 27 

Distributed Solar ................................................................................................... 29 

Wind ...................................................................................................................... 30 

Overall Trends in Renewable Energy ................................................................... 35 

1.2 Status of State Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policies and Programs ............ 36 

State Energy Efficiency Policy Status .............................................................................. 36
 

State Renewable Energy Policy Status ............................................................................. 43
 

Energy Efficiency Program Spending .............................................................................. 45
 

Renewable Energy Program Spending ............................................................................. 46
 

Case Studies: Advanced/Innovative State Policies and Programs................................... 47
 

Coordinating Policy and Spending: Efficiency Vermont ........................................ 47 

State Feed-in Tariffs ................................................................................................. 48 

1.3 Federal Role........................................................................................................................ 48 

The State Energy Program (SEP) ..................................................................................... 48
 

The Technical Assistance Program (TAP) ....................................................................... 53
 

2. CITIES AND COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................ 56
 

2.1 Market and Performance Data ............................................................................................ 56
 

Drivers............................................................................................................................... 56
 

2.2 Status of Local Policies and Programs................................................................................ 56 

Municipal Sector ............................................................................................................... 58 

Power Plants...................................................................................................................... 58 

Commercial/Business and Residential Sector .................................................................. 59 

Climate Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 59 

2.3 Federal Role........................................................................................................................ 61 

2.4 Market and Performance Projections .................................................................................. 62 

3. TRIBES.................................................................................................................................... 63
 

3.1 Market Data ........................................................................................................................ 63 

Key Tribal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Drivers ........................................ 65
 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Market Potential and Performance ............... 65
 

3.2 Policy and Program Data .................................................................................................... 68 

3.3 Federal Role........................................................................................................................ 69 

3.4 Historical Funding, FY 2010 Funding Request, and Program Expansion .......................... 69 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. LOW-INCOME RESIDENTIAL EFFICIENCY ................................................................ 69
 

4.1 Market Data ........................................................................................................................ 69
 

4.2 Policy: State and Federal Measures .................................................................................... 74
 

Structure of Weatherization Program Network ................................................................ 76
 

Service Delivery Network................................................................................................. 76
 

4.3 Challenges and Barriers to Program Expansion ................................................................. 76
 

Production and Labor Force.............................................................................................. 76
 

Energy Auditing/Inspection.............................................................................................. 76
 

Quality Control Inspections .............................................................................................. 77
 

Production Staff ................................................................................................................ 77
 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Energy Use Per Capita by State (2006). ........................................................................... 4
 

Table 6. Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation: Non-hydroelectric Renewable 

Table 13. Most Improved – Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation Generated from
 

Table 18. Most Improved – Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation Generated from
 

Table 23. Most Improved – Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation Generated from
 

Table 2. 2006 Energy Use (000 BTU) per Gross State Product ($M2006).................................... 6
 

Table 3. Total On-Grid Renewable Energy Generation (2006).................................................... 10
 

Table 4. Total Non-hydro Renewable Electricity Generation (2006)........................................... 11
 

Table 5. Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation: All Renewable Resources (2006)..... 12
 

Resources (2006) .......................................................................................................................... 13
 

Table 7. Renewable Electricity Generation (2006): MWh/Capita................................................ 14
 

Table 8. Non-hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation (2006): MWh/Capita ................. 15
 

Table 9. Renewable Generation per Gross State Product (MWh/$M, 2006 GSP)....................... 16
 

Table 10. Non-hydroelectric Renewable Generation per Gross State Product (MWh/$M, 2006 

GSP).............................................................................................................................................. 17
 

Table 11. Biomass Generation (2006) .......................................................................................... 19
 

Table 12. Most Improved – Total Biomass Electricity Generated, 2001-2006 ........................... 20
 

Biomass, Change from 2001-2006 .............................................................................................. 20
 

Table 14. Most Improved – Biomass Electricity Generation Per Capita, Change from 2001-2006
 

....................................................................................................................................................... 20
 

Table 15. Most Improved – Biomass Electricity Generation per GSP, Change from 2001-2006 

....................................................................................................................................................... 20
 

Table 16. Hydroelectric Generation (2006).................................................................................. 22
 

Table 17. Most Improved – Total Hydroelectric Electricity Generated, 2001-2006.................... 24
 

Hydroelectric, Change from 2001-2006 ....................................................................................... 24
 

Table 19. Most Improved – Hydroelectric Electricity Generation Per Capita, Change from 2001-

2006............................................................................................................................................... 24
 

Table 20. Most Improved – Hydroelectric Electricity Generation per GSP, Change from 2001-

2006............................................................................................................................................... 24
 

Table 21. Geothermal Generation (2006) ..................................................................................... 27
 

Table 22. Most Improved –Total Geothermal Electricity Generated, 2001-2006........................ 28
 

Geothermal, Change from 2001-2006 .......................................................................................... 28
 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 24. Most Improved – Geothermal Electricity Generation Per Capita, Change from 2001-

Table 30. Most Improved – Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Wind, 

Table 33. Summary of Start Years and Sector Focus within State Energy Efficiency Regulations, 

Table 34. Summary of States with Renewable Energy Policies and Selected Best Practices 

(Including Market-Transformation Categories) as of June 2008.................................................. 43
 

Table 35. Summary of 2006 State-Level Investment in Energy Efficiency Ranked by Percentage 

2006............................................................................................................................................... 28
 

Table 25. Most Improved – Geothermal Electricity Generation per GSP, Change from 2001-2006
 

....................................................................................................................................................... 28
 

Table 26. Distributed Solar (On- and Off-Grid) by State (2007) ................................................. 29
 

Table 27. First Year of EIA-Recorded Wind Generation............................................................. 30
 

Table 28. Wind Generation Reported to EIA by State (2006)...................................................... 31
 

Table 29. Most Improved –Total Wind Electricity Generated, 2001-2006.................................. 33
 

Change from 2001-2006 ............................................................................................................... 33
 

Table 31. Most Improved – Wind Electricity Generation Per Capita, Change from 2001-2006 . 33
 

Table 32. Most Improved –Wind Electricity Generation per GSP, Change from 2001-2006...... 33
 

Led by Example Activities and Financial Incentives Relating to Buildings ............................... 37
 

of State Revenues.......................................................................................................................... 45
 

Table 36. Estimated 2007 Renewable Energy PBF Per Capita Spending ................................... 46
 

Table 37. DOE/EERE/WIP Dollar Value of Formula Grants to States 1999-2007 ..................... 49
 

Table 38. Special Project Grants through DOE/EERE/WIP State Energy Program Funding ..... 52
 

Table 39. TAP Request Counts from 2004-2009 by Category..................................................... 54
 

Table 40. DOE/WIP Technical Assistance Program Funding by State and Calendar Year......... 54
 

Table 41. Emission Reduction Goals Organized by Ambition of Goal........................................ 57
 

Table 42. Selection of Federal Programs with State and Local Governments ............................. 61
 

Table 43. Age of Heating Systems and Refrigerators by Program Eligibility.............................. 73
 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Feed-in tariff activity in the United States ................................................................... 48
 

Figure 2. SEP program federal funding leveraging ..................................................................... 51
 

Figure 3. Tribal Energy Program annual funding and awards...................................................... 63
 

Figure 4. Tribal project development pipeline and areas of focus................................................ 64
 

Figure 5. Solar potential on tribal lands........................................................................................ 66
 

Figure 6. Wind potential on tribal lands ....................................................................................... 67
 

Figure 7. Biomass potential on tribal lands .................................................................................. 68
 

Figure 8. Primary heating fuel for low-income households ......................................................... 71
 

Figure 9. Energy burden by income group, 2008-2009................................................................ 72
 

Figure 10. Expected energy expenditures for 2007-2008 for low-income households by primary 

heating fuel.................................................................................................................................... 73
 

Figure 11. State Weatherization Assistance Program funding survey....................................... 75
 

iii 
 

 

Acknowledgments 

Authors:	 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Elizabeth Doris and 

Roger Taylor 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL): Joel Eisenberg 

Sentech: David Posner 

Contributors: NREL: Toby Couture, Vickie Healey, Stephen Hockett, Claire Kreycik, 

and Martin Vorum 

The authors want to acknowledge the thoughtful review comments provided by Gil Sperling 

(EERE), Richard Moore (EERE), Ron Benioff (NREL), Bill Babiuch (NREL), and Bob Adams 

(NREL). 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acronyms 

ACEEE – American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

AIPC – the All-Indian Pueblo Council 

ATNI – the Affiliated Tribes on NW Indians (Pacific NW Tribes) 

ARRA – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

DOE – U.S. Department of Energy 

DSIRE – Database for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Incentives 

DSM – demand-side management 

EE – energy efficiency 

EECBG – Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants 

EERE – DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

EIA – Energy Information Administration 

FY – fiscal year for the U.S. government (October 1-September 30) 

HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

HVAC – heating, ventilation, and cooling system 

INL – Idaho National Laboratory 

IREC – Interstate Renewable Energy Council 

ITCA – the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona 

IRS – Internal Revenue Service 

kW – kilowatt 

kWh – kilowatt hour 

LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LIHEAP – Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 

MAST – Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes 

MBtu – million British thermal units 

MWh – megawatt hour 

NASCSP – National Association for State Community Services Programs 

NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

ORNL – Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

PBC – public benefits charge (aka societal benefits charge) 

PY – program year (April 1- March 31) 

RE – renewable energy 

RECS – DOE/EIA residential energy consumption survey 

REPI – renewable energy production incentive 

RPS – renewable portfolio standard 

SCTCA – the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association 

SEP – State Energy Program (within the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program/WIP) 

SIP – state implementation plan 

TAP – Technical Assistance Project (part of SEP) 

TEP – Tribal Energy Program (part of WIP) 

TWh – terawatt hour 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WAP – Weatherization Assistance Program (part of WIP) 

WIP – Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Background 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) appropriated resources to 

sustain and expand markets for energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE). Signed into 

law by President Obama on February 17, 2009, the measure includes $16.8 billion in funding for 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) in the Department of Energy 

(DOE). These resources are nearly an order of magnitude greater than the EERE appropriation 

for fiscal year 2008, which was $1.7 billion. 

Within EERE, the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP) will administer 

the majority of the ARRA dollars. The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), an 

existing WIP effort that assists in increasing the heating and cooling efficiency of residential 

housing, is slated to receive expanded funding totaling $5 billion. Through another proven 

vehicle, the State Energy Program (SEP), WIP will distribute $3.1 billion in support of stricter 

building energy codes and utility incentives for energy efficiency. WIP will also manage the 

newly designed Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG), providing $3.2 

billion in funding to facilitate a range of local and state energy-saving activities, including 

renewable power installations, energy audits, and strategic energy planning. 

In addition to direct appropriations for WIP under ARRA, EERE has received $1.2 billion in 

discretionary project funding that could also impact WIP program markets. 

WIP’s program markets are situated along the development continuum, and while some are 

clearly incipient, the majority of the markets are more advanced and to some extent 

commercialized. The relative maturity of these markets will enable WIP to make a rapid 

contribution to the economic recovery, in particular through job creation. But WIP’s strategic 

deployment of the ARRA funds will also have more enduring consequences. By developing 

knowledge, relationships, and capital infrastructure, WIP can positively impact long-term supply 

and demand within the overall RE and EE marketplace, thereby benefitting the nation for 

decades to come. 

Working across technologies and jurisdictions, WIP seeks to optimize the development of clean 

energy resources by coordinating financial investments, knowledge, and stakeholder inputs.1 

WIP contributes funding and technical assistance to partners in state and territory governments, 

local governments, low-income households, Indian tribes, municipal utilities, and international 

agencies. Excluding international efforts, which are not analyzed in this report, WIP impacts the 

market for efficiency through the following programs:2 

•	 State Energy Program (SEP)—provides grants to states to help them carry out their 

EE and RE programs. Of note, SEP funds the Clean Energy and Air Quality 

1 For more detailed descriptions, follow links on the WIP program Web page; URL: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/wip/program_areas.cfm 2 WIP also administers the International Renewable Energy Program (IREP). IREP supports technology transfer for 

sustainable development and trade in connection with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and 

related activities directed by Congress, which typically are not research and development. 

vi 
 

 

 

 

Integration Initiative and the Technical Assistance Project (TAP) for State and Local 

Officials. 

•	 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG)—provide states, 

local governments, Indian tribes, and U.S. territories with grant funds to improve 

energy efficiency and install renewable energy systems. 

•	 Tribal Energy Program (TEP)—offers financial and technical assistance to Indian 

tribes to help them create sustainable renewable energy installations on their lands. 

•	 Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)—helps low-income households reduce 

their energy bills by permanently increasing the energy efficiency of their homes. 

DOE provides funding to states, which manage the day-to-day details of the program. 

Low-income families receive services from a network of about 970 local 

weatherization service providers. 

•	 Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI)—provides financial incentives for 

renewable energy electricity produced and sold by qualified renewable energy 

generation facilities. 

Structure of this Report 

WIP integrates local needs and interests in order to promote markets for energy efficiency and 

renewable energy. Its activities are integrative across disparate technologies and market 

boundaries. In order to analyze the historical performance and forward-looking potential of this 

broad program, this report assesses market developments and outlooks at the following 

aggregated levels: 

•	 States, 

•	 Cities and Communities, 

•	 Indian Tribes, and 

•	 Low-Income Residential Efficiency. 

The analytical goals of the report are to: 

•	 identify market drivers for EE and RE, paying attention to subsidies, taxes, targets 

and mandates, environmental policy, energy security, and economic development; 

•	 assess efficacy of existing policies; 

•	 discuss challenges and barriers; 

•	 evaluate high-impact measures for overcoming challenges and barriers; and 

•	 forecast future market trends. 

States—States are progressing toward their clean energy potential at markedly different rates. 

The most successful states are combining innovative programmatic approaches with federal, 

state, and/or ratepayer funding. To date, WIP involvement has focused on funding clean energy 

projects through SEP and providing technical assistance through TAP. 

As the market drivers for clean energy react to the economic downturn, state governments are 

likely to focus on technologies and behaviors that create the most jobs. Dovetailing with this 

economic need, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants will enable states to 

rapidly—and flexibly—stimulate employment while pursuing EE and RE strategies. Continued 

vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

technical support, including research to understand best practices and additional funding for 

clean energy planning, will also be a critical market determinant. 

Cities and Communities—At the locality level, no comprehensive dataset of energy use exists. 

Various national organizations (e.g., National Association of Counties, ICLEI: Local 

Communities for Sustainability, U.S. Conference of Mayors) leverage the power of their 

members to sustain and expand markets. Historically, WIP’s primary role in cities and 

communities has been to offer technical assistance through TAP, implemented at the DOE 

regional offices and through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Under ARRA, 

which will direct the lion’s share of block grant funding to localities, WIP will have an enhanced 

ability to stimulate clean energy programs in this market. 

Tribes—Energy demand data specific to the 1.5 percent of the U.S. population that lives on 

tribal lands are not available, at least not in a central location. On the resource side, while studies 

of solar, wind, and biomass potential on tribal land have been completed, “potential” for other 

renewable resources has not been assessed. To date, WIP’s Tribal Energy Program (TEP) has 

focused on 91 energy projects to develop an EE and RE pipeline. These projects include strategic 

planning, feasibility studies, project engineering, and construction and operation. Operating in 

the market is complicated by the high proportion of low-income households, as well as by the 

complex task of liaising with the governance entities of more than 500 independent tribes. In 

addition to continuing the project development pipeline (including project financing) on tribal 

lands, other opportunities for effecting change in this market include better cataloging of data on 

energy use and EE/RE-potential, intensive workforce development, and expanded involvement 

in project planning, building, and, in certain cases, operation. 

Low-Income Residential Efficiency—Efficiency data for low-income household (defined by 

the LIHEAP program as at or below 200 percent of the poverty income guidelines) are collected 

by the WIP program and by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which conducts the 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). Low-income household energy use varies 

primarily by region and climate and follows the patterns set by the larger household market, with 

space conditioning being the primary energy use. The WIP Weatherization Assistance Program 

funds the weatherization of low-income homes through a network of 900 local community 

agencies and organizations. Recent annual funding for low-income EE programs has come from 

various federal, state, and utility resources and totaled approximately $660 million, according to 

the FY 2007 survey by the National Association for State Community Services Programs 

(NASCSP). This level will be vastly expanded as a result of FY 2009 federal regular 

appropriations, as well as funding under ARRA. The primary opportunities for program 

expansion include increased infrastructure for distribution of the funding, as well as increased 

workforce development programs to train local personnel for audits, quality control, and 

installation and production. 

viii 
 

 

 

 

Forecast 

WIP investments are expected to bolster EE and RE supply and demand by growing the trained 

manufacturing and installation workforce, and improving the cost profile and social acceptance 

of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, respectively. 

Secular trends should amplify the aforementioned developments. Three of these trends deserve 

to be highlighted: 

•	 Electricity price increases and increasing price volatility are proven drivers of EE and 

RE in WIP markets, primarily because low income participants (weatherization 

market’s primary target) and constituents (state policymakers’ target) are critically 

impacted. 

•	 Global interest in reducing carbon emissions will likely also drive the market for EE 

and RE in relevant markets. Even in the absence of international agreements, local 

climate action plans (see Cities and Communities section of this report) can be 

expected to shape market conditions. 

•	 Finally, although energy security concerns are currently overshadowed by economic 

worries, strategic imperatives are projected to bear heavily on future EE and RE 

policy determinations. 

ix 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 States 

1.1 Historical and Current Market and Performance Data 

The data used in this section are drawn from the most comprehensive sources available at the 

time of printing. The EIA catalogues state energy use by sector and end use, and utility scale 

renewable energy generation by resource. State policies are tracked by the DOE-funded 

Database for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Incentives (DSIRE) and evaluated with 

EERE funding by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and NREL. 

State investments in EE improvements and RE generation are tracked by the ACEEE and NREL, 

respectively. 

Renewable resource availability is an interdependent function of natural endowments, 

technology, and cost. Natural endowments vary primarily by geography, whereas technology and 

cost are chiefly determined by “social” variables, including overall wealth, education levels, 

financing and ownership structures, and stakeholder buy-in. 

Public policy can critically influence technology and cost development. For instance, 

governments can subsidize research and development that the private sector deems too risky. At 

more advanced stages of technology development, governments can act to create markets by 

indirect means, such as education, or directly through strategies such as mandates (e.g., a 

Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that compels use of certain green technologies even if they 

are not currently cost-effective at the margin). In emerging as well as developed markets, 

governments can impose standards and require certifications to reduce liability and transaction 

costs.3 

1.1.1 Drivers 

Typically, state policymakers are motivated by the expected impacts of increased EE and RE, 

rather than by deployment goals per se. Expected impacts are usually analyzed in terms of three 

key drivers: 

•	 Economic Development—This driver applies when state policymakers and 

implementers have an interest in promoting new industries and job creation and in 

making a positive impact on state revenues. In 2008, Pennsylvania applied this driver 

when Governor Rendell announced an investment of nearly $12 million in 24 innovative, 

alternative and RE projects through the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority 

(PEDA). It is anticipated that these projects will create at least 1,200 full- and part-time 

jobs and attract nearly $118 million in private investment. 

•	 Environmental Degradation Mitigation—This driver applies when state policymakers 

and implementers have an interest in protecting and improving air quality by decreasing 

the release of air pollutants, including carbon and carbon equivalent greenhouse gas 

emissions (GHG). During the 2007 legislative session, the Iowa Legislature applied this 

driver when creating the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council (ICCAC), consisting of 

3 For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see the EERE Web site; URL: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/feature_detail_info.cfm/start=3/fid=87 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 members appointed by the Governor.4 ICCAC was tasked with developing policy 

options to reduce Iowa’s greenhouse gas emissions. The ICCAC final report includes 56 

different policy options to reduce Iowa’s GHG emissions. Louisiana applies the 

environmental driver through the ongoing Home Energy Rebate Option Program (HERO) 

managed by the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR). HERO offers a cash 

rebate of up to $2,000 to Louisiana homeowners who renovate their homes to meet a high 

level of energy efficiency. The program is included as a voluntary measure in the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to EPA to reduce pollutant emissions in the state. 

•	 Energy Security and Fuel Diversity—This driver applies when state policymakers and 

implementers pursue goals for reducing dependence on foreign fuels and increasing selfsufficiency, which in turn, may facilitate growth in local economies and stabilization of 

energy prices. Hawaii’s Strategic Industries Division (SID) of the State of Hawaii’s 

Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism Office applies the energy 

security driver. Utilizing SEP funds, SID coordinates Hawaii’s statutory Energy 

Emergency Preparedness (EEP) functions and serves as Hawaii’s lead organization for 

management of statewide energy security, including market-related energy disruptions. 

Additionally, the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) facilitates fuel diversity via a 

Bioenergy Master Plan. Homegrown biofuels are intended to assist the state’s utilities, 

independent power producers, and end-users in meeting Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) 

targets while reducing biodiesel and ethanol imports. 

While most policies are influenced by all three drivers to some degree, individual states and 

stakeholders have unique goals and values that reflect specific economic, baseline energy, 

governance, and resource situations.5 This policy diversity is evidenced below: 

4 Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council, Final ICCAC Report (2008); URL:
 

http://www.iaclimatechange.us/capag.cfm

5 E. Brown and G. Mosey, “Analytic Framework for Evaluation of State Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
 

Policies with Reference to Stakeholder Drivers,” NREL: Golden, CO, 2008.
 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional State-level Policy Initiatives6 

2009 

Pennsylvania has met its first milestone for producing biodiesel and that has activated a new mandate 

requiring every gallon of diesel fuel sold to contain at least 2 percent biodiesel within one year. The 

milestone—production of 40 million gallons on an annualized basis—was achieved in September 2008. 

New York Governor David Paterson is calling for a clean energy plan that aims to meet 45 percent of 

New York State’s electricity needs through improved energy efficiency and greater use of renewable 

energy by 2015. The state’s current renewable portfolio standard is 25 percent by 2013. By meeting the 

new standard, Paterson said, the state could create 50,000 new jobs in the state and establish a 

workforce for a clean energy economy. 

2008 

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen has signed an executive order that requires all state agencies to use 

ENERGY STAR® products. The order is a response to recommendations made by the Governor’s Task 

Force on Energy Policy and an effort to “walk the talk” of energy efficiency and conservation. 

The California Air Resources Board has approved a plan that will lead the state to cut its greenhouse 

gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The plan combines a cap-and-trade program with many other 

measures, most of which relate to energy efficiency and renewable energy. 

The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada has approved a 500-kilovolt transmission line that would 

transmit power from solar, wind, and geothermal sources within the state to populated areas. The line 

would be the first link in the proposed Southwest Intertie Project that aims to enable transmission of 

renewable energy throughout the West. 

The Connecticut Clean Tech Fund has been established to invest in companies that focus on conserving 

energy and protecting the environment. Connecticut Innovations, the state’s quasi-public authority that 

invests in technology and innovation development, will administer the fund. 

1.1.2 Energy Efficiency Performance 

This section summarizes the most current data available on state energy efficiency relative to 

other states, normalized both by population and by gross state product. Table 1 summarizes data 

on per capita energy use by sector and state in 2006, the most recently available data-year, 

ranked by most efficient per capita.7 

6 Excepted from the EERE Web site; URL: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/project_briefs_new.cfm/volume=96 7 2007 energy data will be available later in 2009. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Energy Use Per Capita by State (2006) 

Rank 

Residential Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Transportation Sector 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

1 Hawaii 29 Hawaii 33 

District of 

Columbia 6 

District of 

Columbia 36 Ne

2 California 43 California 44 New York 24 New York 57 Rh

3 New Mexico 55 Vermont 50 Rhode Island 25 Rhode Island 61 Ma

4 

District of 

Columbia 57 Rhode Island 52 Massachusetts 31 Connecticut 74 Ca

5 New York 59 Nevada 53 Florida 32 Massachusetts 75 Ne

6 Utah 61 

New 

Hampshire 53 Maryland 33 Wisconsin 79 Co

7 Arizona 64 Maine 54 Connecticut 34 Michigan 80 Ar

8 New Jersey 66 Indiana 55 New Hampshire 36 

New 

Hampshire 80 Flo

9 Rhode Island 66 Idaho 55 Arizona 38 Illinois 83 Ma

10 Massachusetts 67 Pennsylvania 56 Vermont 49 Maryland 83 Ha

11 Colorado 67 Arizona 56 New Jersey 52 Pennsylvania 83 Ve

12 Texas 68 Mississippi 56 California 54 North Carolina 84 Mi

13 

New 

Hampshire 70 Utah 56 Hawaii 56 Vermont 88 

Dis

Co

14 Nevada 71 Oregon 57 Missouri 74 Delaware 88 Co

15 Maryland 71 Massachusetts 57 Virginia 75 Arizona 89 No

16 Wisconsin 72 Arkansas 57 North Carolina 77 Ohio 89 Ne

17 Oregon 73 Connecticut 58 Oregon 80 Idaho 90 Or

18 Illinois 73 Ohio 59 Colorado 82 Florida 90 Ut

19 Pennsylvania 74 Washington 59 Nevada 83 Colorado 91 Ne

20 Florida 74 Texas 59 South Dakota 83 Oregon 92 Illi

21 Iowa 74 Georgia 59 Michigan 83 California 93 Pe

22 Michigan 75 Kentucky 59 Utah 85 Washington 99 Wa

23 Delaware 75 Florida 59 Washington 88 Kansas 99 W

24 Minnesota 76 South Carolina 59 Illinois 94 West Virginia 100 Mi

25 Washington 77 Illinois 59 Georgia 99 Maine 100 Vir

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Energy Use Per Capita by State (2006) 

Rank 

Residential Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Transportation Sector 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

Cap 

26 Vermont 77 Michigan 60 Pennsylvania 105 Nebraska 100 Ge

27 North Carolina 77 Alabama 60 Minnesota 109 Utah 101 Oh

28 Connecticut 77 Colorado 60 Maine 112 Minnesota 102 So

29 Kansas 77 West Virginia 60 Wisconsin 114 Missouri 102 Ma

30 Ohio 77 Tennessee 62 Ohio 114 Georgia 102 Ida

31 Virginia 78 Wisconsin 62 New Mexico 118 Nevada 102 Ne

32 Georgia 78 New Mexico 62 Nebraska 118 Arkansas 103 De

33 South Dakota 79 Louisiana 62 Delaware 123 South Carolina 104 Mi

34 Mississippi 79 Iowa 63 Tennessee 126 Iowa 104 Ne

35 Indiana 80 North Carolina 63 Idaho 126 Indiana 105 Te

36 Arkansas 80 New York 65 Kansas 135 Virginia 106 Ka

37 Montana 81 Missouri 67 South Carolina 151 Tennessee 107 So

38 South Carolina 81 Oklahoma 67 Mississippi 154 Alabama 109 Iow

39 Idaho 81 Delaware 67 Iowa 166 South Dakota 112 Ar

40 Louisiana 82 Minnesota 67 Arkansas 167 Kentucky 113 Mi

41 Kentucky 82 New Jersey 70 Oklahoma 170 New Jersey 114 Ok

42 Wyoming 82 Kansas 70 Montana 172 New Mexico 118 Mo

43 Maine 82 South Dakota 71 Alabama 210 Texas 123 Ind

44 Nebraska 83 Maryland 72 West Virginia 212 Oklahoma 127 W

45 Missouri 84 Montana 73 Indiana 215 Montana 128 Ala

46 Oklahoma 85 Nebraska 74 Kentucky 215 Mississippi 130 Ke

47 Tennessee 86 Virginia 75 Texas 254 Hawaii 142 Te

48 West Virginia 87 North Dakota 89 North Dakota 318 North Dakota 143 No

49 Alabama 87 Alaska 100 Wyoming 502 Louisiana 182 Lo

50 Alaska 91 Wyoming 115 Alaska 530 Wyoming 240 Wy

51 North Dakota 94 

District of 

Columbia 201 Louisiana 570 Alaska 393 Ala

Source: Consumption: EIA Table R1. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use.htm

Census 2006 Projections. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

Table 2 shows energy use by sector and state per million dollars of gross state product (GSP) in 2006. 

Table 2. 2006 Energy Use (000 BTU) per Gross State Product ($M2006) 

Rank 

Residential Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Transportation Sector 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP S

1 

District of 

Columbia 377 Hawaii 724 

District of 

Columbia 41 

District of 

Columbia 242 

D

C

2 Hawaii 629 California 909 New York 449 New York 1,065 N

3 California 891 Delaware 960 Rhode Island 569 Delaware 1,255 C

4 Delaware 1,076 Connecticut 986 Connecticut 582 Connecticut 1,260 M

5 New York 1,102 Nevada 1,065 Massachusetts 603 Rhode Island 1,421 R

6 New Jersey 1,272 Massachusetts 1,096 Maryland 717 Massachusetts 1,434 C

7 Massachusetts 1,279 Rhode Island 1,205 Florida 809 Maryland 1,806 D

8 Connecticut 1,314 New York 1,216 

New 

Hampshire 840 Illinois 1,808 N

9 Wyoming 1,408 New Hampshire 1,245 Arizona 989 New Hampshire 1,864 M

10 Colorado 1,412 Colorado 1,266 New Jersey 1,009 Colorado 1,918 H

11 Alaska 1,431 Washington 1,285 California 1,115 California 1,919 N

12 Nevada 1,432 Texas 1,288 Hawaii 1,212 North Carolina 1,951 N

13 New Mexico 1,479 Illinois 1,299 Vermont 1,282 Wisconsin 1,975 C

14 Texas 1,479 Louisiana 1,301 Virginia 1,550 Pennsylvania 2,028 F

15 Rhode Island 1,535 Vermont 1,320 Nevada 1,666 Nevada 2,067 A

16 Maryland 1,553 

District of 

Columbia 1,333 Colorado 1,716 Michigan 2,134 Il

17 Virginia 1,604 New Jersey 1,339 Delaware 1,755 Minnesota 2,162 V

18 Illinois 1,605 Pennsylvania 1,352 North Carolina 1,783 Washington 2,165 V

19 Utah 1,611 Oregon 1,386 Washington 1,924 New Jersey 2,188 N

20 Minnesota 1,618 Minnesota 1,434 Oregon 1,941 Virginia 2,192 W

21 

New 

Hampshire 1,635 Indiana 1,454 Missouri 1,971 Oregon 2,248 O

22 Washington 1,676 Arizona 1,460 South Dakota 2,040 Ohio 2,269 M

23 Arizona 1,676 Georgia 1,460 Illinois 2,045 Florida 2,274 P

24 Louisiana 1,703 North Carolina 1,461 Michigan 2,233 Vermont 2,307 M

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. 2006 Energy Use (000 BTU) per Gross State Product ($M2006) 

Rank 

Residential Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Transportation Sector 

State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP State 

000 

BTU/ 

$M 

GSP S

25 North Carolina 1,786 Ohio 1,486 Utah 2,252 Arizona 2,324 U

26 Oregon 1,789 Florida 1,489 Minnesota 2,312 Nebraska 2,346 W

27 Wisconsin 1,791 Utah 1,489 Georgia 2,443 Kansas 2,475 G

28 Pennsylvania 1,794 Iowa 1,529 Pennsylvania 2,557 Iowa 2,527 S

29 Iowa 1,802 Maine 1,536 Nebraska 2,753 Georgia 2,535 O

30 Florida 1,861 Wisconsin 1,543 Wisconsin 2,831 Utah 2,670 M

31 Georgia 1,921 Virginia 1,558 Ohio 2,901 Texas 2,681 N

32 Kansas 1,925 Maryland 1,562 New Mexico 3,160 Missouri 2,712 N

33 Nebraska 1,934 Alaska 1,568 Maine 3,177 Idaho 2,721 K

34 South Dakota 1,946 Tennessee 1,589 Tennessee 3,244 Indiana 2,760 T

35 Ohio 1,964 Michigan 1,604 Kansas 3,361 Tennessee 2,761 M

36 Michigan 2,008 Idaho 1,664 Idaho 3,803 South Dakota 2,762 Io

37 Vermont 2,019 New Mexico 1,673 Iowa 4,042 Maine 2,836 Id

38 Indiana 2,114 Kentucky 1,694 South Carolina 4,472 South Carolina 3,064 T

39 Tennessee 2,217 Nebraska 1,723 Oklahoma 4,673 Hawaii 3,095 S

40 Missouri 2,231 Kansas 1,735 Montana 5,076 Alabama 3,141 In

41 North Dakota 2,309 Alabama 1,739 Arkansas 5,168 New Mexico 3,157 O

42 Oklahoma 2,325 South Dakota 1,746 Mississippi 5,268 Arkansas 3,188 A

43 Maine 2,328 South Carolina 1,756 Texas 5,548 West Virginia 3,219 M

44 Kentucky 2,354 Arkansas 1,762 Indiana 5,664 Kentucky 3,239 K

45 Montana 2,382 Missouri 1,778 Alabama 6,090 Oklahoma 3,481 A

46 South Carolina 2,388 Oklahoma 1,843 Kentucky 6,173 North Dakota 3,532 M

47 Idaho 2,436 Mississippi 1,928 West Virginia 6,823 Montana 3,794 W

48 Arkansas 2,477 West Virginia 1,948 North Dakota 7,841 Louisiana 3,802 N

49 Alabama 2,530 Wyoming 1,963 Alaska 8,310 Wyoming 4,110 W

50 Mississippi 2,712 Montana 2,160 Wyoming 8,598 Mississippi 4,464 A

51 West Virginia 2,813 North Dakota 2,201 Louisiana 11,910 Alaska 6,167 L

Source: Consumption: EIA Table R1. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use.ht,ml. 

Economic Analysis 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1.3 Renewable Energy Performance 

This section includes ranked tables of renewable energy electricity trends at the state level using 

the most recently available data (2006), as well as selected changes over the five-year period 

from 2001 to 2006. Renewable energy development is also divided into resources to reflect 

differing geographic availability of renewable resources. Most data and definitions of renewable 

energy are from the DOE’s statistical data agency, the EIA. Distributed solar capacity data are 

from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), which received funding through the DOE 

EERE Solar Energy Technologies Program (SETP).8 

Challenges with EIA Renewable Energy Data 

While widely considered to be the most comprehensive dataset, EIA data are not 

comprehensive, especially when it comes to RE development. Although the agency is 

constantly working to improve data collection, there are limitations to the dataset used in this 

report: 

•	 Lack of Comprehensive Reporting from D.C. and Territories—Initial analysis for this 

report included assembling data for the District of Columbia (D.C.) and five primary U.S. 

territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands). Preliminary energy data for the territories, taken from EIA sources, were 

insufficient for this analysis in terms of specificity of generation and measurement. In an 

attempt to supplement these data, personal interviews were conducted with territory energy 

contacts; however, the data remain insufficient to include territories in this analysis. Refined 

reporting of territory data in the future could allow for the territories to be included within a 

state comparison. 

•	 Lack of Comprehensive Distributed Resource Data—The EIA does not collect 

comprehensive data on distributed solar PV, and only two states report solar resource 

development. This limited dataset was augmented with data on capacity for distributed PV, 

as collected by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) with funding from the DOE 

Solar Program. Data for other distribution-energy technologies are also far from complete; 

these data limitations will be further explored in a later version of this report. 

For the purpose of this report, renewable energy is defined as: 

•	 Biomass—agricultural crops and residues; dedicated energy crops (herbaceous and tree 

species); forestry products and residues; residues and byproducts from food, feed, fiber, 

wood, and materials processing plants [sawdust from sawmills, black liquor (a byproduct of 

paper making), cheese whey (a byproduct of cheese-making processes), and animal manure]; 

post-consumer residues and wastes, such as fats, greases, oils, construction and demolition 

wood debris and other urban wood waste, municipal solid wastes and wastewater, and 

landfill gases.9 The specific EIA definition includes landfill gas/MSW biogenic, wood, and 

derived fuels.10 

•	 Geothermal—electricity produced centrally from heat in the earth. 

8 L. Sherwood, “U.S. Solar Market Trends 2007,” IREC, August 2008; URL:
 

http://www.irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/NationalOutreachPubs/IREC%20Solar%20Market%20Trends%20A
 

ugust%202008_2pdf

9 A. Milbrandt, personal communication to E. Brown, September 18, 2008. 10 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Renewable Energy Annual 2006,” DOE/EIA0603, Washington, DC, 2008; URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea_sum.html.
 

Henceforth cited as EIA 2008.
 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Conventional Hydroelectric—power from the movement of water. The EIA defines a 

conventional plant as one in which “all of the power is produced from natural streamflow as 

regulated by available storage.”11 Pumped storage is not collected and reported under this 

definition because the EIA considers it to use nonrenewable resources for operation.12 Lowimpact and distributed hydro, which may have a large potential for electricity production,13 

are not included as a result of data limitations. 

•	 Solar (central)—electricity that is converted on a large scale from the radiant heat from the 

sun, such as through concentrated solar power, concentrated PV, or similar technologies. 

•	 Solar (distributed)—on- and off-grid distributed solar electric non-central electricity 

generation resources, including residential, commercial, and industrial applications. Primary 

technology is photovoltaics (PV). 

•	 Wind—the extraction of kinetic energy from the wind for conversion into electricity. 

Table 3 displays the EIA-collected data for grid-connected renewable electricity generation for 

each state in 2006 in total megawatt hours (MWh). The dataset includes generation from 

biomass, geothermal electricity, non-distributed solar, and wind. Distributed solar data are not 

included. Considering all renewable resources in the dataset, Washington ranks first with nearly 

72 terawatt hours (TWh). 

Large-scale hydroelectric generation resources are more developed than most renewable 

resources and are removed from the dataset in Table 4. When hydroelectric resources are not 

included, California becomes the highest ranked with 24 TWh, and generates more than three 

times the renewable generation of any other state. Non-hydroelectric renewable generation in 

Arizona, Missouri, Alaska, and Delaware was less than 100,000 MWh in 2006. 

In an effort to address the differences between states in a quantitative way, this report normalizes 

renewable energy generation according to three parameters: percentage of total in-state 

electricity generation, state population, and gross state product (GSP). Generation data are from 

EIA’s Annual Energy Review.

14 Population data for the states are from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce Census Bureau. GSP data are compiled from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

11 http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/glossary_c.htm
 12 EIA 2008.
 13 http://hydropower.inl.gov/hydrofacts/undeveloped_potential.shtml
 14 EIA, “Annual Energy Review 2007,” DOE/EIA-0384, 2008.
 

9
 
 

5

10

 

15

20

 

25

 

Table 3. Total On-Grid Renewable Electricity Generation (2006) 

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh 

1 Washington 84,510,138 29 Colorado 2,687,435 

2 California 71,937,993 30 Oklahoma 2,636,500 

3 Oregon 39,720,153 31 New Hampshire 2,275,311 

4 New York 29,951,143 32 Vermont 1,968,575 

Idaho 11,941,587 33 North Dakota 1,894,063 

6 Alabama 11,157,527 34 West Virginia 1,746,190 

7 Montana 10,654,250 35 Wyoming 1,602,377 

8 Texas 8,495,704 36 Mississippi 1,541,083 

9 Tennessee 8,273,774 37 New Mexico 1,475,532 

Maine 8,252,216 38 Connecticut 1,307,212 

11 Arizona 6,846,471 39 Alaska 1,231,058 

12 Georgia 6,011,830 40 Nebraska 1,206,647 

13 North Carolina 5,673,914 41 Ohio 1,030,831 

14 Pennsylvania 5,322,011 42 Illinois 1,022,125 

Florida 4,575,897 43 Kansas 1,001,539 

16 Michigan 3,972,381 44 Utah 952,280 

17 Virginia 3,832,692 45 New Jersey 952,220 

18 Louisiana 3,744,242 46 Hawaii 737,729 

19 South Carolina 3,643,822 47 Indiana 709,829 

Minnesota 3,629,208 48 Missouri 222,117 

21 South Dakota 3,545,798 49 Rhode Island 154,822 

22 Nevada 3,401,337 50 Delaware * 

23 Iowa 3,364,068 50 American Samoa * 

24 Arkansas 3,252,360 50 D.C. * 

Kentucky 3,051,091 50 Guam * 

26 Wisconsin 3,027,307 50 

Northern 

Marianas * 

27 Massachusetts 2,791,473 50 Puerto Rico * 

28 Maryland 2,733,517 50 Virgin Islands * 

Source: EIA 2008 

*Less than 500 kilowatt hours (kWh) total renewable electricity generation, or data 

unavailable 

10
 
 

 

Table 4. Total Non-hydro Renewable Electricity Generation (2006) 

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh 

1 California 23,890,613 29 Connecticut 763,320 

2 Texas 7,833,733 30 Wyoming 759,061 

3 Florida 4,372,475 31 New Hampshire 746,401 

4 Maine 3,974,084 32 Idaho 699,215 

5 Alabama 3,905,741 33 Maryland 629,242 

6 Georgia 3,442,993 34 Hawaii 617,642 

7 Minnesota 3,057,478 35 Tennessee 525,124 

8 Louisiana 3,031,027 36 Montana 524,089 

9 New York 2,606,488 37 Kentucky 459,390 

10 Washington 2,502,509 38 Vermont 449,910 

11 Virginia 2,481,498 39 Ohio 398,895 

12 Pennsylvania 2,477,869 40 North Dakota 373,029 

13 Iowa 2,454,720 41 Nebraska 313,261 

14 Michigan 2,452,028 42 Indiana 220,314 

15 Oklahoma 2,012,921 43 Utah 205,497 

16 Oregon 1,869,856 44 West Virginia 173,757 

17 South Carolina 1,836,874 45 South Dakota 148,965 

18 North Carolina 1,834,902 46 Rhode Island 148,913 

19 Arkansas 1,701,802 47 Arizona 53,567 

20 Mississippi 1,541,083 48 Missouri 22,903 

21 Wisconsin 1,348,709 49 Alaska 7,451 

22 Nevada 1,343,711 50 Delaware * 

23 Massachusetts 1,278,828 50 American Samoa * 

24 New Mexico 1,277,321 50 D.C. * 

25 Kansas 991,890 50 Guam * 

26 New Jersey 916,784 50 Northern Marianas * 

27 Colorado 896,228 50 Puerto Rico * 

28 Illinois 848,853 50 U.S. Virgin Islands * 

Source: EIA 2008 

*Less than 500 kilowatt hours (kWh) total renewable electricity generation, or data unavailable 

Percentage of total in-state generation is a normalizing metric intended to reveal a state’s 

progress toward renewable-based electricity development, regardless of population or economic 

output. Table 5 presents the renewable percentages including hydroelectric resources, and Table 

6 presents percentages without hydroelectric. When hydroelectric is included, the northwestern 

states of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon generate at least three-quarters of in-state generation 

from renewable resources. Large-scale hydroelectric developments are the primary contributors 

to this generation. Excluding large-scale hydroelectric—in order to focus on developing markets, 

no state produces more than 25 percent of its electricity from renewable resources, and most 

states generate less than 5 percent. 

11
 
 

 

Table 5. Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation: All Renewable 

Resources (2006) 

Rank State 

% Total 

State Gen. Rank State 

% Total 

State Gen. 

1 Idaho 89.2% 29 New Mexico 4.0% 

2 Washington 78.1% 30 Nebraska 3.8% 

3 Oregon 74.5% 31 Connecticut 3.8% 

4 South Dakota 49.7% 32 Oklahoma 3.7% 

5 Maine 49.1% 33 South Carolina 3.7% 

6 Montana 37.7% 34 Wyoming 3.5% 

7 California 33.2% 35 Michigan 3.5% 

8 Vermont 27.8% 36 Mississippi 3.3% 

9 New York 21.1% 37 Kentucky 3.1% 

10 Alaska 18.4% 38 Rhode Island 2.6% 

11 Nevada 10.7% 39 Pennsylvania 2.4% 

12 New Hampshire 10.3% 40 Utah 2.3% 

13 Tennessee 8.8% 41 Kansas 2.2% 

14 Alabama 7.9% 42 Texas 2.1% 

15 Iowa 7.4% 43 Florida 2.0% 

16 Minnesota 6.8% 44 West Virginia 1.9% 

17 Arizona 6.6% 45 New Jersey 1.6% 

18 Hawaii 6.4% 46 Ohio 0.7% 

19 Arkansas 6.2% 47 Indiana 0.5% 

20 North Dakota 6.1% 48 Illinois 0.5% 

21 Massachusetts 6.1% 49 Missouri 0.2% 

22 Maryland 5.6% 50 Delaware 0.0% 

23 Colorado 5.3% 50 

American 

Samoa 0.0% 

24 Virginia 5.2% 50 D.C. 0.0% 

25 Wisconsin 4.9% 50 Guam 0.0% 

26 North Carolina 4.5% 50 

Northern 

Marianas 0.0% 

27 Georgia 4.4% 50 Puerto Rico 0.0% 

28 Louisiana 4.1% 50 Virgin Islands 0.0% 

Source: EIA 2008 

12
 
 

 

 

 

Table 6. Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation: Non-hydroelectric
 

Renewable Resources (2006)
 

Rank State 

% Total 

State Gen. Rank State 

% Total 

State Gen. 

1 Maine 23.63% 29 Montana 1.86% 

2 California 11.02% 30 South Carolina 1.85% 

3 Vermont 6.35% 31 New York 1.83% 

4 Minnesota 5.74% 32 Colorado 1.77% 

5 Iowa 5.40% 33 Wyoming 1.67% 

6 Hawaii 5.34% 34 New Jersey 1.51% 

7 Idaho 5.22% 35 North Carolina 1.47% 

8 Nevada 4.22% 36 Maryland 1.29% 

9 Oregon 3.51% 37 North Dakota 1.21% 

10 New Mexico 3.43% 38 Pennsylvania 1.13% 

11 Virginia 3.40% 39 Nebraska 0.99% 

12 New Hampshire 3.38% 40 Tennessee 0.56% 

13 Louisiana 3.33% 41 Utah 0.50% 

14 Mississippi 3.33% 42 Kentucky 0.47% 

15 Arkansas 3.26% 43 Illinois 0.44% 

16 Oklahoma 2.85% 44 Ohio 0.26% 

17 Massachusetts 2.80% 45 West Virginia 0.19% 

18 Alabama 2.77% 46 Indiana 0.17% 

19 Rhode Island 2.50% 47 Alaska 0.11% 

20 Georgia 2.49% 48 Arizona 0.05% 

21 Washington 2.31% 49 Missouri 0.02% 

22 Connecticut 2.20% 50 Delaware * 

23 Wisconsin 2.19% 50 

American 

Samoa 

* 

24 Kansas 2.18% 50 D.C. * 

25 Michigan 2.18% 50 Guam * 

26 South Dakota 2.09% 50 

Northern 

Marianas 

* 

27 Texas 1.96% 50 Puerto Rico * 

28 Florida 1.95% 50 Virgin Islands * 

Source: EIA 2008 

Normalizing for population, renewable resource use is highest in the northwestern states, with 

Washington, Montana, and Oregon exceeding 10 MWh of generation per person (Table 7). This 

performance is driven by large-scale hydroelectric resources. When those are excluded, Maine 

has the highest renewable generation per person at 3 MWh/capita, thanks in large part to wood 

and wood-waste generation, while the vast majority of states generate less than 1 MWh per 

capita (Table 8). 

13 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Table 7. Renewable Electricity Generation (2006): MWh/Capita 

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/Capita 

Washington 13.257 29 North Carolina 0.640 

Montana 11.253 30 Hawaii 0.577 

Oregon 10.761 31 Colorado 0.564 

Idaho 8.158 32 Wisconsin 0.543 

Maine 6.276 33 Mississippi 0.532 

South Dakota 4.497 34 Virginia 0.502 

Vermont 3.171 35 Maryland 0.488 

Wyoming 3.125 36 Massachusetts 0.434 

North Dakota 2.971 37 Pennsylvania 0.429 

Alabama 2.431 38 Michigan 0.393 

California 1.985 39 Connecticut 0.374 

Alaska 1.817 40 Utah 0.369 

New Hampshire 1.734 41 Kansas 0.363 

New York 1.553 42 Texas 0.363 

Nevada 1.365 43 Florida 0.253 

Tennessee 1.362 44 Rhode Island 0.146 

Arkansas 1.158 45 Indiana 0.113 

Iowa 1.132 46 New Jersey 0.110 

Arizona 1.110 47 Ohio 0.090 

West Virginia 0.965 48 Illinois 0.080 

Louisiana 0.882 49 Missouri 0.038 

South Carolina 0.842 50 Delaware * 

New Mexico 0.760 50 American Samoa * 

Oklahoma 0.737 50 D.C. * 

Kentucky 0.726 50 Guam * 

Minnesota 0.704 50 Northern Marianas * 

Nebraska 0.684 50 Puerto Rico * 

Georgia 0.644 50 Virgin Islands * 

Source: EIA 2008 

14
 
Table 8. Non-hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Ge neration (2006): MWh/Capita 

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/Capita 

1 Maine 3.022 29 Connecticut 0.218 

2 Wyoming 1.480 30 North Carolina 0.207 

3 Alabama 0.851 31 Pennsylvania 0.200 

4 Iowa 0.826 32 Massachusetts 0.199 

5 Vermont 0.725 33 South Dakota 0.189 

6 Louisiana 0.714 34 Colorado 0.188 

7 California 0.659 35 Nebraska 0.178 

8 New Mexico 0.658 36 Rhode Island 0.140 

9 Arkansas 0.606 37 New York 0.135 

10 Minnesota 0.593 38 Maryland 0.112 

11 North Dakota 0.585 39 Kentucky 0.109 

12 New Hampshire 0.569 40 New Jersey 0.106 

13 Oklahoma 0.563 41 West Virginia 0.096 

14 Montana 0.554 42 Tennessee 0.086 

15 Nevada 0.539 43 Utah 0.080 

16 Mississippi 0.532 44 Illinois 0.066 

17 Oregon 0.507 45 Indiana 0.035 

18 Hawaii 0.483 46 Ohio 0.035 

19 Idaho 0.478 47 Alaska 0.011 

20 South Carolina 0.424 48 Arizona 0.009 

21 Washington 0.393 49 Missouri 0.004 

22 Georgia 0.369 50 Delaware * 

23 Kansas 0.360 50 American Samoa * 

24 Texas 0.335 50 D.C. * 

25 Virginia 0.325 50 Guam * 

26 Michigan 0.243 50 Northern Marianas * 

27 Florida 0.242 50 Puerto Rico * 

28 Wisconsin 0.242 50 Virgin Islands * 

Source: EIA 2008 

Normalizing for economic context provides further insights into renewable electricity generation. 

Tables 9 and 10 normalize generation using gross state product (GSP), a traditional measure of 

state economic output. Ceteris paribus, states with relatively small economic output are 

advantaged by this approach. To rank higher, more economically productive states would need to 

generate a larger amount of renewable-based electricity. 

15
 
 

 

5

 

10

 

15 

20

 

 

25

Table 9. Renewable Generation per Gross State Product 

(MWh/$M, 2006 GSP) 

Rank State MWH/$M Rank State MWH/$M 

1 Montana 329.63 29 North Carolina 15.15 

2 Washington 287.91 30 Minnesota 14.84 

3 Oregon 262.52 31 Wisconsin 13.32 

4 Idaho 239.28 32 Hawaii 12.65 

Maine 175.68 33 Colorado 11.66 

6 South Dakota 109.68 34 Maryland 10.60 

7 Vermont 81.30 35 Pennsylvania 10.43 

8 North Dakota 71.79 36 Michigan 10.43 

9 Alabama 69.49 37 Virginia 10.38 

Wyoming 54.21 38 Utah 9.74 

11 California 41.65 39 Kansas 8.97 

12 

New 

Hampshire 40.43 40 Massachusetts 8.27 

13 Arkansas 35.41 41 Texas 7.97 

14 Tennessee 34.76 42 Florida 6.41 

West Virginia 31.37 43 Connecticut 6.40 

16 Alaska 29.95 44 Rhode Island 3.39 

17 Arizona 29.45 45 Indiana 2.85 

18 New York 29.31 46 Ohio 2.23 

19 Nevada 28.73 47 New Jersey 2.10 

Iowa 27.14 48 Illinois 1.73 

21 South Carolina 24.42 49 Missouri 0.98 

22 Kentucky 20.90 50 Delaware 0.00 

23 Oklahoma 19.58 51 

American 

Samoa 0.00 

24 New Mexico 19.44 51 D.C. 0.00 

Louisiana 19.39 51 Guam 0.00 

26 Mississippi 18.30 51 

Northern 

Marianas 0.00 

27 Nebraska 15.94 51 Puerto Rico 0.00 

28 Georgia 15.84 51 Virgin Islands 0.00 

Source: EIA 2008 

16
 
 

 

Table 10. Non-hydroelectric Renewable Generation per Gross State Product 

(MWh/$M, 2006 GSP) 

Rank State MWH/$M Rank State MWH/$M 

1 Maine 84.60 29 North Carolina 4.90 

2 Wyoming 25.68 30 Pennsylvania 4.86 

3 Alabama 24.32 31 South Dakota 4.61 

4 Iowa 19.80 32 Nebraska 4.14 

5 Vermont 18.58 33 Colorado 3.89 

6 Arkansas 18.53 34 Massachusetts 3.79 

7 Mississippi 18.30 35 Connecticut 3.74 

8 New Mexico 16.83 36 Rhode Island 3.26 

9 Montana 16.21 37 Kentucky 3.15 

10 Louisiana 15.69 38 West Virginia 3.12 

11 Oklahoma 14.95 39 New York 2.55 

12 North Dakota 14.14 40 Maryland 2.44 

13 Idaho 14.01 41 Tennessee 2.21 

14 California 13.83 42 Utah 2.10 

15 New Hampshire 13.26 43 New Jersey 2.02 

16 Minnesota 12.50 44 Illinois 1.44 

17 Oregon 12.36 45 Indiana 0.89 

18 South Carolina 12.31 46 Ohio 0.86 

19 Nevada 11.35 47 Arizona 0.23 

20 Hawaii 10.59 48 Alaska 0.18 

21 Georgia 9.07 49 Missouri 0.10 

22 Kansas 8.88 50 Delaware * 

23 Washington 8.53 51 American Samoa * 

24 Texas 7.35 51 D.C. * 

25 Virginia 6.72 51 Guam * 

26 Michigan 6.44 51 Northern Marianas * 

27 Florida 6.13 51 Puerto Rico * 

28 Wisconsin 5.94 51 Virgin Islands * 

Source: EIA 2008 

Resource availability is critically important to the economically feasible development of 

renewable resources because transporting resources can be a major expense. While fossil fuels 

are routinely transported from resource-rich locations to areas of high electricity demand before 

conversion to electricity, moving resources for renewable electricity generation is usually not an 

option (e.g., hydro, wind, solar) or not economical over long distances (e.g., biomass). Past and 

present subsidies also affect state-by-state performance. Subsidies are not necessarily driven by 

resource availability, sometimes leading to the development of suboptimal resources within the 

jurisdiction of the subsidy. 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

While the impact of hydroelectric generation on state rankings underscores the importance of 

understanding local and regional conditions, the data presented above do not systematically 

control for resource or subsidy availability. 

Separating RE data by technology can reveal key technology trends, for instance rapid growth in 

wind energy development has driven total renewable energy growth during the past five years. 

By capturing resource preference, these data speak—albeit, in mediated fashion—to issues of 

resource and subsidy availability. 

The following tables present rate-of-change data for generation by state and individual resource, 

with the exception of solar due to the insufficiency of data.15 For each resource, this section 

includes a ranking for 2006 generation in MWh, as well as “most improved” 2001-2006 tables 

for: 

• Total Generation 

• Percentage of Total In-State Generation 

• Generation per Capita 

• Generation per Gross State Product. 

This “most improved” ranking system intends to identify states that excel at in-state resource 

development, even if those accomplishments are overlooked when mixed in with all states and 

all resources. 

Biomass 

Overall biomass generation in 2006 is listed in Table 11. California generated the most biomassbased electricity in 2006, followed by 18 other states that produced more than 1 million MWh 

from biomass-based electricity. Eight states and all of the territories either did not report 

generation or reported none. Recent developments of biomass-based electricity, as shown in the 

following 2001-2006 data tables, occur in the central and southern United States, where there is a 

wealth of resource.16 

Table 12 presents state trends for improvement in total electricity generation (in MWh) from 

biomass, 2001 to 2006. Kentucky experienced the largest increase in total electric generation 

from biomass during this period, followed by Nebraska and South Carolina. All other states with 

documented generation from biomass sources increased generation by less than 100 percent or 

demonstrated negative growth during this period. Reductions in production of bioenergy may be 

the result of economic or resource availability challenges, transition of resources to other uses, 

closure of old technology facilities, or increasingly stringent environmental regulations. 

Table 13 lists states based on the rate of change of the percentage of total in-state generation 

from biomass sources from 2001 to 2006. Nineteen of the 44 states listed show positive 

improvements for this metric, with Kentucky experiencing a substantially larger increase in 

biomass-based electricity use than any other state. 

15 See EIA 2008.
 16 A. Milbrandt, “A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States,” 

NREL: Golden, CO, 2005; URL: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39181.pdf
 

18
 
In Table 14, states are listed based on the increase of biomass-based electricity generation per 

capita from 2001 to 2006. Of the 20 states that experienced an increase for this metric, Kentucky 

increased generation per capita at an unprecedented rate of more than 4,700 percent. Twentythree states experienced a decrease in per capita electricity generation from biomass sources. 

Table 15 lists the states based on improvement in electricity generated from biomass per GSP 

from 2001 to 2006. Kentucky leads the states, with six other states making positive 

improvements during the period. 

Table 11. Biomass Generation (2006) 

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh 

1 California 5,691,806 23 New Hampshire 746,402 

2 Florida 4,372,476 24 Maryland 629,242 

3 Maine 3,974,084 25 Illinois 594,282 

4 Alabama 3,905,741 26 Idaho 529,598 

5 Georgia 3,442,993 27 Tennessee 470,526 

6 Louisiana 3,031,027 28 Kentucky 459,390 

7 Virginia 2,481,498 29 Vermont 439,222 

8 Michigan 2,449,816 30 Ohio 384,495 

9 Pennsylvania 2,116,762 31 Hawaii 325,692 

10 New York 1,951,116 32 Oklahoma 300,480 

11 South Carolina 1,836,874 33 Indiana 220,314 

12 North Carolina 1,834,902 34 Rhode Island 148,913 

13 Arkansas 1,701,802 35 Iowa 136,899 

14 Mississippi 1,541,083 36 Montana 88,119 

15 Washington 1,464,859 37 Nebraska 52,014 

16 Massachusetts 1,278,829 38 Arizona 40,433 

17 Wisconsin 1,247,333 39 Colorado 30,692 

18 Texas 1,163,217 40 Missouri 22,807 

19 Minnesota 1,002,531 41 New Mexico 21,885 

20 Oregon 938,637 42 Utah 14,889 

21 New Jersey 900,793 43 Alaska 6,663 

22 Connecticut 763,320 44 North Dakota 3,544 

Source: EIA 2008 

19
 
 –

- 

 –

 - 

 

-

 –

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12. Most Improved Total 

Biomass Electricity Generated, 

2001 2006 17 

Rank State % Change 

1 KY 4,709% 

2 NE 211% 

3 SC 101% 

4 IN 69% 

5 UT 54% 

6 RI 44% 

7 MT 35% 

8 OK 30% 

9 IA 22% 

10 OR 19% 

11 VT 19% 

12 NM 17% 

13 VA 16% 

14 TX 15% 

15 GA 14% 

16 WA 14% 

17 AR 13% 

18 LA 10% 

19 MS 8% 

20 WI 5% 

21 AZ 4% 

Table 13. Most Improved Percentage 

of Total In State Electricity Generation 

Generated from Biomass, Change from 

2001 2006 15 

Rank State % Change 

1 KY 4,545% 

2 NE 199% 

3 RI 81% 

4 SC 80% 

5 IN 59% 

6 UT 34% 

7 MS 24% 

8 VA 17% 

9 MT 16% 

10 ME 13% 

11 IA 9% 

12 TX 7% 

13 LA 7% 

14 NM 6% 

15 OK 2% 

16 AR 2% 

17 MD 2% 

18 OR 1% 

19 WI 0% 

GA -2% 

MI -3% 

Table 14. Most Improved 

Biomass Electricity Generation 

Per Capita, Change from 2001 

2006 

Rank State % Change 

1 KY 4,553% 

2 NE 203% 

3 SC 88% 

4 IN 64% 

5 RI 43% 

6 UT 37% 

7 MT 29% 

8 OK 26% 

9 IA 20% 

10 VT 17% 

11 LA 16% 

12 OR 12% 

13 NM 10% 

14 VA 9% 

15 AR 8% 

16 WA 7% 

17 MS 6% 

18 TX 5% 

19 GA 3% 

20 WI 2% 

MD -3% 

B

R

17 According to EIA data, there was no biomass generation in Alaska from 2001 through 2005, although biomass generation was report

reason, Alaska is not included in the most improved rankings as the baseline year is the same as the year for which the most recent biom

available and, as a result, the states rate of change could not be measured. West Virginia generated electricity from biomass sources in 2

therefore, is not included in the biomass tables above. 

20
 
 –

- 

 –

 - 

 

-

 –

 -

 

 

Table 12. Most Improved Total 

Biomass Electricity Generated, 

2001 2006 17 

Rank State % Change 

22 NC 3% 

23 CA 2% 

24 MD 1% 

ID -1% 

MI -2% 

ME -3% 

AL -7% 

OH -11% 

FL -13% 

IL -18% 

PA -20% 

NY -25% 

MN -26% 

HI -29% 

NJ -31% 

NH -31% 

MA -39% 

TN -43% 

CO -52% 

ND -54% 

CT -57% 

MO -63% 

DE * 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 13. Most Improved Percentage 

of Total In State Electricity Generation 

Generated from Biomass, Change from 

2001 2006 15 

Rank State % Change 

NC -3% 

CA -7% 

VT -8% 

AZ -11% 

WA -13% 

AL -17% 

OH -18% 

NY -24% 

IL -24% 

FL -26% 

PA -28% 

ID -31% 

NJ -32% 

MN -33% 

HI -34% 

TN -42% 

MA -48% 

NH -53% 

ND -55% 

CO -56% 

CT -62% 

MO -68% 

DE * 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 14. Most Improved 

Biomass Electricity Generation 

Per Capita, Change from 2001 

2006 

Rank State % Change 

CA -3% 

MI -3% 

NC -5% 

ME -5% 

AL -10% 

ID -10% 

AZ -11% 

OH -11% 

IL -20% 

PA -21% 

FL -22% 

NY -25% 

MN -29% 

HI -32% 

NJ -32% 

NH -34% 

MA -39% 

TN -46% 

ND -54% 

CO -56% 

CT -58% 

MO -65% 

DE * 

Source: EIA 2008 

B

R

So

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1.3.1 Hydroelectric Generation 

The EIA dataset containing hydroelectric resources is limited to conventional 

hydroelectric, as are these tables. Hydroelectric generation (MWh) in 2006 is shown in 

Table 16. Geographically large states and states with large resources dominate the top of 

the overall generation rankings. Twenty-nine states generated more than 1 million MWh 

from hydro resources in 2006 – the most electricity generated out of all renewable 

resources. 

Table 16. Hydroelectric Generation (2006) 

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh 

1 Washington 82,007,629 29 Alaska 1,223,607 

2 California 48,047,380 30 Iowa 909,348 

3 Oregon 37,850,297 31 Nebraska 893,386 

4 New York 27,344,655 32 Wyoming 843,316 

5 Idaho 11,242,372 33 Utah 746,783 

6 Montana 10,130,161 34 Louisiana 713,215 

7 Tennessee 7,748,650 35 Texas 661,971 

8 Alabama 7,251,786 36 Ohio 631,936 

9 Arizona 6,792,904 37 Oklahoma 623,579 

10 Maine 4,278,132 38 Minnesota 571,730 

11 North Carolina 3,839,012 39 Connecticut 543,892 

12 South Dakota 3,396,833 40 Indiana 489,515 

13 Pennsylvania 2,844,142 41 Florida 203,422 

14 Kentucky 2,591,701 42 Missouri 199,214 

15 Georgia 2,568,837 43 New Mexico 198,211 

16 Maryland 2,104,275 44 Illinois 173,272 

17 Nevada 2,057,626 45 Hawaii 120,087 

18 South Carolina 1,806,948 46 New Jersey 35,436 

19 Colorado 1,791,207 47 Kansas 9,649 

20 Wisconsin 1,678,598 48 Rhode Island 5,909 

21 West Virginia 1,572,433 49 Delaware * 

22 Arkansas 1,550,558 49 American Samoa * 

23 New Hampshire 1,528,910 49 D.C. * 

24 North Dakota 1,521,034 49 Northern Marianas * 

25 Michigan 1,520,353 49 Virgin Islands * 

26 Vermont 1,518,665 49 Mississippi * 

27 Massachusetts 1,512,645 49 Guam * 

28 Virginia 1,351,194 49 Puerto Rico * 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 17 lists states based on improvement in total hydroelectric power generation from 

2001 to 2006. Northeastern states saw the most growth in hydroelectricity during this 

period, although the mature status of the market results in fewer large growth states. 

22 
 

 

Northeastern states may also rank high on this list because of relatively small market 

penetration in 2001 as compared to 2006. Northwestern state generation also increased in 

this time period, possibly as a result of efficiency gains in generation or expansion of 

facilities. 

Table 18 lists states based on the rate of change of the percentage of total generation 

from hydroelectric sources, 2001 to 2006. Twenty-eight states reported increases in 

percentage of electricity generated from hydroelectric resources. 

In Table 19, states with hydroelectric generation are listed based on the rate of change in 

hydroelectric generation per capita during the five years from 2001 to 2006. In general, 

generation increases kept pace with population growth. 

Table 20 ranks states based on improvement in hydroelectric generation per GSP from 

2001 to 2006. Some growth states experienced an increase in hydroelectric generation per 

GSP during this period at a lower rate than the increase in total generation, indicating that 

economic growth outstripped hydroelectric production increases during these five years. 

23
 
 – 

 

- 

 – 

 -

 

- 

 – 

 

- 

Table 17. Most Improved 

Total Hydroelectric Electricity 

Generated, 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

1 MA 115.32% 

2 NJ 96.86% 

3 CT 89.92% 

4 CA 88.11% 

5 RI 88.01% 

6 MD 77.80% 

7 PA 72.37% 

8 VT 71.75% 

9 WV 65.18% 

10 ME 61.74% 

11 ID 55.64% 

12 NH 54.34% 

13 MT 53.17% 

14 WA 49.83% 

15 NC 47.90% 

16 SC 47.45% 

17 UT 46.89% 

18 FL 37.71% 

19 VA 33.22% 

Table 18. Most Improved 

Percentage of Total In State 

Electricity Generation 

Generated from Hydroelectric, 

Change from 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

1 RI 136.34% 

2 NJ 92.71% 

3 ME 88.17% 

4 MA 81.70% 

5 MD 78.18% 

6 CA 72.32% 

7 CT 66.97% 

8 PA 54.86% 

9 WV 44.09% 

10 NC 38.78% 

11 VA 35.11% 

12 VT 32.87% 

13 SC 32.44% 

14 MT 31.42% 

15 UT 27.63% 

16 NY 19.83% 

17 FL 17.52% 

18 WA 15.00% 

19 TN 14.29% 

Table 19. Most Improved 

Hydroelectric Electricity 

Generation Per Capita, 

Change from 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

1 MA 114.43% 

2 NJ 92.98% 

3 RI 87.44% 

4 CT 86.34% 

5 CA 79.17% 

6 PA 70.77% 

7 MD 70.59% 

8 VT 69.39% 

9 WV 64.28% 

10 ME 58.04% 

11 NH 47.94% 

12 MT 46.59% 

13 WA 40.80% 

14 ID 40.44% 

15 SC 38.35% 

16 NC 36.79% 

17 UT 30.52% 

18 VA 25.38% 

19 FL 24.68% 

Table 

Hydr

Genera

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

24
 
 – 

 

- 

 – 

 -

 

- 

 – 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Most Improved 

Total Hydroelectric Electricity 

Generated, 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

20 OR 32.14% 

21 OH 23.72% 

22 IL 20.30% 

23 CO 19.84% 

24 HI 19.19% 

25 NY 18.46% 

26 ND 14.19% 

27 TN 11.55% 

28 IA 7.60% 

DE 0.00% 

Amer. Sam. 0.00% 

D.C. 0.00% 

N. Mar 0.00% 

VI 0.00% 

MS 0.00% 

GU 0.00% 

PR 0.00% 

SD -1.02% 

GA -1.06% 

LA -2.60% 

Table 18. Most Improved 

Percentage of Total In State 

Electricity Generation 

Generated from Hydroelectric, 

Change from 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

20 OH 13.23% 

21 ND 12.16% 

22 IL 12.06% 

23 OR 11.60% 

24 CO 10.80% 

25 HI 9.64% 

26 ID 8.68% 

27 NH 5.45% 

28 SD 2.71% 

DE 0.00% 

Amer. Sam. 0.00% 

D.C. 0.00% 

N. Mar. 0.00% 

VI 0.00% 

MS 0.00% 

GU 0.00% 

PR 0.00% 

MI -3.28% 

IA -3.82% 

WY -5.39% 

Table 19. Most Improved 

Hydroelectric Electricity 

Generation Per Capita, 

Change from 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

20 OR 24.30% 

21 OH 22.96% 

22 IL 17.85% 

23 NY 17.20% 

24 ND 13.99% 

25 HI 13.59% 

26 CO 11.48% 

27 IA 6.06% 

28 TN 5.67% 

29 LA 2.39% 

DE 0.00% 

Amer. Sam 0.00% 

D.C. 0.00% 

N. Mar. 0.00% 

VI 0.00% 

MS 0.00% 

GU 0.00% 

PR 0.00% 

MI -3.58% 

SD -4.74% 

Table 

Hydr

Genera

Rank 

25
 
 – 

 

- 

 – 

 -

 

- 

 – 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Most Improved 

Total Hydroelectric Electricity 

Generated, 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

MI -2.66% 

WY -4.07% 

AK -9.07% 

AZ -10.90% 

AL -13.22% 

IN -14.22% 

NM -16.48% 

NV -18.14% 

WI -18.37% 

NB -20.53% 

MN -31.25% 

KY -32.78% 

AR -39.15% 

TX -44.85% 

KS -62.25% 

OK -73.40% 

MO -81.96% 

Table 18. Most Improved 

Percentage of Total In State 

Electricity Generation 

Generated from Hydroelectric, 

Change from 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

LA -5.84% 

AK -8.12% 

NV -12.96% 

GA -15.18% 

IN -19.43% 

WI -22.18% 

AL -22.80% 

AZ -23.26% 

NE -23.50% 

NM -24.67% 

K -35.08% 

MN -37.34% 

AR -44.96% 

TX -48.71% 

KS -62.89% 

OK -79.19% 

MO -84.35% 

Table 19. Most Improved 

Hydroelectric Electricity 

Generation Per Capita, 

Change from 2001 2006 

Rank State 

% 

Change 

WY -7.76% 

GA -10.81% 

AK -15.00% 

AL -15.62% 

IN -16.63% 

WI -20.77% 

NM -21.35% 

NE -22.58% 

AZ -23.39% 

NE -31.19% 

MN -33.53% 

KY -34.97% 

AR -41.73% 

TX -49.72% 

KS -63.00% 

OK -74.24% 

MO -82.56% 

Table 

Hydr

Genera

Rank 

Source: EIA 2008 

26
 
 

 

 

1.1.3.2 Geothermal 

Data collection on geothermal is limited to large-scale generation in this dataset; and, 

therefore, there is no direct geothermal data included. In 2006, the reported geothermal 

electricity generation occurred in four states (Table 21). 

Table 21. Geothermal Generation (2006) 

Rank State MWh 

1 California 12,821,434 

2 Nevada 1,343,711 

3 Hawaii 212,276 

4 Utah 190,608 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 22 lists states based on improvement in total geothermal power generation from 

2001 to 2006. According to the EIA data, only four states generated electricity from 

geothermal resources during this period. This is not a comprehensive list of states with 

resources, but only of those states with reported generation. Of these states, Utah 

experienced the greatest increase during the period with nearly 25 percent more MWh 

generated in 2006 than in 2001. 

Table 23 lists states based on the rate of change of the percentage of total generation 

from geothermal sources from 2001 to 2006. Of the four states with geothermal power 

generation, only Nevada and Utah made positive gains in increasing the percentage of instate generation from geothermal sources during these five years. 

In Table 24, the states with geothermal generation are listed based on the rate of change 

in geothermal generation per capita during the five years from 2001 to 2006. Of the four 

states with measured geothermal-based electricity generation, Utah experienced the 

largest increase while geothermal electricity generation per capita in Hawaii and Nevada 

decreased. 

Table 25 ranks states based on improvement in geothermal generation per GSP from 

2001 to 2006. All four states experienced a decrease in geothermal electricity generation 

per GSP during this period, indicating that economic growth outstripped geothermal 

electricity production increases during these five years. 

27
 
 –

 

- 

 –

 -

 

 

-

 

 – 

 

 

- 

 

 

 

Table 22. Most Improved 

Total Geothermal Electricity 

Generated, 2001 2006 

Rank State % 

Change 

Table 23. Most Improved 

Percentage of Total In State 

Electricity Generation 

Generated from 

Geothermal, Change from 

2001 2006 

Rank State % 

Change 

1 1 UT 25% 

2 NV 12% 

3 CA 5% 

4 HI 3% 

Source: EIA 2008 

NV 19% 

2 UT 8% 

CA -4% 

HI -5% 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 24. Most Improved 

Geothermal Electricity 

Generation Per Capita, 

Change from 2001 2006 

Rank State % 

Change 

1 UT 11% 

2 CA 0% 

HI -2% 

NV -6% 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 25

Geothe

Gene

Change 

Rank 

Source: EIA 

28
 
 

 

 

1.1.3.3 Distributed Solar 

EIA does not report data on capacity from distributed solar electricity production, 

primarily PV. However, recent literature provides on- and off-grid capacity installation 

estimates by state for 2007, and these are shown in Table 26. 18 No comprehensive state 

generation information was found in a literature review, so the reader is cautioned not to 

compare these distributed PV numbers to other renewable resource data without applying 

appropriate conversions. At more than 328 MW, California leads other states in PV 

capacity, with nearly three times the installed capacity of the next five states combined. 

All but six states have less than 5 MW installed. 

Table 26. Distributed Solar (On- and Off-Grid) by State (2007) 

Rank State Capacity (MWdc) 

1 California 328.8 

2 New Jersey 43.6 

3 Arizona 18.9 

4 Nevada 18.8 

5 New York 15.4 

6 Colorado 14.6 

7 Massachusetts 4.6 

8 Hawaii 4.5 

9 Texas 3.2 

10 Connecticut 2.8 

10 Oregon 2.8 

12 Illinois 2.2 

13 Florida 2.0 

14 Washington 1.9 

15 Wisconsin 1.4 

16 Delaware 1.2 

17 Ohio 1.0 

18 Pennsylvania 0.9 

19 Maryland 0.7 

19 North Carolina 0.7 

19 Vermont 0.7 

22 Rhode Island 0.6 

23 D.C. 0.5 

23 Minnesota 0.5 

23 Montana 0.5 

23 New Mexico 0.5 

27 Michigan 0.4 

27 Tennessee 0.4 

29 Maine 0.2 

29 Utah 0.2 

29 Virginia 0.2 

32 Iowa 0.1 

32 Mississippi 0.1 

32 New Hampshire 0.1 

18 Sherwood, “Solar Market Trends.” 

29 
 

 

 

 

1.1.3.4 Wind 

Renewable electricity generation from wind has increased dramatically between 2001 and 

2006 as a result of market and policy changes, as well as technology development, 

resource availability, and increasing volatility in traditional fossil markets. In addition to 

expansion of generation in states, 11 states that had no wind-based generation in 2001 

developed generation by 2006. Table 27 lists the year in which the first data are available 

for these states. This method allows states with new development to be acknowledged for 

successes in creating an environment to promote early wind development and support the 

paradigm shift from fossil to renewable technologies. Nevertheless, the percentage 

method exaggerates small absolute strides achieved in states that had minimal or even no 

generation capability in 2001. 

Table 27. First Year of EIARecorded Wind 

Generation19
 

State Year 

Tennessee 2002 

Washington 2002 

West Virginia 2002 

Illinois 2003 

New Mexico 2003 

North Dakota 2003 

Oklahoma 2003 

Ohio 2005 

Idaho 2006 

Montana 2006 

New Jersey 2006 

Source: EIA 2008 

To balance the impression, Table 28 ranks overall generation from wind in 2006 by 

states reporting wind generation. 

Three states (Idaho, Montana, and New Jersey) began reporting wind generation in 2006. 

The achievements of these states should not be ignored; but, because there is no baseyear generation with which to compare the 2006 data, they are not listed in the “mostimproved” tables. However, they are likely to be “most-improved” in newer datasets. 

19 States not listed in Table 25 either had wind generation in or previous to 2001, or did not have wind 

generation in either 2001 or 2006. 

30
 
 

 

 

Table 28. Wind Generation Reported 

to EIA by State (2006) 

Rank State MWh 

1 Texas 6,670,515 

2 California 4,882,801 

3 Iowa 2,317,821 

4 Minnesota 2,054,947 

5 Oklahoma 1,712,441 

6 New Mexico 1,255,436 

7 Washington 1,037,651 

8 Kansas 991,890 

9 Oregon 931,219 

10 Colorado 865,536 

11 Wyoming 759,061 

12 New York 655,371 

13 Montana 435,970 

14 North Dakota 369,485 

15 Pennsylvania 361,108 

16 Nebraska 261,247 

17 Illinois 254,571 

18 West Virginia 173,757 

19 Idaho 169,617 

20 South Dakota 148,965 

21 Wisconsin 101,376 

22 Hawaii 79,674 

23 Tennessee 54,598 

24 New Jersey 15,991 

25 Ohio 14,401 

26 Vermont 10,688 

27 Michigan 2,212 

28 Alaska 788 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 29 lists states by the rate of change in total wind generation from 2001 to2006. 

South Dakota and Nebraska experienced the largest increase in total generation, while 

Vermont and Alaska were the only two states experiencing a decrease in wind generation 

during this period. 

31 
 

 

Table 30 lists states based on the rate of change of the percentage of total in-state 

generation from wind sources, 2001 to 2006. Twenty-three states increased the portion of 

total in-state electricity generated by wind during the period. Of these, South Dakota 

showed the most improvement, with an increase of more than 170-fold. 

Table 31 lists the states based on the rate of change in wind generation per capita from 

2001 to 2006. Of the 23 states that increased wind generation per capita, South Dakota 

and Nebraska experienced substantially larger increases than all other states. Two states, 

Vermont and Alaska, experienced a decrease in wind generation per capita. 

Table 32 lists the states based on improvement in wind generation per GSP from 2001 to 

2006. Twenty-three states increased generation per capita during this period, with South 

Dakota experiencing the largest increase at more than 12,000 percent. Per capita wind 

generation in both Vermont and Alaska decreased during this period. 

32
 
 –

 

-

 –

 -

 -

 – 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 29. Most Improved 

Total Wind Electricity 

Generated, 2001 200620 

Rank State % 

Change 

1 SD 17,003% 

2 NE 9,833% 

3 HI 3,649% 

4 PA 3,132% 

5 NY 3,091% 

6 OK 3,071% 

7 KS 2,390% 

8 WV 1,831% 

9 CO 1,679% 

10 IL 1,314% 

11 TN 1,265% 

12 OR 951% 

13 MI 690% 

14 NM 586% 

15 ND 526% 

16 TX 462% 

17 IA 375% 

18 WA 149% 

Table 30. Most Improved 

Percentage of Total In State 

Electricity Generation from 

Wind, Change from 2001 

2006 

Rank State % 

Change 

1 SD 17,647% 

2 NE 9,462% 

3 HI 3,349% 

4 NY 3,128% 

5 PA 2,803% 

6 OK 2,623% 

7 KS 2,348% 

8 WV 1,850% 

9 CO 1,545% 

10 TN 1,297% 

11 IL 1,290% 

12 OR 788% 

13 MI 685% 

14 ND 535% 

15 NM 503% 

16 TX 422% 

17 IA 325% 

18 WA 136% 

Table 31. Most Improved 

Wind Electricity Generation 

Per Capita, Change from 

2001 2006 

Rank State % 

Change 

1 SD 16,360% 

2 NE 9,577% 

3 HI 3,473% 

4 PA 3,102% 

5 NY 3,057% 

6 OK 3,002% 

7 KS 2,341% 

8 WV 1,821% 

9 CO 1,555% 

10 IL 1,297% 

11 TN 1,204% 

12 OR 889% 

13 MI 683% 

14 NM 561% 

15 ND 522% 

16 TX 412% 

17 IA 368% 

18 WA 137% 

Tabl

Wind 

per G

Rank 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

20 For states in which wind generation began after 2001, the first year in which the EIA reports wind generation in that state is used to c

determine the most-improved rankings. The baseline years for each state are listed here and in Table 25: baseline year 2002—TN, WA

2003—IL, NM, ND, OK; baseline year 2005—OH. The three states with wind generation beginning in 2006 (ID, MT, NJ) are not inclu

rankings for wind, because their baseline year is the same as the year in which the most recent data for wind generation is available and

rates of change could not be measured. 

33
 
 –

 

-

 –

 -

 -

 – 

 

- 

 

 

Table 29. Most Improved 

Total Wind Electricity 

Generated, 2001 200620 

Rank State % 

Change 

19 MN 129% 

20 WY 108% 

21 WI 40% 

22 CA 40% 

23 OH 11% 

VT -12% 

AK -17% 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 30. Most Improved 

Percentage of Total In State 

Electricity Generation from 

Wind, Change from 2001 

2006 

Rank State % 

Change 

19 MN 109% 

20 WY 105% 

21 WI 34% 

22 CA 28% 

23 OH 12% 

AK -16% 

VT -32% 

Source: EIA 2008 

Table 31. Most Improved 

Wind Electricity Generation 

Per Capita, Change from 

2001 2006 

Rank State % 

Change 

19 MN 122% 

20 WY 100% 

21 WI 36% 

22 CA 33% 

23 OH 11% 

VT -13% 

AK -22% 

Source: EIA 2008 

Tabl

Wind 

per G

Rank 

1

2

2

2

2

Source

34
 
 

 

 

 

 

1.1.3.5 Overall Trends in Renewable Energy 

Hydroelectric resources provided the largest portion of renewable energy development in the 

United States in 2006. However, the share of hydroelectric is shrinking due to growth of 

developing renewable energy resources and maximization of the larger-scale hydroelectric 

resources. 

Between 2001 and 2006, wind resource achieved the largest growth in renewable generation 

nationwide. 

Growth in electricity from biomass is primarily occurring in the southeastern areas of the United 

States, coincident with resource availability. 

Renewable energy growth during this period was generally outstripped by economic growth as 

measured by gross state product (GSP) and population growth. 

Between 2001 and 2006, 

 24 states increased electricity generation from biomass resources; 

 23 states show increases in wind electricity production; 

 4 states increases geothermal electricity production; and 

 2 states increased large-scale solar electricity production. 

In general, the EIA dataset is considered the most comprehensive source for electricity 

generation information in the United States, and it is the primary source for trends information in 

this report (with noted exceptions). There are a number of challenges in collecting renewable 

electricity generation at the state level, but those are not the focus here. Instead, the strength of 

the dataset as a nationwide comparable source regarding definitions and data collection 

techniques are the reasons for its use. 

Solar PV data presented in this section are not from the EIA. Data are installed capacity for 

2007, as collected by IREC. 

Data on renewable-based electricity generation in the U.S. territories is limited. EIA data were 

supplemented with direct conversations with territory energy offices. Unfortunately, the authors 

received no additional data. . 

Significant market changes between 2006 and 2008 are expected to have an impact on renewable 

energy generation and will be reported in later versions of this report. 

“Most Improved” rankings provide information on the largest growth rates between 2001 and 

2006, leading to heavier weighting of states that began the development of the particular 

renewable resource in that time frame. The purpose is to acknowledge the challenge of earlystage development. The analysts are considering alternative and additional methods for future 

reports. 

35
 
 

 

 

 

 

1.2	 Status of State Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policies and 

Programs 

This section provides an overview of the current status of EE and RE state policy 

implementation. 

1.2.1 State Energy Efficiency Policy Status 

State energy efficiency policies and programs are listed in Table 33. Policies in energy 

efficiency fall into three primary categories: 

•	 Regulation—These types of policies place minimum standards throughout the state. In the 

case of energy efficiency in buildings, these policies include energy codes (as subsets of 

building codes) and minimum equipment standards. Minimum building energy codes are 

established by the federal government and are implemented by localities, unless the state 

implements a statewide program. Statewide programs ease implementation and inspection 

training burdens and can increase code compliance, leading to increased energy savings. To 

date, 34 states have implemented statewide commercial building codes at various levels, 

based on nationally-recognized code standard setting organizations. Of these, 3 have adopted 

the most stringent (ASHRAE 90.1-2007), 23 have adopted the next most stringent (2006 

IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2004), and 8 have adopted the bottom two tiers of stringency (2003 

IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2001 and 2001 IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-1999 – the federally mandated 

minimum). 

•	 Governing by Example (or Leading by Example)—These policies, in the form of 

legislation as well as executive and administrative orders, take advantage of direct 

jurisdiction over state-owned and -operated buildings. Generally speaking, these goals or 

mandates are time-staged efforts to increase energy efficiency levels over time. The benefits 

of these programs accrue both to the government in the form of cost savings and to the public 

in the form of market development for energy efficient technologies, which, in turn, may lead 

to reduced prices through increased economies of scale. 

•	 Financial/Economic Incentives—These policies further remove cost barriers to efficient 

technologies, which have resulted from the failure of the market to appropriately value the 

benefits of energy efficiency (e.g., increased comfort, reduced environmental impact). . . 

36
 
 

 

Table 33. Summary of Start Years and Sector Focus within State Energy Efficiency Regulations, Led by Exa

and Financial Incentives Relating to Buildings (January 2009) 

State 

Regulation 

Governing by

Example 

Financial/Economic Incentives 

Statewide Building 

Codes** 

Equip Stand.

Project or 

product 

related 

subsidies 

(rebates) 

Tax Incentives 

Comm.

Res.

Personal

Property

Corporate

Sales 

AL 2006 2006, R 

AK 

AS 

AZ 2008 2005 

2001­

2010, R 

AR 

2003IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2001 2003 IECC 2005 

CA 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2007 2006 IECC 2007 2007 

CO 

2005/ 

2007 

CT 

2003IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2001 2003 IECC 2007 2007 

DC 

1998-2001 

IECC 2008 2004 

DE 

2001IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-1999 or eq 

(EPCA) 

1998-2001 

IECC 2004 

USA 2005 2005 

2006­

2009, R 2005 

37
 
 

 

Table 33. Summary of Start Years and Sector Focus within State Energy Efficiency Regulations, Led by Exa

and Financial Incentives Relating to Buildings (January 2009) 

State 

Regulation 

Governing by

Example 

Financial/Economic Incentives 

Statewide Building 

Codes** 

Equip Stand.

Project or 

product 

related 

subsidies 

(rebates) 

Tax Incentives 

Comm.

Res.

Personal

Property

Corporate

Sales 

FL 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2007 

1998-2001 

IECC 1974 

GA 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 2008 2008, R 

GU 

HI 

Pre-1998 

IECC 2008 

ID 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 

unknown, 

R 

IL 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2005 

IN 

Pre-1998 

IECC 2008 

2009­

2010, 

R,C 2007 

IA 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 2008 

KS 2007 

KY 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 2005 

2009­

2015, R 2009 2008, I 

38
 
 

 

Table 33. Summary of Start Years and Sector Focus within State Energy Efficiency Regulations, Led by Exa

and Financial Incentives Relating to Buildings (January 2009) 

State 

Regulation 

Governing by

Example 

Financial/Economic Incentives 

Statewide Building 

Codes** 

Equip Stand.

Project or 

product 

related 

subsidies 

(rebates) 

Tax Incentives 

Comm.

Res.

Personal

Property

Corporate

Sales 

LA 

2006IECC/ 

2006 IECC 2007 2002 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 

ME 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2003 unknown 

MD 

2006IECC/ 

2006 IECC 2004 1992 

2001­

2004, R 2001 

ASHRAE90.1 2011, 

-2004 R,C 

MA 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2007 2006 IECC 2008 2007 1979-, R 1979 

MI 

2001IECC/ 

2006 IECC 2007 unknown 

ASHRAE90.1 

-1999 or eq 2009­

(EPCA) 2011, R 

MN 

Pre-1998 

IECC 2005 

MS 

MO 1993 

2008­

2009, R 2009, R 

MT 

2003IECC/ 

2003 IECC unknown 

ASHRAE90.1 unknown, 

-2001 R 

39
 
 

 

 

Table 33. Summary of Start Years and Sector Focus within State Energy Efficiency Regulations, Led by Exa

and Financial Incentives Relating to Buildings (January 2009) 

State 

Regulation 

Governing by

Example 

Financial/Economic Incentives 

Statewide Building 

Codes** 

Equip Stand.

Project or 

product 

related 

subsidies 

(rebates) 

Tax Incentives 

Comm.

Res.

Personal

Property

Corporate

Sales 

NE 

2003IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2001 2003 IECC 

NV 

2006IECC/ 

2006 IECC 2007 2008 2007, C 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 

NH 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 2005 

NJ 2006 IECC 2008 2002 

Energy Star 

2006IECC/ homes and 

ASHRAE90.1 appliances 

-2004 (expired) 

NM 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 2007 

2007-, R, 

C 2007 

NY 

2006IECC/ 

2006 IECC 2006 2001 

NYSERDA 2001­

2001 

ASHRAE90.1 new 2009, 

-2004 construc.* C,M 

NC 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2003 IECC 2007 

Steam Trap 

Rebate 1977, R 2008, R 

ND 

Pre-1998 

IECC 

Nor. 

Mar. 

40
 
 

 

State 

OH 

OK 

Comm.

Res.

2003 IECC 

1998-2001 

IECC 

Equip Stand.

Governing by

Example 

2007 

2008 

product 

related 

subsidies 

Project or 

(rebates) 

Table 33. Summary of Start Years and Sector Focus within State Energy Efficiency Regulations, Led by Exa

and Financial Incentives Relating to Buildings (January 2009) 

Regulation Financial/Economic Incentives 

Statewide Building 

Codes** Tax Incentives Personal

2005-, 

R,C 

Property

2007, A 

Corporate

Sales 

OR 

PA 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 

2006 IECC 

2008 2008 

2004 

1977­

2015, R 1980 

PR 

RI 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

2006 IECC 2008 2008 

SC 

SD 

-2004 

Pre-1998 

Pre

IECC 

-1998 

IECC 

Pre-1998 

2007 

2008 

2009­

2019, R 

2 (2009

R 

TN 

TX 

UT 

2003IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2001 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 

1998-2001 

IECC 

IECC 

2006 IECC 

2008 

2001 

2006 

2007, R 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 33. Summary of Start Years and Sector Focus within State Energy Efficiency Regulations, Led by Exa

and Financial Incentives Relating to Buildings (January 2009) 

State 

Regulation 

Governing by

Example 

Financial/Economic Incentives 

Statewide Building 

Codes** 

Equip Stand.

Project or 

product 

related 

subsidies 

(rebates) 

Tax Incentives 

Comm.

Res.

Personal

Property

Corporate

Sales 

VT 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 

1998-2001 

IECC 2008 

Efficiency 

Vermont* 2008,R 

VI 

EERE 

Program* 

VA 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2007 2008, A 2008, R 

WA 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 2006 IECC 2008 2005 

WV 

2003IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2001 2003 IECC 2008, R 

WI 

2006IECC/ 

ASHRAE90.1 

-2004 

Pre-1998 

IECC 2006 

Focus on 

Energy* 

WY 

Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE): Glossary Web Page: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/glossary/glossary.cfm?&CurrentPageID=8&ENERGY EFFICIENCY=1&RENEWABLE ENERGY=

2008; and Building Codes Assistance Project. 2009. What are building codes? Webpage. URL: http://www.bcap-energy.o

Accessed February 12, 2009. 

Year indicates first year of policy implementation 

Letter indicates sector of application as follows: 

R=residential, C=commercial, A=All, M=Manufacturing, C=Commercial, eq=equivalent 

*these rebate programs apply within the state but are not state run 

** Minimum code is listed. More recent codes are generally more stringent. Blank states in these columns do not impleme

energy codes for buildings. 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.2 State Renewable Energy Policy Status 

State policies targeting renewable energy development are summarized in Table 34. The 

quantity of renewable energy policies is not correlated with increased renewable energy 

generation overall. However, significant correlation is found between states with a higher 

proportion of market preparation policies than technology accessibility policies, indicating that 

removing regulatory barriers has a quantifiable effect on renewable energy resource 

development.21 

Table 34. Summary of States with Renewable Energy Policies and Selected Best Practices 

(Including Market-Transformation Categories) as of June 2008 

Market Preparation Policies Technology Accessibility Policies 

StateContractor LicensingEquipmentCertificationGenerationDisclosureInterconnectionLaSum MarketPreparationSum TechnologyAccess. 

nd Access

Line Extension AnalysisNet meteringPBF w/ RERPSVol. & Man. GreenPowerCorp. TaxIncentivesGrantsLoansPers. Tax Incent.Prop. Tax Incent.RebatesRE Prod. Incent.Sales Tax Incent. 

AL • • • • 1 3 

AK • • • N 

A 

N 

A 2 3 

Amer 

Sam. 0 0 

AZ • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 4 

AR • • 2 0 

CA • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 5 

CO • • • • • • 6 0 

CT • • • • • • • • • 4 5 

D.C. • • • 2 1 

DE • • • • • • N 

A 4 3 

FL • • • • • • • • N 

A • • 6 5 

GA • • • • • 2 3 

GU 0 0 

HI • • • • • • • • 4 4 

ID • • • • • • • 2 5 

IL • • • • • • • 5 2 

IN • • • • 2 2 

IA • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 6 

KS • • • 1 2 

KY • • • • • • 3 3 

LA • • • • • • 2 4 

ME • • • • • • • 4 3 

MD • • • • • • • • • • • 5 6 

21 Brown and Busche, “State of the States.” 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MA • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 7 

MI • • • • 2 2 

MN • • • • • • • • • • • 6 5 

MS • • 1 1 

MO • • • • • 3 2 

MT • • • • • • • • N 

A 4 5 

NE • • • • 2 2 

NV • • • • • • N 

A • • 6 3 

NH • • • • N 

A 

N 

A 3 3 

NJ • • • • • • • • 5 3 

NM • • • • • • • • 5 3 

NY • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 8 

NC • • • • • • • • • 4 5 

ND • • • • 1 3 

N. 

Mar. 0 0 

OH • • • • • • • • • • 6 4 

OK • • • 1 2 

OR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • N 

A 8 7 

PA • • • • • 3 2 

PR • • • 1 2 

RI • • • • • • • • 4 4 

SC • • • • • • • • 1 7 

SD • N 

A • 1 2 

TN • • • • N 

A • 2 4 

TX • • • • • N 

A • 3 4 

UT • • • • • • 3 3 

VT • • • • • • • • • 4 5 

VI • • • 1 2 

VA • • 2 0 

WA • • • • • • • 5 2 

WV • 1 0 

WI • • • • • • • 4 3 

WY • • • 2 1 

Source: Brown and Busche, “State of the States.” 

Note: All policies are noted if in implementation at the state level, except for interconnection and net metering, which are 

only included if they meet minimum best practices as defined by the Network for New Energy Choices.22 

22 For full methodology for selection, see Brown and Busche, “State of the States.” 

44 
 - 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.3 Energy Efficiency Program Spending 

State investment in EE programs is primarily done through public benefit funds and utility 

spending on energy efficiency programs (Table 35). 23 

Table 35. Summary of 2006 State Level Investment in Energy Efficiency* 

Ranked by Percentage of State Revenues 

State 

2006 Total 

Spending* ($1,000) 

Spending as Percent of 

Utility Revenues 

Vermont $15,806 2.4% 

Washington $113,288 2.2% 

Oregon $63,318 2.0% 

Idaho $20,422 1.8% 

Iowa $52,241 1.7% 

Rhode Island $17,178 1.6% 

Connecticut $69,600 1.5% 

Massachusetts $125,000 1.5% 

Wisconsin $73,285 1.3% 

New Hampshire $17,540 1.1% 

Utah $16,800 1.1% 

California $357,000 1.1% 

New York $224,897 1.1% 

Minnesota $48,109 1.0% 

New Jersey $83,177 0.9% 

Montana $8,309 0.9% 

Maine $11,000 0.8% 

Nevada $24,000 0.7% 

District of Columbia $8,500 0.7% 

Hawaii $12,900 0.6% 

Florida $67,000 0.3% 

Arizona $16,400 0.3% 

Ohio $28,757 0.2% 

Colorado $8,000 0.2% 

Texas $57,800 0.2% 

Kentucky $5,944 0.1% 

Michigan $10,000 0.1% 

South Carolina $5,882 0.1% 

Georgia $10,000 0.1% 

South Dakota $619 0.1% 

Tennessee $5,480 0.1% 

North Dakota $513 0.1% 

New Mexico $1,000 0.1% 

Indiana $3,731 0.1% 

Nebraska $866 0.1% 

Missouri $2,175 0.0% 

North Carolina $3,800 0.0% 

23 M. Eldridge et al, “ACEEE State Scorecard for Energy Efficiency,” ACEEE, 2008. 

45 
 - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 35. Summary of 2006 State Level Investment in Energy Efficiency* 

Ranked by Percentage of State Revenues 

State 

2006 Total 

Spending* ($1,000) 

Spending as Percent of 

Utility Revenues 

Illinois $3,222 0.0% 

Pennsylvania $3,808 0.0% 

Alaska $162 0.0% 

Kansas $336 0.0% 

Mississippi $436 0.0% 

Alabama $459 0.0% 

Maryland $90 0.0% 

Virginia $84 0.0% 

Oklahoma $16 0.0% 

Arkansas $0 0.0% 

Delaware $0 0.0% 

Louisiana $0 0.0% 

West Virginia $0 0.0% 

Wyoming $0 0.0% 

Total $1,598,950 0.5% 

*Utility spending is on “ratepayer-funded energy efficiency” programs, or energy 

efficiency programs funded through charges included in customer utility rates or 

otherwise paid via some type of charge on customer bills. This includes both utilityadministered programs and “public benefits” programs administered by other 

entities. We do not include data on separately funded low-income programs, load 

management programs, or energy efficiency research and development. 

Source. M. Eldrige et al., “ACEEE State Scorecard.” 

1.2.4 Renewable Energy Program Spending 

To a lesser extent, renewable energy programs are supported by public benefit funds with 

targeted renewable energy spending (Table 36). 

Table 36. Estimated 2007 Renewable Energy PBF 

Per Capita Spending ($/Capita) 

New Jersey 11.77 

Vermont 10.63 

California 9.13 

Connecticut 6.87 

Delaware 4.10 

Massachusetts 3.89 

Oregon 3.25 

Minnesota 3.10 

Rhode Island 2.07 

Wisconsin 0.99 

Illinois 0.43 

Ohio 0.28 

Source: Brown and Busche, “State of the States.” 

46
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.5 Case Studies: Advanced and Innovative State Policies and Programs 

1.2.5.1 Coordinating Policy and Spending: Efficiency Vermont 

Initiated in 2000 by legislative action, the charter of the Vermont Public Benefits Charge (PBC) 

intends to help energy users within the state save energy on money on their monthly bills by 

providing expertise, assistance, and incentives to overcome many of the market and non-market 

barriers to energy efficiency. ’Efficiency Vermont’ is an independent, non-profit firm contracted 

by the Vermont Public Service Board to implement the PBC. Efficiency Vermont administers the 

state’s energy efficiency program, providing technical assistance and a wide range of rebates and 

incentives for energy efficiency technologies. These technologies range from advanced lighting 

and HVAC systems to refrigeration units. 

By contracting Efficiency Vermont as an independent service provider, the state of Vermont has 

been able to better implement its state rebate program, which is administered by the organization. 

With this industry-leading structure for service provision and rebate policies, Vermont has 

delivered impressive results on its energy efficiency goals. Since its initiation in 2000, Efficiency 

Vermont has helped reduce energy costs in the state of Vermont by over $31 million. In 2006 

alone, Efficiency Vermont helped more than 38,000 Vermont residents with energy efficiency 

investments, resulting in: 

•	 $5.7 million in annual electric, fuel and water savings; 

•	 56,000,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of annual electric savings; 

•	 A 10,000 kilowatt (kW) reduction in summer peak and a 9,000kW reduction in winter 

peak capacity requirements; 

•	 A 415,300 ton reduction in greenhouse gases over the lifetime of the installed 

measures; and 

•	 A savings of three million gallons of propane, 218 million cubic feet of natural gas, 

0.6 million gallons of oil and 409 million gallons of water over the lifetime of the 

installed measures.24 

Moreover, according to the organization, its work to date should “save Vermonters more than 10 

million gallons of propane, 1,504 million cubic feet of natural gas, 7 million gallons of oil, 2.3 

billion gallons of water and 2.65 million tons of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the installed 

measures.”25 

From 2000 to 2006, the energy efficiency service provider helped save more than 307 million 

kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity – savings that will continue to grow over the lifetime of the 

efficiency investments. Vermont’s summer peak load has been lowered by more than 43 MW, 

while the winter load has fallen by more than 51 MW since the inception of the program in 

2000.26 These savings can help increase the reliability of the existing electricity grid, relieving 

stress on certain areas while reducing the need for costly upgrades to existing infrastructure in 

areas with a growing load. 

24 http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/pages/Common/AboutUs/ 25 Ibid.
 26 Ibid.
 

47
 
 

 

 

 

 

Services like those offered by Efficiency Vermont also help strengthen the state’s economy, 

since the dollars saved from energy efficiency savings are more likely to be spent in state than 

those that would have been used to purchase the fuel that would have been consumed without the 

increased efficiency. Efficiency Vermont estimates that the cumulative lifetime economic value 

of energy efficiency investments in the state of Vermont to date totals over $313 million. 

Furthermore, by coordinating, streamlining, and optimizing the implementation of the multiple 

energy efficiency programs in the state, Efficiency Vermont provides cost-additional savings to 

its stakeholders. 

1.2.5.2 State Feed-in Tariffs 

In recent years, states are implementing feed-in-tariffs, offering a fixed payment to the investor 

to recoup renewable energy development costs (Figure 1). 27 

Figure 1. Feed-in tariff activity in the United States (Couture et al.) 

1.3 Federal Role 

EERE plays multiple roles in approaching the state sector, in order to capture all the opportunity 

of various state agencies and interests. 

1.3.1 The State Energy Program (SEP) 

The State Energy Program (SEP) was established in the 1970s. In 1999, federal and state 

stakeholders developed a revised strategic plan (SEP Plan 1999) that prioritized three goals: 

27 T. Couture, T., K. Cory, and C. Kreycik, “Feed-in Tariffs in the United States: Design Options,” NREL: Golden, 

CO, 2009 (forthcoming). 

48
 
 

 

 

 

 

•	 Maximize energy, environmental, and economic (EEE) benefits through increased 

collaboration at the federal, state, and community level; 

•	 Increase market acceptance of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, 

practices, and products; and 

•	 Use innovative approaches to reach market segments and meet policy goals not 

typically addressed by market-based solutions.28 

EERE provides financial assistance to states through the SEP program, both through formula 

grants and special project funding. Formula grants are distributed based on a formula that 

considers population and energy use and are contingent on the state completing an energy 

emergency plan and committing to procuring energy efficient equipment in state buildings. 

States must match 20 percent of the formula grant in order to receive the federal portion. 

Table 37 presents the state-by-state formula grant funding from 1999 to 2007. Overall, the SEP 

formula grants have provided over $350 million dollars between 1999 and 2007 (real dollars). 

States combine these dollars with their own and private funding to leverage the investment at a 

rate of $3.58 investment for every dollar of federal investment (see Figure 2). 

Table 37. DOE/EERE/WIP Dollar Value of Formula Grants to States 1999-2007 ($ in thousands) 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTAL 

AK $247 $251 $292 $353 $353 $342 $351 $264 $364 $2,817 

AL $514 $522 $604 $726 $724 $707 $708 $543 $735 $5,783 

AR $399 $405 $462 $558 $559 $540 $544 $424 $563 $4,454 

AS $159 $162 $189 $230 $230 $227 $227 $170 $235 $1,829 

AZ $456 $465 $537 $651 $657 $645 $659 $500 $689 $5,259 

CA $2,137 $2,167 $2,496 $3,024 $3,034 $2,977 $2,953 $2,269 $3,060 $24,117 

CO $506 $514 $581 $683 $687 $678 $685 $540 $712 $5,586 

CT $491 $497 $553 $641 $641 $633 $634 $514 $652 $5,256 

DC $211 $214 $246 $295 $295 $290 $290 $223 $302 $2,366 

DE $221 $225 $260 $313 $313 $309 $310 $236 $322 $2,509 

FL $1,100 $1,116 $1,283 $1,552 $1,563 $1,539 $1,564 $1,193 $1,632 $12,542 

GA $711 $724 $833 $1,012 $1,018 $996 $1,010 $769 $1,058 $8,131 

GU $165 $169 $197 $239 $240 $235 $235 $177 $245 $1,902 

HI $231 $234 $271 $326 $326 $322 $324 $246 $337 $2,617 

IA $470 $476 $537 $625 $624 $612 $617 $494 $635 $5,090 

ID $256 $261 $303 $366 $367 $360 $361 $274 $372 $2,920 

IL $1,401 $1,417 $1,570 $1,796 $1,794 $1,797 $1,769 $1,456 $1,811 $14,811 

IN $796 $806 $907 $1,060 $1,059 $1,042 $1,048 $837 $1,082 $8,637 

KS $421 $427 $484 $570 $569 $557 $560 $442 $581 $4,611 

KY $536 $543 $620 $735 $734 $722 $726 $567 $747 $5,930 

28 SEP Plan1999, available at SEP Web site, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/pdfs/plan_final.pdf 

49
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 37. DOE/EERE/WIP Dollar Value of Formula Grants to States 1999-2007 ($ in thousands) 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTAL
 

LA $629 $643 $760 $897 $895 $895 $872 $657 $905 $7,153 

MA $755 $763 $847 $974 $974 $967 $958 $786 $983 $8,007 

MD $610 $618 $694 $808 $809 $804 $802 $642 $831 $6,618 

ME $299 $304 $346 $407 $407 $403 $400 $314 $411 $3,291 

MI $1,188 $1,201 $1,332 $1,525 $1,519 $1,486 $1,491 $1,229 $1,524 $12,495 

MN $712 $721 $800 $916 $917 $903 $911 $745 $936 $7,561 

MO $654 $663 $747 $872 $871 $849 $863 $688 $888 $7,095 

MS $375 $381 $441 $535 $534 $519 $524 $400 $540 $4,249 

MT $243 $247 $284 $342 $342 $348 $335 $257 $346 $2,744 

NC $736 $748 $854 $1,016 $1,020 $1,004 $1,016 $787 $1,053 $8,234 

ND $230 $234 $270 $324 $323 $317 $321 $246 $331 $2,596 

NE $320 $324 $370 $437 $436 $428 $432 $338 $446 $3,531 

NH $277 $282 $320 $379 $379 $373 $374 $294 $385 $3,063 

NJ $966 $976 $1,088 $1,253 $1,254 $1,240 $1,232 $1,005 $1,265 $10,279 

NM $293 $298 $345 $414 $414 $406 $412 $314 $425 $3,321 

NMI $158 $161 $188 $229 $229 $226 $226 $170 $235 $1,822 

NV $269 $274 $321 $394 $397 $391 $394 $294 $413 $3,147 

NY $1,943 $1,964 $2,151 $2,448 $2,447 $2,428 $2,404 $2,014 $2,456 $20,255 

OH $1,324 $1,338 $1,491 $1,728 $1,720 $1,669 $1,674 $1,370 $1,709 $14,023 

OK $461 $468 $535 $632 $632 $621 $633 $491 $649 $5,122 

OR $425 $432 $496 $587 $519 $576 $577 $450 $595 $4,657 

PA $1,345 $1,357 $1,508 $1,722 $1,717 $1,753 $1,706 $1,394 $1,746 $14,248 

PR $386 $414 $467 $547 $543 $539 $543 $433 $563 $4,435 

RI $257 $261 $297 $352 $353 $346 $346 $272 $356 $2,840 

SC $454 $461 $534 $640 $641 $627 $636 $486 $661 $5,140 

SD $224 $228 $262 $314 $313 $309 $310 $238 $321 $2,519 

TN $620 $630 $720 $851 $852 $833 $848 $660 $878 $6,892 

TX $1,819 $1,864 $2,182 $2,653 $2,668 $2,611 $2,663 $1,984 $2,782 $21,226 

UT $321 $326 $376 $450 $451 $445 $448 $344 $464 $3,625 

VA $729 $739 $837 $988 $990 $977 $983 $774 $1,019 $8,036 

VI $167 $175 $205 $255 $258 $243 $247 $184 $259 $1,993 

VT $224 $228 $261 $309 $309 $305 $305 $238 $315 $2,494 

WA $589 $596 $689 $830 $831 $810 $806 $620 $826 $6,597 

WI $740 $749 $834 $956 $955 $939 $947 $773 $967 $7,860 

WV $367 $371 $420 $489 $487 $479 $482 $383 $497 $3,975 

WY $213 $217 $253 $307 $307 $301 $304 $228 $316 $2,446 

USA $33M $33M $38M $45M $45M $44M $44M $35M $45M $361M 

Source: SEP Program 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. SEP program federal funding leveraging (Source: SEP Web site). 

Special project grants are competitive grants for which states can apply. The grants for these 

special projects depend on annual funding allocation and can be used in the following 

categories:29 

•	 Buildings—These types of projects include revisions of building codes, training for 

enforcement, and evaluation of impacts of changes, as well as rebuild America, greening 

of schools and other public buildings. 

•	 Industry—These projects generally provide for the development of workforce training 

programs and help develop understanding of energy-intense industries, agriculture energy 

projects, and the impact of energy efficiency on economic development. 

•	 Electric Power and Renewable Energy—These projects include a wide variety of 

renewable technologies efforts, including site-specific feasibility studies and grid-level 

integration studies. 

•	 Energy Education. —These projects include energy efficiency and renewable energy 

curriculum development and information dissemination. 

•	 Policy, Planning and Energy Security—These projects include analysis on policy and 

program options (e.g., green power programs), on the ground energy planning efforts, as 

well as data collection and analysis on energy consumption and production data at the 

state level. 

•	 Transportation—These projects include studying and implementing high efficiency and 

renewable energy transportation technology, as well as transportation demand 

management system and telecommuting impacts. 

29 A full summary is available in a searchable database; URL: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/search_projects.cfm 

51
 
 

 

Table 38 shows the funding from 1995 to 2005 for special projects through the SEP program. 

Table 38. Special Project Grants through DOE/EERE/WIP State Energy Program Funding ($ in thousands) 

St Year Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

AK 

AL 

$125 $0 $55 $75 $30 $210 $100 $0 $0 $595 

$134 $70 $250 $86 $60 $90 $95 $0 $275 $1,060 

AR 

AS 

$100 $63 $175 $37 $75 $80 $0 $107 $97 $735 

$0 $96 $0 $86 $35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $217 

AZ 

CA 

$110 $86 $185 $616 $575 $294 $687 $280 $500 $3,333 

$1,150 $1,075 $1,250 $1,690 $1,770 $1,540 $3,475 $2,127 $2,159 $16,237 

CO 

CT 

$100 $345 $983 $248 $682 $603 $431 $653 $361 $4,406 

$130 $225 $125 $345 $133 $385 $370 $170 $282 $2,165 

DC 

DE 

$40 $141 $143 $110 $368 $200 $150 $232 $0 $1,383 

$200 $25 $0 $0 $15 $277 $0 $0 $0 $517 

FL 

GA 

$193 $230 $592 $499 $280 $576 $322 $405 $262 $3,359 

$100 $267 $365 $270 $374 $377 $187 $499 $425 $2,864 

GU 

HI 

$50 $0 $0 $0 $50 $25 $0 $0 $0 $125 

$403 $304 $353 $190 $300 $456 $213 $129 $250 $2,598 

IA 

ID 

$350 $605 $335 $680 $658 $430 $360 $570 $261 $4,250 

$208 $30 $533 $419 $350 $459 $430 $175 $490 $3,093 

IL 

IN 

$200 $250 $400 $254 $248 $371 $200 $280 $960 $3,163 

$105 $250 $363 $150 $499 $431 $140 $137 $240 $2,316 

KS 

KY 

$269 $259 $312 $195 $141 $134 $150 $165 $100 $1,724 

$100 $115 $293 $207 $252 $255 $20 $115 $20 $1,377 

LA 

MA 

$160 $278 $130 $295 $47 $0 $20 $20 $20 $970 

$100 $90 $508 $291 $784 $325 $248 $556 $700 $3,602 

MD 

ME 

$150 $506 $280 $220 $300 $319 $355 $276 $340 $2,746 

$139 $266 $516 $220 $350 $115 $393 $476 $175 $2,649 

MI 

MN 

$262 $148 $118 $200 $99 $490 $286 $120 $272 $1,995 

$104 $250 $277 $118 $188 $800 $439 $708 $444 $3,327 

MO 

MS 

$50 $121 $100 $400 $100 $40 $220 $178 $0 $1,209 

$110 $162 $200 $98 $280 $150 $260 $367 $164 $1,791 

MT 

NC 

$141 $75 $150 $50 $150 $155 $104 $0 $140 $965 

$50 $100 $0 $0 $534 $359 $575 $330 $270 $2,218 

ND 

NE 

$77 $20 $31 $80 $50 $43 $100 $0 $100 $500 

$356 $550 $157 $190 $131 $255 $99 $32 $225 $1,995 

NH 

NJ 

$296 $0 $158 $448 $358 $507 $110 $40 $0 $1,917 

$149 $52 $258 $150 $328 $176 $220 $130 $0 $1,462 

NM 

NMI 

$95 $100 $425 $573 $459 $378 $578 $691 $100 $3,398 

$0 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12 

NV 

NY 

$110 $100 $0 $286 $85 $185 $305 $373 $0 $1,444 

$774 $922 $858 $885 $822 $1,049 $702 $565 $1,200 $7,777 

OH $565 $473 $597 $346 $581 $550 $468 $723 $400 $4,703 

52
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 38. Special Project Grants through DOE/EERE/WIP State Energy Program Funding ($ in thousands) 

St Year Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

OK $50 $100 $112 $150 $300 $0 $163 $189 $0 $1,065 

OR 

PA 

$401 $480 $854 $329 $330 $420 $209 $50 $421 $3,492 

$50 $259 $375 $500 $372 $478 $266 $469 $154 $2,923 

PR 

RI 

$100 $100 $0 $100 $0 $60 $34 $0 $0 $394 

$166 $772 $580 $180 $315 $230 $250 $74 $351 $2,918 

SC 

SD 

$100 $116 $99 $244 $234 $366 $157 $591 $290 $2,195 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124 $0 $0 $124 

TN 

TX 

$46 $80 $0 $252 $0 $406 $73 $20 $460 $1,337 

$271 $220 $349 $666 $978 $1,075 $875 $1,124 $1,214 $6,772 

UT 

VA 

$280 $655 $728 $1,327 $529 $537 $193 $133 $539 $4,921 

$40 $222 $325 $361 $50 $443 $258 $544 $415 $2,658 

VI 

VT 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $35 $22 $0 $0 $0 $57 

$230 $225 $355 $200 $290 $50 $176 $417 $100 $2,042 

WA 

WI 

$239 $542 $945 $741 $590 $905 $774 $472 $616 $5,826 

$530 $186 $673 $615 $605 $695 $388 $537 $470 $4,700 

WV 

WY 

$237 $250 $220 $200 $200 $200 $100 $150 $100 $1,657 

$0 $100 $39 $80 $65 $305 $425 $0 $150 $1,164 

USA $10,494 $12,969 $17,131 $16,951 $17,433 $19,278 $17,278 $16,399 $16,510 $144,442 

Source: SEP Program 

1.3.2 The Technical Assistance Program (TAP) 

Through the TAP program, EERE provides states access to the network of National Laboratories 

for quick turnaround assistance. This program is available to state and local officials with welldefined questions relating to energy. An expert responds to the state in about a week. A summary 

of the types and frequency of requests appears in Table 39. Since the tracking of the program 

began in 2004, about 226 TAPs have been or are currently being completed. On average, TAPs 

are funded at $5,700 per question for a total programmatic investment of $1.2 million over 5 

years. 

While the TAP program depends on states to request assistance and does not approach states 

directly, it has been active in every state except Mississippi. Table 40 provides TAP funding by 

state over time. The TAP program grew modestly (nine percent annual average growth) between 

2004 and 2008. There has been a recent rapid interest in the program as evidenced by January 

2009 requests totaling half of all 2008 requests. 

53
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 39. TAP Request Counts from 2004-2009 by Category 

Category of TAP request 

Count of 

Requests 

2004-2009 

RPS, RFS, or efficiency portfolio standards 43 

Use of clean energy technologies for air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions 

reduction 

42 

State and regional energy efficiency and renewable energy assessment and 

planning 

39 

Use of renewables on public lands and facilities 35 

Systems benefit charge (SBC) or other utility rate payer funded utility energy 

efficiency or renewable energy program 

26 

Multiple Categories 10 

Other 8 

Use of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies for disaster relief, 

mitigation, or planning 

4 

Sustainable community and building design 3 

Clean Energy project financing incentives and mechanisms 1 

Source: TAP database, maintained at NREL 

Table 40. DOE/WIP Technical Assistance Program Funding by State and Calendar Year 

State(s) Year Grand 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total 

AK $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 

AK, AZ, CA, CO, HA, ID, 

KS, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, 

OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, 

WY $10,000 $10,000 

AL $4,925 $4,919 $9,844 

AR $5,000 $5,000 

AZ $882 $5,000 $15,000 $20,882 

AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, 

NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, 

RI, WA, WI $10,000 $10,000 

CA $19,450 $26,000 $74,237 $119,687 

CO $4,966 $12,768 $40,000 $40,562 $98,296 

CO, MT, NE $5,000 $5,000 

CT $8,000 $11,053 $15,716 $34,769 

DC, MD, VA $15,000 $15,000 

DE $5,000 $5,000 

FL $5,440 $15,000 $20,440 

GA $2,466 $7,527 $9,993 

HI $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $30,000 

IA $12,768 $11,721 $9,000 $9,442 $15,000 $57,931 

IL $4,010 $5,000 $5,000 $14,010 

IN $9,167 $5,000 $7,000 $21,167 

KS $8,000 $8,000 

KY $4,980 $5,585 $11,530 $22,095 

54
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 40. DOE/WIP Technical Assistance Program Funding by State and Calendar Year 

State(s) Year Grand 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total 

LA $14,448 $11,062 $10,000 $35,510 

MA $12,108 $5,000 $600 $15,000 $32,708 

MD $5,000 $7,343 $0 $12,343 

MD, DC, NJ, PA $10,000 $10,000 

ME $4,812 $5,000 $5,000 $14,812 

MI $5,000 $28,813 $1,791 $21,000 $56,604 

MN $11,800 $6,976 $5,000 $23,776 

MO $16,142 $16,142 

MT $5,000 $5,450 $5,000 $15,450 

NC $4,661 $9,788 $7,500 $10,000 $31,949 

ND $5,737 $5,737 

NH $4,552 $0 $4,552 

NJ $17,082 $9,481 $10,000 $36,563 

NM $5,304 $7,000 $12,304 

NV $10,690 $10,690 

NY $5,341 $7,896 $9,951 $5,000 $13,000 $41,188 

OH $9,691 $8,324 $5,000 $3,598 $26,613 

OK $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 

OR $5,190 $15,100 $10,000 $30,290 

PA $9,733 $11,160 $14,990 $5,000 $40,883 

RI $4,960 $4,960 

SC, VA, GA $15,000 $15,000 

SD $1,233 $1,233 

TN $8,221 $4,999 $200 $13,420 

TX $3,313 $11,530 $4,661 $29,940 $5,000 $54,444 

UT $10,441 $6,051 $16,000 $10,000 $15,000 $57,492 

VA $8,695 $2,955 $11,650 

VI $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 

WA, OR, ID, MT, AK, HI $7,695 $7,695 

WI $637 $8,995 $5,000 $15,000 $29,632 

WV $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 

Grand Total $199,470 $180,637 $225,067 $249,040 $240,039 $119,000* $1,213,253 

Source: TAP Program via NREL. 

*Only January 2009 included 

Note: Multiple state TAPs are not tracked on investment specific to the state. 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Cities and Communities 

2.1 Market and Performance Data 

2.1.1 Drivers 

The drivers for local interest in clean energy are similar to state-level drivers. Like state drivers 

for energy efficiency and renewable energy, local drivers focus on maximizing the value of 

investment, especially in terms of economic development, including reduction of consumer 

energy bills; energy security; and environmental factors. 

Beyond the specific local drivers for clean energy, state and federal drivers have a large impact 

on local development and implementation of clean energy. For example, stringent statewide 

energy codes provide a baseline for localities to enforce and can have a significant efficiency 

improvement over what would be in place at the local level in the absence of state action. (See 

the state section for an overview of statewide building codes). While statewide minimums and 

policies have the potential to have large impacts on local energy efficiency and renewable energy 

use, the laws must be developed leaving space for individual needs and attributes of localities. 

Finally, because local policymakers are generalists covering many areas of local government, 

they depend heavily on the experiences of other localities. Fortunately, a large number of 

regional or national affiliations have emerged and offer information exchange at the local level. 

The following associations and groups (as well as others not listed here) may have a large impact 

on the development of local policy through centralization of policy and program impacts in other 

localities: U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, Local Governments for 

Sustainability (ICLEI), and the National Association of Counties. 

Comprehensive and centralized locality energy data are not available. Individual cities and 

localities participate in regional or national partnerships to promote sustainability, increase clean 

energy use, or holistically approach environmental challenges. The organizations are 

increasingly creating baseline energy use catalogues, which will provide more robust data in the 

future. 

2.2 Status of Local Policies and Programs 

Table 41 shows that 25 of the 28 local climate action plans surveyed for this report contain a 

specific citywide emission reduction goal. Please note that not all of the plans have been passed 

or approved.). Local climate action plan goals range from a 7 percent target reduction by 2012 

and a 100 percent reduction by 2020 to a more common long-term reduction of 80 percent by 

2050. Ten cities have set a goal of at least an 80 percent emissions reduction, most of them by 

2050. Three city climate plans, specifically Houston, Austin, and Sacramento, do not contain a 

specific reduction goal of citywide emissions. 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 41. Emission Reduction Goals Organized by Ambition of Goal 

Community Baseline 

Year Target Reduction Target Year 

Eugene, OR* 1990 7% 

100% 

2010 

2020 

Northfield, MN 2005 15% 

50% 

100% 

2013 

2028 

2033 

Takoma Park, MD 1990 80% 2010 

Seattle, WA 1990 7% 

80% 

2012 

2050 

Portland, OR 1990 10% 

80% 

2010 

2050 

Chicago, IL 1990 25% 

80% 

2020 

2050 

Berkeley, CA 2000 33% 

80% 

2020 

2050 

Aspen, CO 2004 30% 

80% 

2020 

2050 

Fort Collins, CO 2005 20% 

80% 

2020 

2050 

Gunnison Valley, CO 2005 20% 

30% 

80% 

2020 

2030 

2050 

Salt Lake City, UT NA Cut emissions 3%/year for 10 yrs 

70% 2040 

San Jose NA Cut per/capita energy use by 50% 2023 

Carbondale, CO 2004 25% 2012 

Sonoma County, CA 1990 25% 2015 

San Francisco, CA 1990 10% 

20% 

2010 

2012 

Ann Arbor, MI 2000 20% 2015 

Tucson, AZ 2005 25% 2030 

San Diego, CA 1990 15% 2015 

Minneapolis, MN 2005 12% 

20% 

2012 

2020 

New York City, NY 2005 30% 2030 

57
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alexandria, VA 2005 10% 

20% 

2012 

2020 

Denver, CO 1990 10% 2012 

Albuquerque, NM 1990 7% 2012 

Boulder, CO 1990 7% 2012 

Edmonds, WA 1999 10% 2019 

*Eugene’s goals are based on recommendations made by the Sustainable Business Initiatives Task 

Force commissioned by the mayor and city council. A climate action plan has not yet been conceived. 

2.2.1.1 Municipal Sector 

Nearly all of the communities plan to demonstrate leadership by increasing energy efficiency and 

use of renewable energy in municipal buildings. Three of the communities require that 100 

percent of energy used in municipal buildings come from renewable energy, or be offset by 

purchasing credits to reflect carbon neutrality of the municipal sector by a specific year (i.e., 

2010, 2012, and 2030). Several cities require that a certain percentage of municipal energy come 

from renewable energy (e.g., 30 percent by 2010). Several cities seek to improve energy 

efficiency through building requirements for all new buildings within city limits, while four 

cities plan to require LEED certification30 (or other green-building certification) for all new 

municipal buildings. Chicago and New York City both plan to implement an energy-monitoring 

system for all city buildings. 

Eight communities express specific quantitative goals for decreasing emissions from municipal 

buildings, with varying base-line years and percentage reduction targets ranging from a 20 

percent reduction to a 100 percent reduction from 2010 to 2020. 

The majority of municipalities plan to decrease emissions from city vehicles (often referred to as 

“fleets”) by setting mandates for the use of alternative fuels or by setting restrictions on fossil 

fuel use. For example, Austin, Texas, plans to make their entire city fleet carbon neutral through 

the use of electric power and alternative fuels, while Houston plans to replace 50 percent of their 

light-weight fleet with hybrids. Takoma Park, Maryland, plans to replace its entire fleet with 

hybrids. San Jose, California; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Seattle, Washington, plan to 

transition their entire fleet to alternative fuels by 2023, 2030, and no time frame, respectively. 

Berkeley, California, plans to convert its entire diesel fleet into a bio-diesel fleet; and San 

Francisco intends to have a zero-emission, carbon-neutral city fleet by 2020. Several cities plan 

on updating their public transportation grid, offering more routes and more options for 

commuters and city travelers. Chicago plans to invest $1.5 billion in rail infrastructure 

improvements and increase the efficiency of freight and passenger rail service throughout the 

region 

2.2.1.2 Power Plants 

Several cities plan to update their power plants. Minneapolis plans to convert three coal fired 

power plants to natural gas plants. Chicago plans to update existing coal fired power plants to 

drastically increase their efficiency. New York City plans on decoupling the profit of power 

30 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification program developed by the U.S. Green Building 

Council. 

58
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

plants from volume of energy consumed, and eventually setting up a carbon market by selling, 

giving, or auctioning carbon credits to generators by the end of 2009. 

2.2.1.3 Commercial/Business and Residential Sector 

Two climate action plans stand out with regard to green construction and green retrofitting of 

commercial and/or residential buildings – Portland’s plan for new construction and Chicago’s 

plan for retrofitting existing buildings. With regard to new commercial and multi-family 

construction, Portland plans to impose a “fee-bate” penalty for conventional construction, grant a 

waiver for moderate green improvements, and offer a reward for high-performance green 

buildings. The city also plans to create performance targets for new construction of single-family 

homes, leaving the possibility open for a similar “fee-bate” if the target is not reached. In 

addition, Portland will require existing commercial buildings to disclose energy performance 

information, and will offer instruction, direction, or incentives with regard to energy efficiency 

improvements. 

Chicago plans to embark upon an extensive program that will assist in retrofitting 65,000 

residential units, 9,000 commercial and institutional buildings, and 200 industrial buildings each 

year. The program will also assist property managers and major tenants weatherize, improve 

energy efficiency, and decrease waste in rented buildings and units. 

Chicago is also a partner in the new Clinton Climate Initiative’s Energy Efficiency Building 

Retrofit Program. This program brings together one of the world’s largest energy service 

companies, five of the world’s largest banks, and 17 of the world’s largest cities in a program to 

reduce the energy consumption in existing buildings. The program provides both cities and 

private building owners with access to financing in order to retrofit their buildings and upgrade 

them to more energy efficient products. Subsequent energy savings could reach upwards of 50 

percent. Two of Chicago’s largest and most prominent buildings, the Sears Tower and the 

Merchandise Mart, have already set an example by participating in the program. 

Overall, six communities specifically mention retrofitting program goals for either commercial 

or residential buildings. Austin plans to make all new single family homes zero-net-energycapable by 2015, while Albuquerque plans to require that all new buildings within city limits 

obtain carbon neutrality by 2030. Four communities plan to update their building and/or energy 

conservation codes. Three communities plan to require LEED certification for all new buildings 

within city limits, while several others mentioned incentivizing green-building. San Francisco 

was the only city to include a requirement for the newly constructed small buildings to obtain at 

least a 75 on the Green Point Scale. Gunnison Valley seeks to establish Smart Growth Planning 

Standards for new construction. Nearly all of the climate action plans mention a desire to 

incentivize green building, improve energy efficiency, or retrofit and weatherize commercial and 

residential buildings. Several plans also include efforts to increase the amount of recycling and 

diverted waste that buildings produce – most suggest 20 to 40 percent waste diversion by 2012. 

2.2.1.4 Climate Initiatives 

In 2000, Takoma Park approved by resolution a goal of decreasing GHG emissions to 80 percent 

below 1990 levels by 2010. The city sought to achieve this goal by passing a set of sustainable 

building guidelines; reducing energy consumption in city-owned buildings by 30 percent; 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ascertaining 5 percent of municipal energy from wind; transitioning their vehicle fleet to include 

18 percent hybrids or alternative fuel use vehicles; and instituting a curb-side recycling program. 

However, unforeseen obstacles prevented them from fully realizing their plans. 

A substantial part of the Takoma Park action plan relied on the development of a municipallyowned electric utility that would substantially reduce emissions by supplying an electric load 

from cleaner sources than coal. Members of Takoma Park’s task force apparently attempted to 

set this up, but this plan was never fully realized. Though the grounds for this setback need to be 

investigated more thoroughly, initial reports indicate three main factors for failed plan: 1) 

legislative barriers prevented the implementation of a street lighting program and a green power 

group purchasing program; 2) market barriers blocked expansion of the city’s recycling program; 

and 3) political barriers foiled a waste reduction program. Other obstacles included lack out 

outreach or advertising for certain programs and simple inaction on the part of local government 

officials. 

By contrast, Portland appears to have had relative success in achieving a portion of its goals. In 

2001, Portland and Multnomah County adopted a plan to reduce local GHG emissions to 10 

percent below 1990 levels by 2010. However, in light of increasingly ominous climate 

predictions and reports, Portland changed the goal to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 

levels by 2050. In 2007, local GHG emissions were at the same levels as 1990, despite 

population growth of 18 percent over the same time period, which means that per capita 

emissions decreased by 17 percent since 1990. Currently, 12 percent of the city’s municipal 

electricity purchases come from renewable sources, and negotiations are under way to set up a 

wind facility near the city. 

As contributory factors to the reduction of emissions, all diesel vehicles and equipment that use 

Portland’s fueling stations are currently fueled by B20 bio-diesel. In addition, a 75 percent 

growth in public transit use has been realized since 1990 due in large part to a light rail 

expansion. The city also maintains a recycling rate of 53 percent. 

In addition, Portland also touts the construction of nearly 40 high-performance green buildings, 

the establishment of the Energy Trust of Oregon that provides consistent funding for energy 

efficiency and renewable energy programs, the planting of over 750,000 trees and shrubs since 

1996, and the weatherization of 10,000 multi-family units and more than 800 homes in two 

years. 

In 1999, Fort Collins committed to reducing 2010 emissions to 30 percent below predicted 

emissions, which, at the time, were forecast to be 160 percent higher than 1990 levels. The city 

realized moderate success in implementing various programs. While the amount of C02 avoided 

was about 9 to 10 percent of the business-as-usual predictions, reductions could not keep pace 

with overall emissions growth. Net emissions continued to rise, and by 2005, Fort Collins had 

already surpassed the 2010 target threshold. Consequently, they developed a new task force with 

new goals of reducing emissions 10 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. 

In 2006, per capita emissions dropped below 2005 per capita emissions, but per capita emissions 

have risen as population has grown. 

60
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2003, Albuquerque committed to reducing emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. 

Apparently, the city has performed well thus far and has strengthened its goal, which now aims 

to decrease emissions by 40 percent below 2004 levels by 2014. Wind energy currently supplies 

20 percent of the electricity used by the city government. 

In 2005, Seattle committed to reducing emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, and 

by 80 percent by 2050. In 2007, the city issued a progress report indicating that it is on track to 

meet the initial goal of a 7 percent reduction. In 2005, emissions were 8 percent below 1990 

levels. Seattle attributes the success to a variety of factors, including the development of over 

100 green buildings, expanded public transit options, increased public transit ridership, and 

climate-friendly policies at City Light, the nation’s first zero net emissions public utility. 

2.3 Federal Role 

A range of available programs support federal-state/local partnerships toward the clean energy 

transition. Table 42 summarizes currently known programs with a focus on partnerships and the 

State and Local jurisdictional sector. 

Table 42. Selection of Federal Programs with State and Local Governments 

Program Title Details 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Weatherization & 

Intergovernmental 

Program (WIP) 

Provides funding and technology assistance to state and local governments, Indian 

tribes and international agencies to spur the development and adoption of 

renewable energy and energy efficiency technology through a multitude of 

programs (e.g., State Energy Program, Weatherization Assistance Program). 

Wind Powering America 

Promotes wind development, specifically in rural areas and in markets that are 

stalled, by providing information, analyses and other tools to communities 

throughout the country. 

Solar America Initiative 

Focuses on R&D and market transformation through industry partnerships, with the 

goal of getting PV cost-competitive by 2015. The Solar America Cities Program is a 

part of the initiative. 

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & 

Infrastructure 

Technologies Program 

(HFCIT) 

Supports R&D activities to improve performance and reduce the costs of these 

technologies. 

Clean Cities 

Through partnerships between government agencies and industry, this program 

seeks to reduce the consumption of petroleum in the transportation sector by 2.5 

billion gallons by 2020 via replacement, reduction, and elimination strategies. 

EnergySmart Schools 

Provides state and local agencies assistance for school construction and renovation 

to reduce school energy use and costs and improve the learning environment for 

students. 

Green Power Network Provides consumers with information regarding green power options and policies 

affecting green power markets. 

Department of Energy/Environmental Protection Agency 

Energy Star Promotes efficiency through product and systems-based labeling. 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Action Plan for 

Energy Efficiency 

Promotes private-public partnerships between state agencies, electric utilities, 

consumers, energy providers, and environmental organizations to promote national 

commitment to energy efficiency measures through identifying and addressing 

market barriers. 

Department of Energy/Office of Electricity 

State and Regional Policy 

Assistance 

Provides states and regions with technical assistance, often in the form of grants, to 

regions-based groups, like WGA, for policy implementation and market solutions to 

improved demand response, energy efficiency, renewable energy and transmission 

issues. 

Department of Transportation 

Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement 

Program 

Provides financial assistance to state DOTs and other transit agencies for reducing 

criteria air pollutants from the transportation sector in NAAQS non-attainment and 

former non-attainment areas. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Clean EnergyEnvironment State 

Partnership Program 

Assists states in adopting policies and programs promoting clean energy to improve 

environmental quality and public health. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Development 

Program 

Supports the development and improvement of renewable energy biomass projects 

through loans and grants to businesses, utilities, and other actors. 

2.4 Market and Performance Projections 

No quantitative analysis of future trends is currently available for local communities, but a 

qualitative assessment is possible. 

In the current economic climate, increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy at the local 

level will be difficult, absent federal support. Fortunately, changes in federal government 

funding activities for local governments both through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 and the proposed FY 2010 budget are expected to encourage local action in pursuit 

of clean energy, with a specific focus on creating jobs. 

The proposed expansion in federal funding will challenge WIP to grow its oversight and 

educational capabilities. An expanded infrastructure for funding delivery and tracking will be 

necessary. But the need for technical assistance may prove even more critical. Indeed, with the 

new federal emphasis on EE and RE, localities with little experience in clean energy planning, 

development, and technology and policy implementation may impose significant new 

educational demands on WIP. Finally, more robust feedback loops can help EERE program 

administrators identify and communicate best practices. Success in all these areas is likely to 

benefit from improved knowledge creation and management, including increased research into 

policy evaluation and the development of uniform and comprehensive energy baseline 

methodologies. 

62
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Tribes 

3.1 Market Data 

There are 562 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska native villages and corporations. Of 

these organizations, 225 are located in Alaska and 337 are located in the contiguous 48 states.31 

Hawaiian natives have yet to be federally recognized. The recognized tribes, villages, and 

corporations comprise 1.5 percent of the U.S. population.32 This translates to about 1.4 million 

households, with about 3 percent of households having less than 80 percent of the national 

median family income.33 

From 2002 to 2007, the Tribal Energy Program (TEP) within WIP provided funds to 91 energy 

projects.34 These projects have focused on establishing an EERE project development pipeline 

including: 1) Strategic Planning, 2) Feasibility Studies, 3) Project Engineering, and 4) 

Construction and Operation. Figure 3 shows the annual funding and awards. Figure 4 shows 

the split of projects along the development timeline and the distribution of activities among 

strategic planning and the EERE technology portfolio. 

In April 2000, EIA published a report “Energy Consumption and Renewable Energy 

Development Potential on Indian Lands,” in which it observed that “14.2 percent of Indian 

households on reservations had no access to electricity, as compared to only 1.4 percent of all 

Figure 3. Tribal Energy Program annual funding and awards 

31 DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Tribal Leaders Directory—Winter 2008;” see http://www.doi.gov/bia/TLDFinal.pdf

32 See U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010849.html

33 http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/codetalk/onap/ihbgformula/fy08estsum.xls 34 EERE, “Renewable Energy Development on Tribal Lands,” DOE/GO-102007-2526, December 2007, 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42354.pdf 

63
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. households.” 35 This comparison was based on the 1990 Census. While the 2010 Census 

will likely show modest improvement, the sheer number of independent Nations, with no 

inherent framework for aggregation, creates a large administrative challenge with primary 

responsibility residing in the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The 

DOE Tribal Energy Program has attempted to work with the BIA with mixed success. 

Tribes need to be viewed both as a “market” in need of EERE technologies and as a location for 

the deployment of renewable energy technologies on the “supply side.” 

Figure 4. Tribal project development pipeline and areas of focus 

Poverty levels throughout Indian Country will limit the “market” for EERE technologies in these 

low-income communities without federal subsidies. On the Navajo Nation in Arizona, there are 

approximately 15,000 homes that remain without modern electric services. This is due to the 

remote location and the corresponding cost of conventional power distribution. One of the oldest 

Tribal utilities in the U.S. is the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), which serves much of 

the Navajo Nation. With the initial funding, and with support from EERE’s Tribal Energy 

Program (TEP), NTUA has developed expertise in supplying PV and PV-wind hybrid power 

systems. Unfortunately, the resources to complete the installation of these systems—and to meet 

the needs of the thousands of homes—are still lacking. 

On the “supply side,” tribal lands hold significant renewable energy resource potential spanning 

the entire renewable-generation and fuel portfolio (wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and 

biomass resources). The wind, solar, and biomass resources have been quantified and are 

presented below. Aggregate geothermal and hydropower resources have not been analyzed. 

Hydropower aggregation would be fairly straight-forward with support of the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL). However, large hydropower facilities built in the West, particularly along the 

Columbia River system, have been the source of long-standing animosity due to the severe 

35 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/ilands.pdf 

64
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

impact of the dams on indigenous subsistence food resources, most notably, salmon. Geothermal 

estimates are complicated by lack of resources among federal agencies including the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 

3.1.1	 Key Tribal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Drivers 

The key issue on tribal lands regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunity 

development include: 

•	 lack of training and skill development in building and maintaining systems; 

•	 lack of strategic energy planning and capacity development among Tribal leadership; 

and 

•	 distrust of “outside intervention.” Although some tribes that have become completely 

integrated into the larger economy, there are more traditional tribes that continue to 

resist “outside influences” on their culture and lifestyle. 

A significant number of tribes are interested in supporting commercial production of renewable 

energy resources on tribal lands but have been constrained by recent tax-based incentive 

programs. Tribes, like municipal governments, are tax-exempt. Over the past several years, tax 

incentives, both investment (ITC) and production (PTC) tax incentives have been restricted to 

entities with a tax liability to encourage private industry to invest in and develop renewable 

energy projects. Without a tax liability to take advantage of the incentive, the economics of 

renewable energy projects on tribal lands are not likely to spur development. The major 

financing advantages provided by the PTC, ITC, and accelerated depreciation policies provided 

to corporations have literally left tax-exempt entities (including tribes) in a non-competitive 

situation even if they have access to renewable resources. 

Alternative financing structures exist to assist tax exempt entities in receiving partial or all 

economic benefit from the tax incentives, including third-party ownership (with the third party 

taking advantage of the credits and passing the savings on), but the added transaction costs and 

uncertainty regarding Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rulings tend to discourage project 

development. Efforts are further hampered by the current financial downturn. 

3.1.2	 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Market Potential and 

Performance 

Since lower incomes are more common within the tribal population, tribes do not mirror the 

overall economy. With the increase of gaming on tribal lands, a few tribes close to population 

centers have increased overall tribal wealth and have declined further assistance from the BIA. 

However, this is a small minority of the population. 

Lack of comprehensive cataloging does not, however, indicate a lack of potential and possible 

performance.36 Figures 5-7 illustrate potential renewable energy resources on tribal lands. 

36 Indian Country’s fossil and uranium resources are significant, and economic and institutional pressures on Tribes 

to allow commercial/corporate extraction of these resources have been—and continue—to be significant. Tribal 

responses to the mining of these resources have been mixed, ranging from hostile (Navajo uranium) to open-fordiscussion (Navajo: coal; and Crow: coal). A history of significant health impacts on Tribal members (uranium 

mining on Navajo) and visions of significant financial windfalls (coal mining on several reservations) are key 

factors shaping this debate. 

65
 
Figure 5. Solar potential on tribal l ands 

66
 
Figure 6. Wind potential on tribal l ands 

67
 
 

 

Figure 7. Biomass potential on tribal lands 

3.2 Policy and Program Data 

The “status” of tribal policies and programs spans the entire spectrum from being hostile to being 

proactive regarding energy development and, in particular, EERE development. 

There are regional groupings of tribes that have formed to facilitate local cooperation among 

regional members, including: 

ATNI – the Affiliated Tribes on NW Indians (Pacific NW Tribes) 

SCTCA – the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association 

ITCA – the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona 

AIPC – the All Indian Pueblo Council 

MAST – the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes 

Several other groupings work together to address common regional needs and present a common 

message to the numerous federal agencies with which they must communicate. 

68
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 Federal Role 

DOE must understand that it is the “newcomer” regarding interactions with Indian Country. 

Interior/BIA, EPA, HUD/ONAP, HHS, and others have a very long history with Indian Country 

that long pre-dates DOE’s relatively new interest. 

EERE programs provide a significant impact by placing money in the hands of tribal managers 

to build internal capacity leading to projects owned, and operated by the local tribes. 

Given available resources, EERE/TEP has been very effective in building a project pipeline and 

trust-relationship within Indian Country. So far EERE has invested in only a fraction of the 562 

tribes, but an effective pipeline of projects has been developed. A list of funded projects, peerreviews, tribal progress, and project results is available on the TEP Web site: 

www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy. 

3.4 Historical Funding, FY 2010 Funding Request, and Program Expansion 

The FY 2010 appropriation for tribal energy activities is $6 million. This is in line with FY 2009 

and FY 2008 actual appropriations. 

4	 Low-Income Residential Efficiency 

4.1 Market Data 

With limited discretionary spending by the households themselves, residential energy efficiency 

in the low-income market for is driven by public spending from a variety of sources ().

37 Recent 

annual funding from various federal, state, and utility resources for low-income energy 

efficiency totals approximately $660 million (FY 2007 NASCSP Survey), a level that will be 

vastly expanded as a result of FY 2009 federal regular appropriations, as well as funding under 

ARRA. This section focuses its attention on the following elements: 

•	 the energy-related characteristics of the households in the low-income sector; 

•	 the resources committed to low-income energy efficiency; 

•	 the structure of the weatherization assistance network that provides the vast majority of 

the low-income efficiency investment; and 

•	 some of the challenges faced by the network in meeting the energy efficiency needs of 

low-income households. 

Energy-Related Characteristics of Low-Income Households 

There are a number of ways to define the number of households in the low-income market 

sector. Most of these are based on household income standards defined by various federal 

programs. For example, eligibility for many programs at the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) is defined as household income at or below 80 percent of the local area 

median. The Department of Health and Human Services Low Income Home Energy Assistance 

Program (LIHEAP) has historically defined eligibility to be household income at or below 150 

37 This section is derived from unpublished working documents of the National Association for State Community 

Services Programs and U.S. DOE Weatherization Assistance Program Briefing Book. 

69
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines or 60 percent of state median income, 

whichever is higher. The Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program now defines 

eligibility as household income at or below 200 percent of the Poverty Income Guidelines or 

HHS LIHEAP eligibility. For purposes of this analysis, the LIHEAP guidelines are employed. 

This is consistent with the DOE Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (RECS), which is currently considered the most reliable energy data 

regarding household energy use.38 

According to the latest RECS, 38.6 million out of 111 million households in the United States 

are federally eligible for LIHEAP. Within this low-income population, 16.6 million households 

are categorized as having income below the poverty level. The low-income household population 

is generally geographically distributed in roughly the same proportions as the non-low-income 

population, with approximately 21 percent in the Northeast, 24 percent in the Midwest, 36 

percent in the South, and 19 percent in the West. 

This large eligible population comprises a broad range of households in terms of income levels, 

housing characteristics, and program participation. Over 58 percent of the participating 

households include at least one paid worker, while approximately 21 percent receive food 

stamps. Nearly 66 percent of the eligible households live in single-family or mobile homes and 

over half own their homes. 

Low-income consumers have a similar profile to other consumers in terms of the primary heating 

fuel they use, with a slightly higher proportion than the general population using propane for this 

purpose. The largest single heating fuel type is natural gas, with approximately 48 percent of 

low-income households employing this fuel. Electricity is used for heating by 32 percent of these 

households. Home heating oil is the heating fuel for 8percent of low-income families; and 

propane is employed for heating by 5 percent. 

As Figure 8 demonstrates, the concentration of heating fuel usage varies substantially by region. 

Most of the home heating oil is used by low-income households in the Northeast; whereas 

electricity is the dominant heating source in the South, and natural gas predominates in the 

Midwest. This has important implications for the average level of residential expenditures and 

energy burdens in the various parts of the country. Home heating oil and propane prices per 

MBtu are higher and have risen more sharply than that of other fuels; and residential electricity 

prices in the Northeast part of the country tend to be well above the national average. The 

overwhelming predominance of natural gas as the primary heating fuel in the Midwest makes 

low-income households in that part of the United States extremely sensitive to events in the 

natural gas markets. 

38 Most statistics in this study are based on the recently released public use files of 2005 RECS with energy prices 

adjusted to EIA projected FY 2009 residential energy price projections. Certain data is based on the previous RECS 

for 2001. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/contents.html. 

70
 
 

 

 

Figure 8. Primary heating fuel for low-income households 

Low-income households have lower average residential energy usage and lower residential 

energy bills as compared to non-low-income population. This difference, however, is not in 

proportion to household income. For FY 2009, the average residential energy expenditure for 

low-income households is estimated at $1,876 – about 80 percent of the residential energy 

expense of non-low-income household, which is estimated at $2,325. The income of low-income 

households, as provided in the 2005 RECS and adjusted for inflation, was estimated at $18,624 

compared to $71,144 for non-low-income households. The group energy burden of low-income 

households, defined as average residential energy expense for all low income households divided 

by average income, is therefore estimated to be 10 percent of income for low-income households 

compared to 3.3 percent for non-low-income households (see energy-efficiency graph below). 

Households that actually receive energy payment assistance, estimated at just over 5 million 

households in RECS in 2005, had an even higher energy burden of 11.5 percent of income (see 

Figure 9). 

71
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Energy burden by income group, 2008-2009 

Average weather-adjusted energy consumption for low-income households in 2005 was 84 MBtu 

compared to 102 MBtu for the non-low-income households. However, energy intensity, that is to 

say, Btu consumption per square foot of heated space, showed the reverse pattern. For eligible 

households, consumption per square foot averaged 90.2 Btu, whereas for non-low-income 

households the average was 69 Btu per square foot. This reflects the relative inefficiency of the 

low-income housing stock compared to that of other households. Whereas 24 percent of lowincome households reported inadequate insulation in their homes, 15 percent of non-low-income 

households reported this condition. 

A review of the average MBtu consumption for low-income households by housing type reveals 

that households living in large apartment buildings have lower average consumption than those 

in most other building types. Households located in large apartment buildings consume an 

average of 56.4 MBtu compared to 99 MBtu for households located in single family homes. It 

important to note that average consumption per square foot is far higher in the small multi-family 

housing stock than it is in other building types. The average consumption was 139 Btu per square 

foot for these homes compared to 81 Btu per square foot for single-family homes and 83 Btu per 

square foot for apartments in large buildings. This highlights a potential efficiency opportunity in 

the small multi-family housing stock. 

The RECS data indicate substantial energy efficiency opportunities in the low-income housing 

stock in terms of both heating systems and refrigerators if one uses the age of the equipment as a 

rough proxy for inefficiency. Nearly 40 percent of the refrigerators in the low-income 

households were original installations or over ten years old as compared to just 32 percent in the 

non-low-income households. A similar differential is evident for heating systems, with 65 

percent of low-income heating units either original equipment or 10 years old or greater as 

compared to 53 percent for non-low-income households (Table 43). 

72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 43. Age of Heating Systems and Refrigerators by Program Eligibility 

Age of 

Equipment Low-Income 

Refrigerators 

Non-Low-Income 

Heating Systems 

Low-Income Non-Low-Income 

Under 2 Years 16.5% 17.4% 9.7% 11.4% 

2-4 Years 19.3% 21.1% 10.9% 13.8% 

5-9 Years 24.6% 29.5% 14.3% 21.7% 

10-19 Years 22.9% 23.3% 19.2% 25.4% 

20 Years or 

more 

6.1% 5.2% 25.6% 19.7% 

As old as home 10.6% 3.5% 20.3% 8.0% 

Source: RECS 2005 

As one examines the energy bills of eligible low-income households, several features stand out. 

Households that employ fuel oil as their primary heat source have the highest energy bills, 

followed by those that heat with propane. The average energy bill for the former was estimated 

at $3,218 last year, while that of the latter was $2,678. This compares with $1,927 for 

households heating with natural gas and $1,376 for households heating with electricity. Please 

see Figure 10 for details of heating and total residential energy expenditures by primary heating 

fuel. 

Figure 10. Expected energy expenditures for 2007-2008 for low-income households by primary 

heating fuel 

Given the concentration of low-income households heating with fuel oil in the Northeast, it is no 

wonder that the average energy expenditure projected for low-income households for FY 2009 is 

$2,413, which is higher than in any other region. Low-income households in the Midwest, where 

less expensive natural gas predominates, have a projected FY 2009 energy expenditure of 

$1,850; and households in the South, where heating loads are lower, have a projected FY 2009 

energy expenditure of $1,855. Low-income households living in the West have a projected 

average expenditure of $1,428. 

73
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2 Policy: State and Federal Measures

Resources Committed To Low-Income Energy Efficiency 

The passage of ARRA promises a large increase in revenues committed to the Low-Income 

Weatherization Assistance Program, specifically, $5 billion over FY 2009 and FY 2010. This is 

in addition to other funding currently available, including 1) $250 million of supplemental 

funding for FY 2009 provided in the continuing resolution that is funding most of the federal 

government as of this date; 2) an estimated $400-$450 million in transfers at state discretion 

from the LIHEAP program; and 3) a reported regular appropriation of $200 million incorporated 

into the final FY 2009 appropriation. 

Historically, weatherization activities at the state and local levels have received funding from the 

energy efficiency streams of resources, namely the DOE appropriation; transfers from the 

LIHEAP program; and resources generated from utility ratepayers through systems benefits 

charges and demand side management (DSM) programs. The National Association for State 

Community Services Programs, which represents many weatherization grants and does an annual 

resource survey of them, has identified the following recent trends in resources: 

•	 During the past ten years, DOE funding has fluctuated from a high of $242.5 million in 

PY 2006 to a low of $109.8 million in PY 1996. Petroleum Violation Escrow funding, 

once a main stream of program funding, has now disappeared from most state budgets. 

•	 The regulations governing the LIHEAP allow for “up to 15% of a state’s allocation to be 

used for WAP,” and up to 25 percent is allowable with a waiver from HHS. The amount 

of LIHEAP funds dedicated to the WAP is usually in direct proportion to the national 

appropriation of these funds by Congress and the distribution of emergency LIHEAP 

funds by the President. In 2007, states received $2.161 billion in LIHEAP and the related 

emergency contingency funds. The transfer of $255,868,133 to WAP in 2007 represents 

11.8 percent of the national LIHEAP allocation. It is reasonable to assume that, as 

LIHEAP appropriations rise and fall, so will the representative amounts transferred to 

WAP. 

•	 Funding from utility ratepayers and other sources have steadily increased and reached a 

15-year highpoint in PY 2007, with approximately $200,191,844 in funds anticipated for 

weatherization-related activities. The growth of this funding source has been achieved 

through intervention in electric and gas restructuring efforts of state and local entities, the 

implementation of landlord participation programs within the states, and the development 

of relationships with other state offices to locate companion funds to offset WAP 

activities. In many states, the intervention of experts in rate cases and other hearings 

resulted in the creation of system benefit programs that included WAP-related initiatives. 

State and local WAP offices continue to seek leverage opportunities with landlords, statefunded companion programs, and other publicly and privately funded projects to increase 

funding and improve the selection of services available to low-income families through 

the weatherization state and local network. 

The following table provides a historical overview of the main streams of low-income efficiency 

funding over time. 

74
 
 Figure 11. State Weatherization Assistance Program funding survey 

75
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2.1 Structure of Weatherization Program Network 

WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in the nation and operates in all 50 

states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories and on several Native American 

reservations. WAP is already a successful public/private partnership using federal, state, local, 

utility, and private funds. The expansion of WAP to meet the goals of ARRA will put tens of 

thousands of people to work and create investments into local economies around the country. 

The WAP network expansion, or “ramp-up,” will include 1) the hiring and training of a work 

force throughout the country to perform the energy improvements; 2) the procurement of the 

necessary vehicles; 3) tools and equipment to outfit the crews and contractors; and 4) the 

oversight responsibilities at the federal, state, and local levels to protect the resources and ensure 

that only the highest quality work is performed and accepted. 

4.2.2 Service Delivery Network 

The grantees for WAP funds are the state governments, the District of Columbia, certain Indian 

tribes and the U.S. territories (referred to as “states”). Each state designates a department within 

the government to operate WAP. These departments vary throughout the country and include 

housing, community development, public welfare, energy offices, environment, and commerce 

agencies. Each state has established a local service delivery network comprised of organization 

that can provide WAP in specific geographic areas. There are 900 local agencies throughout the 

nation: 700 community action agencies and 200 units of local government or other non-profits. 

Community action agencies have preference under the authorizing legislation for the program. 

This network covers every political jurisdiction in the country. 

4.3 Challenges and Barriers to Program Expansion 

4.3.1 Production and Labor Force 

In the 2008 PY (April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009), WAP planned to employ more than 8,000 

people working directly for local agencies or private contractors hired by the network, and 

another 13,000 people involved in the management and the provision of related services to the 

program, such as training, materials, equipment manufacturing, and technical assistance. These 

WAP professionals will weatherize more than 150,000 buildings this year using a combination of 

direct hire crews who work for the local agencies and private contractors hired to weatherize 

homes. In-house crews perform approximately 50 percent of the annual production and private 

contractors perform the remaining 50 percent. 

4.3.2 Energy Auditing/Inspection 

Successful field operations are contingent on the performance of competent, accurate and useful 

energy audits on candidate homes. WAP uses a sophisticated auditing technique that requires 

diagnostic equipment and observation protocols to determine the most cost effective services to 

be provided in each home. The auditor must also identify areas where the family’s health and 

safety must be protected and determine the best methods for abating those conditions. A trained 

energy auditor can perform about two audits per day. However, time is required for write-ups 

and follow-up to determine accuracy, develop job work orders, etc. This means an auditor can 

usually perform about ten audits per week with other duties assigned. Considering holidays, 

vacation, sick leave, training, and other time requirements, an auditor’s workload standard is 

76
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

about 350 audits per year. Currently there are about 1,000 full- or part-time trained auditors in 

the network. These personnel include program managers, auditors, and quality control staff. 

WAP requires that auditors who evaluate homes 1) possess specialized skills based on an 

understanding of building science and state-of the-art tools that diagnose building energy loss 

sources, inefficient indoor air movement and safety hazards; and 2) comprehend 

investment/work order “audit” or decision tools. In order to meet the “core competency” 

requirements for the job, an energy auditor must have six to eight months of formal training, 

including supervised field work and classroom instruction before being able to work 

independently. 

4.3.3 Quality Control Inspections 

Auditors, crews, and contractors use an array of equipment to determine current conditions of the 

home, perform the work in a professional manner, and test to ensure that only the highest quality 

work is accepted. Every home must receive a quality control inspection before the unit can be 

considered complete. The quality control staff is trained to conduct a series of tests to ensure that 

targets were met during the work phase. Each quality control staff can perform an average of 

three inspections per day, or 525 per year, based on productive time available each week. 

Currently, the network has approximately 900 full- or part-time trained inspectors in the field, 

including program managers, energy auditors, and specific quality control staff. 

4.3.4 Production Staff 

The technologies being used by crews in the field include: blower door directed air infiltration 

reduction; furnace efficiency testing including draft and smoke tests; furnace repair and 

replacement; health and safety protocols to abate dangerous conditions in the home; lead safe 

work practices to eliminate contamination in older homes; air quality tests for carbon monoxide 

and other environmental pollutants; dense pack sidewall insulation; attic and floor insulation; 

water heater energy use reduction; and among others. 

The crew size, the location of the work force, the complexity of the tasks to be performed, and 

the funding available determine the amount of labor required to meet established production 

goals. Typically, a two- or three-person crew adequately trained in advanced weatherization 

technologies can complete the average home in approximately 2.5 business days (accounting for 

travel, scope of work, health and safety requirements, and building condition). This workload 

standard is generally used to calculate the labor force needed by a local agency to complete its 

annual production goals. To complete the 150,000 homes during the 2008 PY, the network will 

employ approximately 2,150 full- and part-time crews with a labor force of more than 5,700. It 

costs approximately $50,000 to outfit a crew to perform weatherization services, including the 

purchase of a vehicle, blower door, insulating machine, generator, testing equipment, power 

tools, hand tools, and other accessories. For these staff to become proficient at installing 

weatherization measures, a combination of classroom and on-the-job training is usually 

recommended. It can take a crew six to eight weeks to become skilled at completing their work 

in the home. The hiring, training, and outfitting of crews will be the major responsibility of local 

WAP managers for the first six months of the ramp-up period. 

77
 
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP) Web Sites 

U.S. Department of Energy Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP)

apps1.eere.energy.gov/wip/ 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants

www.eecbg.energy.gov/

State Energy Program

apps1.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/

Weatherization Assistance Program

apps1.eere.energy.gov/weatherization/

Tribal Energy Program

apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/ 

Renewable Energy Production Incentive

apps1.eere.energy.gov/repi/

Technical Assistance Project

apps1.eere.energy.gov/wip/tap.cfm

Key Report Contacts 

For more information on this report, please contact: 

Elizabeth Doris, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

303-384-7489; Elizabeth.Doris@nrel.gov 

Roger Taylor, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

303-384-7389; Roger.Taylor@nrel.gov

On the Cover

Weatherization programs help low-income households reduce their energy bills

by ensuring that they have proper insulation. 

For more information contact:

EERE Information Center

1-877-EERE-INF (1-877-337-3463)

www.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter 

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.

Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

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

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

DOE/GO-102009-2859

July 2009

Energy Efficiency &

Renewable Energy