The 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard

Annie Gilleo, Anna Chittum, Kate Farley, Max Neubauer, 

Seth Nowak, David Ribeiro, and Shruti Vaidyanathan

October 2014

Report Number U1408

© American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

529 14th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20045

Phone: (202) 507-4000 • Twitter: @ACEEEDC 

Facebook.com/myACEEE • www.aceee.org
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

i

Contents

About the Authors..............................................................................................................................iii

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

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................v

Key Findings ...........................................................................................................................v

Results ................................................................................................................................... vii

Strategies for Improving Energy Efficiency.......................................................................ix

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

Chapter 1. Methodology and Results ...............................................................................................2

Scoring......................................................................................................................................2

State Data Collection and Review........................................................................................5

Data Limitations .....................................................................................................................6

2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard Results .................................................................7

Strategies for Improving Energy Efficiency......................................................................15

Chapter 2. Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policies ....................................................17

Introduction...........................................................................................................................17

Methodology and Results ...................................................................................................22

Other Methodology Notes ..................................................................................................43

Chapter 3. Transportation Policies..................................................................................................44

Introduction...........................................................................................................................44

Methodology and Results ...................................................................................................47

Chapter 4. Building Energy Codes..................................................................................................55

Introduction...........................................................................................................................55

Methodology and Results ...................................................................................................58

Chapter 5. Combined Heat and Power ..........................................................................................64
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

ii

Introduction...........................................................................................................................64

Methodology.........................................................................................................................64

Results ....................................................................................................................................68

Chapter 6. State Government-Led Initiatives ................................................................................73

Introduction...........................................................................................................................73

Methodology and Results ...................................................................................................76

Potential Metrics...................................................................................................................90

Chapter 7. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards.......................................................93

Introduction...........................................................................................................................93

Methodology and Results ...................................................................................................93

Chapter 8. Conclusions.....................................................................................................................96

Looking Ahead .....................................................................................................................96

Further Research...................................................................................................................97

References.........................................................................................................................................100

Appendix A. Electric Efficiency Program Budgets Per Capita .................................................109

Appendix B. 2012 and 2013 Savings Data Disaggregated .........................................................110

Appendix C. Summary of Large Customer Self-Direct Programs by State ............................112

Appendix D. Details of States’ Energy Efficiency Resource Standards...................................117

Appendix E. State Transit Funding...............................................................................................122

Appendix F. State Transit Legislation ..........................................................................................124

Appendix G. Summary of States’ Building Code Stringency ...................................................127

Appendix H. Summary of Building Code Compliance Efforts ................................................136

Appendix I. Summary of Revenue Streams, Incentives, and Financing for CHP..................159

Appendix J. Expanded Table of State R&D Programs ...............................................................162
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

iii

About the Authors

Annie Gilleo joined ACEEE in 2013. She is the lead author for the State Energy Efficiency 

Scorecard and conducts research on energy efficiency resource standards, utility regulatory 

mechanisms, and other state-level policies. 

Seth Nowak conducts quantitative analysis and writes reports on energy efficiency 

programs and policies in the electric and natural gas utility sector. His focus is on state 

energy efficiency policies, including the administration and delivery of utility-sector 

programs. His current research is on the expansion of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency 

policies and programs across states. He joined ACEEE in 2010.

David Ribeiro conducts research and analysis on state- and local-level energy efficiency 

initiatives such as lead-by-example and transportation policies. He contributes to both the 

State and City Energy Efficiency Scorecards. David joined ACEEE in 2013.

Shruti Vaidyanathan is the principal analyst for ACEEE’s Green Book Online, a 

comprehensive environmental ranking of consumer vehicles. Her recent work has also 

focused on transportation policy at the state and regional levels, including the analysis of 

policy options for the states of New Mexico and North Carolina. She joined ACEEE in 2007.

Anna Chittum researches and develops federal, state, and local industrial-energy policies 

for ACEEE, particularly those pertaining to combined heat and power (CHP) systems and 

industrial energy efficiency programs. Anna is currently a visiting fellow at ACEEE, having 

returned in 2014 from a yearlong Fulbright fellowship in Denmark where she researched 

local heat planning and the integration of CHP and intermittent renewable energy sources 

on the Danish grid. Anna joined ACEEE in 2008.

Kate Farley conducted research for ACEEE’s Industry and Behavior programs from 2011 to 

2014. She also contributed to research and analysis of federal legislation for the Policy 

program.

Max Neubauer joined ACEEE in 2007 and was a member of the State Policy team through 

2014. Max was a project manager for ACEEE’s State Clean Energy Resource Project and 

contributed to the annual State Energy Efficiency Scorecard as well as many ACEEE state 

energy efficiency studies. He also provided technical research and management support to 

ACEEE’s sister organization, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

iv

Acknowledgments

This report was made possible through the generous support of the U.S. Department of 

Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The authors gratefully acknowledge 

external reviewers, internal reviewers, colleagues, and sponsors who supported this effort. 

First and foremost, we thank our many contacts at state energy offices and public utility 

commissions, too numerous to list here, who provided valuable utility data and information 

on energy efficiency policies and programs and offered feedback on an earlier draft of this 

report. 

The State Scorecard is also greatly enhanced by peer reviewers at national and regional 

organizations. These external expert reviewers included, in no particular order: Eleni 

Pelican, David Cohan, Mike Li, Alice Dasek, and Claudia Tighe (U.S. Department of 

Energy); Doug Lewin and Chris Herbert (South-Central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as 

a Resource); Josh Craft (Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships); Julia Friedman (Midwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance); Howard Geller, Christine Brinker, Will Toor, and Ellen 

Zuckerman (Southwest Energy Efficiency Project); Cliff Majersik (Institute for Market 

Transformation); Sierra Martinez and Becky Stanfield (Natural Resources Defense Council); 

Natalie Mims (Southern Alliance for Clean Energy); Janine Migden-Ostrander (Regulatory 

Assistance Project); and Steve Weil (Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards 

Program). External review and support does not imply affiliation or endorsement.

Internal reviewers included Steve Nadel, R. Neal Elliott, Suzanne Watson, Harry Misuriello, 

Therese Langer, Dan York, Marty Kushler, Naomi Baum, and Eric Mackres. The authors 

also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Chris Wagner from the National Association 

for State Energy Officials, Eric Lacey from Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts, and Stone, PC, Paul 

Karrer formerly of the Building Codes Assistance Project, and Marianne DiMascio of the 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

Last, we would like to thank Fred Grossberg for managing the editorial process, Nancy 

Elgin, Kate Hayes, and Roxanna Usher for copyediting, Eric Schwass for assistance in 

publication and graphic design, and Glee Murray, Patrick Kiker, and the Hastings Group for 

their help in launching the report.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

v

Executive Summary

Conversations about energy use in the United States often revolve around the need to 

support the growth of our national economy by expanding the energy supply. In fact, 

however, we have a resource that is cleaner, cheaper, and quicker to deploy than building 

new supply—energy efficiency. Energy efficiency improvements help businesses, 

governments, and consumers meet their needs by using less energy. Efficiency saves money, 

drives investment across all sectors of the economy, creates jobs, and reduces the 

environmental impacts of the energy production system.

Governors, legislators, regulators, and citizens are increasingly recognizing that energy 

efficiency is a crucially important state resource. In fact, many innovative policies and 

programs that promote energy efficiency originated in states. The 2014 State Energy 

Efficiency Scorecard reflects these successes through a comprehensive analysis of state efforts 

to support energy efficiency. 

In this eighth edition of our State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, the American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ranks states on their policy and program efforts, and 

recommends ways that states can improve their energy efficiency performance in various 

policy areas. The State Scorecard provides an annual benchmark of the progress of state 

energy efficiency policies and programs. It encourages states to continue strengthening their 

efficiency commitments in order to promote economic growth, secure environmental 

benefits, and increase their communities’ resilience in the face of the uncertain cost and 

supply of the energy resources on which they depend.

KEY FINDINGS

Massachusetts retained the top spot in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard rankings for 

the fourth year in a row, having overtaken California in 2011. The state’s achievement is 

based on its continued commitment to energy efficiency under its Green Communities Act 

of 2008. Among other things, the legislation has spurred greater investments in energy 

efficiency programs by requiring utilities to save a large and growing percentage of energy 

every year through efficiency measures. Massachusetts achieved electricity savings of over 

2% of retail sales in 2013.

Joining Massachusetts in the top five are California, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Vermont. 

This is the first year that Rhode Island has appeared in the top five, rising notably from its 

sixth-place ranking in 2013. Vermont, Oregon, and Rhode Island tied for third place this 

year, demonstrating the continuing commitment and progress of the states in the top tier.

Connecticut, New York, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota rounded out the top tier. 

All these states have made continued commitments to energy efficiency. Minnesota returns 

to the top ten this year after falling slightly in the rankings in 2013.

This year’s most-improved states were Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, and 

Wisconsin. Most-improved states made large strides in both points gained and overall 

ranking. The District of Columbia made notable progress across a number of policy areas,

fueled by the District’s sustainability plan, Sustainable DC, and by the ramping up of DC 

Sustainable Energy Utility programs. Arkansas was pushed forward by strong utility 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

vi

programs. The state’s budgets for electric efficiency programs increased 30% between 2012 

and 2013, while electricity savings more than tripled. Wisconsin bounced back in this year’s 

State Scorecard after a shift in efficiency administrators had caused a temporary drop in 

savings. The state is once again realizing consistent levels of electricity and natural gas 

savings. Kentucky saw an improvement in its score for transportation policies and took 

clear steps toward adopting and implementing a more up-to-date commercial building 

energy code.

Other states have also made recent progress in energy efficiency. Nevada scored additional 

points for its building codes and compliance measures. Delaware passed a significant 

energy efficiency bill in early July, laying the groundwork for customer-funded energy 

efficiency programs. This policy shift did not result in an improved score this year, but it 

will likely garner additional points in future editions of the State Scorecard as programs are 

implemented and regulations are finalized.

The leading states in utility-sector energy efficiency programs and policies (covered in 

Chapter 2) were Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont. With long records of success, 

all three continued to raise the bar on cost-effective programs and policies. Both 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island earned maximum points in this category.

Total budgets for electricity efficiency programs in 2013 reached $6.3 billion. Adding this to 

natural gas program budgets of $1.4 billion, we estimate total efficiency program budgets of 

more than $7.7 billion in 2013.

Savings from electricity efficiency programs in 2013 totaled approximately 24.3 million 

megawatt-hours (MWh), a 7% increase over the 2011 savings we reported last year. Gas 

savings for 2013 were reported at 276 million therms (MMTherms), a 19% increase over the 

2011 savings reported in the last State Scorecard.

Policies setting long-term energy savings targets faced pushback this year and were actually 

rolled back in two states, Indiana and Ohio. Twenty-four states continue to enforce and 

adequately fund an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) that drives investments in 

utility-sector energy efficiency programs. The states with the most aggressive savings 

targets include Arizona, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

The leading state in building energy codes and compliance (covered in Chapter 4) was 

California. Eleven states and the District of Columbia have officially adopted the latest 

standards for both residential and commercial buildings.

California and New York led the way in energy-efficient transportation policies. 

California’s requirements for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have led it to 

identify several strategies for smart growth, while New York is one of the few states in the 

nation to have a concrete vehicle-miles-traveled reduction target.

Twenty-three states fell in the rankings this year because of substantive changes in their 

performance as well as changes in our methodology. Indiana fell the furthest, by 13 spots, 

due in part to state legislators’ decision to roll back the state’s EERS. Legislators in Ohio
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

vii

made a similar decision to effectively eliminate EERS requirements, resulting in a fall of 

seven spots.

RESULTS

The 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard assesses state policies and programs that improve 

energy efficiency in our homes, businesses, industries, and transportation systems. It 

considers the six policy areas in which states typically pursue energy efficiency: 

 Utility and public benefits programs and policies

 Transportation polices

 Building energy codes and compliance

 Combined heat and power (CHP) policies 

 State government-led initiatives around energy efficiency

 Appliance and equipment standards

Figure ES1 shows states’ rankings in the 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, dividing them 

into five tiers for ease of comparison. It is followed by table ES1 that provides details of the 

scores for each state. An identical ranking for two or more states indicates a tie (e.g., Rhode 

Island, Vermont, and Oregon all rank third). 

Figure ES1. 2014 State Scorecard rankings 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

viii

Table ES1. Summary of state scores in the 2014 State Scorecard

Rank State

Utility & 

public 

benefits 

programs & 

policies 

(20 pts.)

Transportation 

policies

(9 pts.)

Building 

energy 

codes

(7 pts.)

Combined 

heat & 

power

(5 pts.)

State 

government 

initiatives

(7 pts.)

Appliance 

efficiency 

standards

(2 pts.)

TOTAL 

SCORE 

(50 pts.) 

Change 

in rank 

from 

2013

Change 

in score 

from 

2013

1 Massachusetts 20 7 5.5 4.5 5 0 42 0 0

2 California 12.5 8.5 7 4 6.5 2 40.5 0 –0.5

3 Oregon 15 7 5.5 3.5 5.5 1 37.5 1 0.5

3 Rhode Island 20 5 6 3 3 0.5 37.5 3 2

3 Vermont 18.5 6 6 3 4 0 37.5 4 3

6 Connecticut 14 5 5 4.5 6 1 35.5 –1 –0.5

7 New York 13.5 8 5.5 2 6 0 35 –4 –3

8 Washington 13 7 6 2.5 4.5 0.5 33.5 0 0

9 Maryland 10.5 5 6 3 5 0.5 30 0 2.5

10 Minnesota 14 3.5 4.5 1.5 5.5 0 29 1 3.5

11 Illinois 9 5 6 1.5 5.5 0 27 –1 1

12 Michigan 12.5 4 3.5 1.5 4.5 0 26 0 1.5

13 Colorado 10.5 4 5 1 4 0 24.5 3 1.5

14 Iowa 12 2 6 0.5 3.5 0 24 –2 –0.5

15 Arizona 12 3 3 2 3 0.5 23.5 –3 –1

16 Maine 8 5 3.5 3 3 0 22.5 0 –0.5

17 Hawaii 12 3.5 2.5 1 2.5 0 21.5 3 1

17 Wisconsin 8.5 2.5 4 2.5 4 0 21.5 6 3.5

19 New Jersey 8.5 5 3 2 2.5 0 21 –7 –3.5

20 Pennsylvania 5 5.5 4 1 5 0 20.5 –1 –1.5

21 District of Columbia 5.5 5 5 1.5 2.5 0.5 20 9 6

22 New Hampshire 8.5 1.5 4 1.5 2.5 0.5 18.5 –1 –1.5

23 Utah 7 1.5 4.5 1.5 3.5 0 18 1 0.5

24 North Carolina 3 3.5 4 2.5 4.5 0 17.5 0 0

25 Delaware 1 5 6 0.5 4.5 0 17 –3 –1.5

25 New Mexico 7 1 4 1.5 3.5 0 17 –1 –0.5

25 Ohio 8 0 4 1.5 3.5 0 17 –7 –5.5

28 Florida 2.5 4.5 6 1 2.5 0 16.5 –1 1

29 Nevada 5 0.5 6 1 3.5 0 16 4 3

30 Idaho 4 1 5.5 0.5 3.5 0 14.5 1 1

31 Arkansas 8 1.5 3 0 1.5 0 14 6 2

31 Montana 4 0.5 6 0 3.5 0 14 –2 –1

33 Kentucky 3.5 1 4.5 0 4.5 0 13.5 6 2

34 Texas 0.5 2.5 4 1.5 4 0.5 13 –1 0

35 Georgia 2 4 3.5 0 2.5 0.5 12.5 –2 –0.5

35 Oklahoma 4 1 3.5 0.5 3.5 0 12.5 2 0.5

35 Virginia 0 3.5 5 0 4 0 12.5 1 0

38 Tennessee 2 3 2.5 0 4.5 0 12 –7 –1.5

39 Alabama 2.5 0.5 3.5 0 4.5 0 11 0 –0.5

40 Indiana 4 1 3.5 1 1 0 10.5 –13 –5

40 Kansas 0.5 1.5 4 0 4.5 0 10.5 –1 –1

42 Nebraska 1 1 5 0 3 0 10 2 0.5

42 South Carolina 1 2.5 3.5 0 3 0 10 –3 –1.5

44 Louisiana 2.5 1 3.5 0.5 1.5 0 9 0 –0.5

44 Missouri 3 1 2.5 0 2.5 0 9 –1 –1.5

46 West Virginia 0 2.5 4 1 1 0 8.5 0 –0.5

47 Alaska 0 2 1 0.5 4.5 0 8 0 0

47 Mississippi 1 0.5 3.5 0 3 0 8 0 0

49 South Dakota 3.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0 7.5 –2 –0.5

50 Wyoming 2 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 0 6.5 0 1

51 North Dakota 0 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 4 0 0.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

ix

We also included three U.S. territories—Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—in 

our research this year. While we did score these territories, we did not include them in our 

general rankings. Though all of them have taken some steps toward ensuring that building 

energy codes are up to date, they have not yet invested heavily in energy efficiency in other 

sectors. Table ES2 shows their scores. 

Table ES2. Summary of scores for territories in the 2014 State Scorecard

Territory

Utility & public 

benefits 

programs & 

policies 

(20 pts.)

Transportation 

policies

(9 pts.)

Building 

energy 

codes

(7 pts.)

Combined 

heat & 

power

(5 pts.)

State 

government 

initiatives

(7 pts.)

Appliance 

efficiency 

standards

(2 pts.)

TOTAL 

SCORE 

(50 pts.) 

Puerto Rico 0 1.5 3.5 0 2 0 7

Guam 0 0 4 0 0.5 0 4.5

U.S. Virgin Islands 0 0 3.5 0 0.5 0 4

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Put in place and adequately fund an EERS or similar energy savings target. EERS policies 

establish specific energy savings targets that utilities or independent statewide program 

administrators must meet through customer energy efficiency programs. They serve as an 

enabling framework for cost-effective investment, savings, and program activity. EERS 

policies can catalyze increased energy efficiency and its associated economic and 

environmental benefits.

Examples: Massachusetts, Arizona, Hawaii, Vermont

Adopt updated, more stringent building energy codes, improve code compliance, and 

involve efficiency program administrators in code support. Buildings use more than 40% 

of the total energy consumed in the United States, making them an essential target for 

energy savings. Mandatory building energy codes are one way to ensure a minimum level 

of energy efficiency for new residential and commercial buildings.

Examples: California, Rhode Island, Illinois, Mississippi

Adopt stringent tailpipe emissions standards for cars and trucks, and set quantitative 

targets for reducing vehicle miles traveled. Like buildings, transportation consumes a 

substantial portion of the total energy used in the United States. Although new federal fuel 

economy standards have been put in place, states will realize greater energy savings and 

pollution reduction if they adopt California’s more stringent tailpipe emissions standards (a 

proxy for reducing energy use).

Examples: California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon

Treat CHP as an energy efficiency resource equivalent to other forms of energy 

efficiency. Many states list CHP as an eligible technology within their EERSs or renewable 

portfolio (RPS) standards, but they relegate it to a bottom tier. ACEEE recommends that

states give CHP equal footing, requiring them to develop a specific methodology for 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

x

counting energy savings attributed to its utilization. If CHP is allowed as an eligible 

resource, EERS target levels should be increased to take into account the CHP potential and 

ensure that CHP does not displace traditional energy efficiency measures.

Example: Massachusetts

Expand state-led efforts and make them visible. Efforts may include putting in place 

sustainable funding sources for energy efficiency incentive programs, leading by example 

by incorporating energy efficiency into government operations, and investing in energy 

efficiency-related research, development, and demonstration centers. States have many 

opportunities to lead by example, including reducing energy use in public buildings and 

fleets, demonstrating the market for energy service companies that finance and deliver 

energy-saving projects, and funding research centers that focus on breakthroughs in energyefficient technologies.

Examples: New York, Maryland, Alaska
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

1

Introduction

Conversations about energy use in the United States often revolve around the need to 

support the growth of our national economy by expanding the energy supply. In fact, 

however, we have a resource that is cleaner, cheaper, and quicker to deploy than building 

new supply—energy efficiency. Energy efficiency improvements help businesses, 

governments, and consumers meet their needs by using less energy. Efficiency saves money, 

drives investment across all sectors of the economy, creates jobs, and reduces the 

environmental impacts of the energy production system.

Governors, legislators, regulators, and citizens are increasingly recognizing that energy 

efficiency is a crucially important state resource. In fact, many innovative policies and 

programs that promote energy efficiency originated in states. The 2014 State Energy 

Efficiency Scorecard reflects these successes through a comprehensive analysis of state efforts

to support energy efficiency. 

The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard ranks states on their policy and program efforts, not 

only assessing performance, but also documenting best practices, recognizing leadership, 

and providing examples for other states to follow. The Scorecard provides an annual 

benchmark of the progress of state energy efficiency policies and programs. It encourages 

states to continue strengthening their efficiency commitments as a pragmatic and effective 

strategy for promoting economic growth and environmental benefits.

The State Scorecard builds on previous research by the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) that focused on utilities’ spending on energy efficiency 

programs in each state and the resulting energy savings. In 2007 ACEEE consolidated this 

state-focused research and released The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006, which 

scored and ranked states on a number of energy efficiency policies (Eldridge et al. 2007). 

Given the broad interest in the 2007 report and continued demand for a state-by-state 

comparison of energy efficiency efforts, we have updated the report each year and now 

present The 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard as its eighth edition. 

The report has eight chapters. In Chapter 1, we discuss our methodology for scoring states 

(including changes made this year), present the overall results of our analysis, and provide 

several strategies states can use to improve their energy efficiency. Chapter 1 also highlights 

the leading states, most improved states, and other state-level energy efficiency trends 

revealed by the rankings. 

Succeeding chapters present detailed results for each of the policy areas we review. Chapter 

2 covers utility and public benefits programs and policies. Chapter 3 discusses 

transportation policies. Chapter 4 deals with building energy codes and state code 

compliance efforts. Chapter 5 scores states on policies that encourage and enable combined 

heat and power (CHP) development. Chapter 6 deals with state government initiatives, 

including financial incentives, lead-by-example policies, energy efficiency-focused research 

and development (R&D), and building energy use disclosure policies. Chapter 7 covers 

appliance and equipment efficiency standards. Finally, Chapter 8 discusses areas for future 

research and offers our closing thoughts on the report’s findings.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

2

Chapter 1. Methodology and Results

Author: Annie Gilleo

SCORING

Each state has different policy and regulatory environments, and to reflect this diversity we 

chose metrics that are flexible enough to capture the range of policy and program options 

that states employ. The policies and programs scored in the State Scorecard aim to

 Directly reduce end-use energy consumption

 Set long-term commitments to energy efficiency

 Establish mandatory performance codes and standards

 Accelerate the adoption of the most energy-efficient technologies

 Reduce market, regulatory, and information barriers to energy efficiency

 Provide funding for energy efficiency programs

Table 1 lists six of the primary policy areas in which states have historically pursued energy 

efficiency. These include utility and public benefits programs1 and policies, transportation 

policies, building energy codes, policies encouraging CHP systems, state government–led 

initiatives around energy efficiency, and appliance and equipment standards.

Table 1 also lists the associated scoring metrics, which are weighted according to their 

potential energy savings (i.e., state policies likely to result in the highest energy savings 

have the highest maximum score). The weighting of each major policy area is the same as in 

last year’s scoring and is based on several considerations: state and regional studies done by 

the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) that have identified the 

relative energy savings impacts from state-level policies (SWEEP 2007; Neubauer et al. 2009, 

2011; Molina, Elliott, and Vaidyanathan 2010; Molina et al. 2011) and the judgment of 

ACEEE staff and outside experts about the impact that state policies (versus federal or local 

policies) can have on improving energy efficiency in the sectors of the economy covered 

here. 

Our allocation of points among the policy areas is designed to reflect the relative magnitude 

of energy savings possible through the measures scored. Specifically, the savings potential 

of utility and public benefits programs is approximately 40% of the total energy savings 

potential of all policy areas scored. Likewise, building energy codes could contribute, on 

average, about 15% of the total savings potential, and improved CHP policies, about 10%. 

Therefore, we allocated 40% of the 50 total possible points, or 20 points, to utility and public 

benefits program and policy metrics; about 15% of the points, or 7 points, to building energy 

codes; and 10%, or 5 points, to improved CHP policies. The other policy area points were 

estimated using the same methodology. The assignment of points across all areas was 

reviewed by expert advisors.

 

1 A public benefits fund provides long-term funding for energy efficiency initiatives, usually through a small 

surcharge on electricity consumption collected on customers’ bills.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

3

Table 1. Scoring by policy area and categories

Policy category and subcategory

Maximum 

score

% of total 

points

Utility and public benefits programs and policies 20 40%

Budgets for electricity efficiency programs 5 10%

Budgets for natural gas efficiency programs 2 4%

Annual savings from electricity efficiency programs 5 10%

Annual savings from natural gas efficiency programs 2 4%

Large customer opt-out programs* (–1) NA

Energy efficiency resource standards (EERSs) 3 6%

Performance incentives and fixed cost recovery 3 6%

Transportation policies 9 18%

Greenhouse gas (GHG) tailpipe emissions standards 1.5 3%

Electric vehicle (EV) registrations 0.5 1%

Integration of transportation and land use planning 1 2%

Freight plans and energy efficiency targets 1 2%

Targets to reduce vehicle miles traveled 1 2%

Change in vehicle miles traveled 1 2%

Transit funding 1 2%

Transit legislation 0.5 1%

Complete streets policies 0.5 1%

High-efficiency vehicle consumer incentives 0.5 1%

Building energy codes 7 14%

Level of code stringency 5 10%

Code enforcement and compliance 2 4%

Combined heat and power 5 10%

Interconnection standard 1 2%

Treatment under EERS 1 2%

Treatment under renewable portfolio standard (RPS) 0.5 1%

Revenue streams 0.5 1%

Incentives and grants 0.5 1%

Financing assistance 0.5 1%

Emissions treatment 0.5 1%

Additional policy support 0.5 1%

State government initiatives 7 14%

Financial incentives 2.5 5%

Energy disclosure policies 1 2%

Lead-by-example efforts in state facilities and fleets 2 4%

Research and development 1.5 3%

Appliance and equipment efficiency standards 2 4%

Maximum total score 50 100% 

* Large customer opt-out programs allow a class of customers to withdraw from contributing to funding the 

program and contributing savings to the overall program, reducing the potential savings available, so we deduct 

points for these policies.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

4

Within each policy area, we developed a scoring methodology based on a diverse set of 

criteria that are detailed in each policy chapter. Some changes have been made to our 

scoring methodology in several sections. These changes are outlined in the following 

section, as well as in the relevant chapters. Finally, we assigned a score for each state based 

on these criteria and informed by surveys sent to state energy officials, public utility 

commission staff, and experts in each policy area. To the best of our knowledge, policy 

information for the 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard is accurate as of the end of August 

2014.

We do not envision that the allocation of points both across and within sectors will forever 

remain the same. We continue to adjust our methodology to reflect the current energy 

efficiency policy and program landscape. As new studies of the potential of energy 

efficiency measures emerge and new policy designs are implemented, we will consider 

changing the allocation of points, adding or subtracting new metrics, or even eliminating 

entire categories of scoring, all with the goal of best representing states’ evolving efforts to 

capture the potential for energy efficiency in the systems and sectors of their economies.

Changes in Scoring Methodology from Last Year

This year we updated the scoring methodology in three policy areas to better reflect 

potential energy savings, economic realities, and changing policy landscapes. In Chapter 2, 

Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policies, we made several changes in order to 

better reflect the most up-to-date policy environment throughout the United States. We 

continued to score states on savings for electricity and natural gas programs, but attempted 

to decrease the data lag. In previous years, there was a two-year lag in savings data. This 

year, we worked to gather data for 2013 savings. Where these were not available, we did 

rely on 2012 savings data, but for most states the data lag was significantly decreased. We 

also found that this year states continued to raise the bar on electricity savings, and we 

increased the rigor of our scoring to recognize those states that are achieving electricity 

savings greater than 2% of retail sales. The State Scorecard is designed to reflect those states 

that are pushing themselves to improve each year. As states better understand the benefits 

of energy efficiency investments and how to most cost-effectively achieve savings, they 

dedicate more resources to efficiency programs. 

Last year, we scored states for the first time on natural gas savings. We continued to score 

on that metric this year, increasing the number of points states could earn for achieving and 

reporting natural gas savings. Though data on these programs are not yet comprehensive, 

natural gas programs make up a growing portion of efficiency portfolios. We rely on state 

contacts for this point of data, and while we did not receive a comprehensive set of 

responses to our request for natural gas savings information, we nonetheless believe the 

metric to be a valuable indicator of energy efficiency progress within each state. 

Additionally, for the first time we included a metric worth negative points in Chapter 2. The 

past year has seen a rise in the push by large customers to completely opt out of energy 

efficiency programs. Investments in energy efficiency benefit all customers, and by allowing 

large customers to completely opt out of efficiency programs, states not only limit the 

available cost-effective efficiency measures, but also allow large customers to unfairly 

benefit from investments in efficiency while other customers shoulder the costs. To reflect 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

5

this negative trend, we subtracted 1 point from states that allow large customers to opt out 

of efficiency programs completely without demonstrating equivalent investments in energy 

efficiency. 

This year, we also introduced new metrics to Chapter 3, Transportation Policies. In 2013, we 

solicited comments on several proposed metrics. Based on feedback from state agencies and 

regional organizations, we included two of these metrics for the first time this year. States 

with a significant number of EV registrations per 100,000 people were awarded 0.5 points. 

To place a greater emphasis on policy outcomes, we also awarded up to 1 point to states 

based on reductions in vehicle miles traveled over a five-year period. The transportation 

section also included a metric based on state freight plans for the first time. In 2012, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) began to require that states put freight transportation 

plans in place in order to be eligible for a federal match on freight projects. We award up to 

1 point to states that include energy efficiency performance metrics within these plans.

We made slight adjustments to our scoring criteria for building energy codes in Chapter 4 to 

reflect both ACEEE’s increased efforts to collect data on compliance activities and the 

national requirement that states achieve 90% compliance with codes mandated by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) by 2017. As in the past, 5 points were 

allocated for building code stringency and 2 points were awarded for specific compliance 

activities, including policy drivers for compliance, such as a strategic compliance plan, and 

performance metrics, such as completion of a baseline study, presence of an active 

stakeholder advisory group, and utility involvement in compliance. In a slight change from 

last year, a state must have completed a compliance study in order to receive 1 of those 2 

points.

In Chapter 5, Combined Heat and Power, some slight adjustments were made to scoring. 

While no metrics were added in this section, some points were shifted as we combined 

certain metrics and separated others. In order to emphasize CHP’s importance in energy 

efficiency standards, its treatment under EERS and RPS policies was considered separately. 

This year, we also considered a variety of revenue streams that enable CHP development, 

including wholesale net metering, feed-in tariffs, and other standard offer programs that 

incentivize CHP.

Finally, in an important step forward, three U.S. territories are included in this year’s State 

Scorecard for the first time: Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In general, data 

are not publicly available for the territories to the extent that they are for states. We worked 

closely with contacts at energy offices in these three territories to fill in data gaps, and we 

scored the territories based on the same criteria we used to score states. We did not include 

territories in our overall rankings, however.

STATE DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW

We continue to improve our outreach to state-level stakeholders to verify the accuracy and 

comprehensiveness of the policy information on which we score the states. As in past years, 

we asked each state utility commission to review spending and savings data for the 

customer-funded energy efficiency programs presented in Chapter 2. Forty-six state 

commissions responded, an improvement over the 43 responses last year. We also asked 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

6

each state energy office to review information on transportation policies (Chapter 3), 

building energy codes (Chapter 4), and state government–led initiatives (Chapter 6). We 

received responses from 53 state and territory energy offices, a record number. In addition, 

state energy office and utility commission officials were given the opportunity to review

and submit updates to the material on ACEEE’s State and Local Policy Database (ACEEE 

2014). These state officials were also given the opportunity to review and provide comments 

on a draft of the 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard prior to publication. 

DATA LIMITATIONS

The State Scorecard reflects state-level energy efficiency policy environments as well as 

states’ performance in implementing programs. We have generally not included the energy 

efficiency initiatives implemented by actors at the federal or local level or in the private 

sector (with the exception of investor-owned utilities [IOUs] and CHP facilities). Regions, 

counties, and municipalities have become very active in energy efficiency program 

development, a trend that we do not track in the State Scorecard but a positive development 

that should reinforce the energy efficiency efforts taking place at the state level. A few 

metrics in the State Scorecard do capture non-state efforts, such as local adoption of building 

codes, local land use policies, and state financial incentives aimed at local energy efficiency 

efforts. We also include municipal utilities in our data set to the extent that they report 

energy efficiency data to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). As much as 

possible, however, we aim to focus specifically on state-level energy efficiency activities. 

Data on local energy efficiency efforts are captured in ACEEE’s biennial City Energy 

Efficiency Scorecard (Mackres et al. 2013).

Private-sector investments in efficient technologies outside of customer-funded or 

government-sponsored energy efficiency programs also are not covered in the State 

Scorecard. While utility and public programs are critical to leveraging private capital, the 

development of an independent metric measuring private sector investment falls outside 

the scope of this report. 

Best Practice Policy and Performance Metrics

The scoring framework described above is our best attempt to represent the myriad 

efficiency metrics as a quantitative score. There are clear limitations to converting spending 

data, energy savings data, and policy adoption metrics spanning six policy areas into one 

score. Quantitative energy savings performance metrics are confined mostly to efficiency 

with regard to electricity. Even other programs with measured savings, such as natural gas 

programs, pose difficulty.

While our preference is to include metrics based on energy savings achieved in every sector, 

these data are not widely available. Therefore, with the exception of utility policies, we have 

not scored energy efficiency policy areas on reported savings or spending data attributable 

to a particular policy action. Instead, we have developed best practice metrics for scoring the 

states. While these metrics do not score outcomes directly, they credit states that are 

implementing policies likely to lead to more energy-efficient outcomes. For example, 

potential energy savings from improved building energy codes and appliance efficiency 

standards have been documented, although actual savings from these policies are rarely

evaluated. Therefore, we have generally relied on best practice metrics. To the extent 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

7

possible, we have also attempted to reflect outcome metrics; for example, EV registrations 

and reductions in vehicle miles traveled are both meant to reflect positive outcomes of 

transportation policies. Full discussions of the policy and performance metrics used can be 

found in each chapter.

2014 STATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCORECARD RESULTS

The results of the State Scorecard are presented in figure 1 and more fully described in table 

2. We then highlight some key changes in state rankings, discuss which states are making 

notable new commitments to energy efficiency, and provide a series of recommendations 

for states wanting to increase their energy efficiency.

Figure 1. 2014 State Scorecard rankings map
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

8

Table 2. Summary of state scores in the 2014 State Scorecard

Rank State

Utility & 

public 

benefits 

programs & 

policies 

(20 pts.)

Transportation 

policies

(9 pts.)

Building 

energy 

codes

(7 pts.)

Combined 

heat & 

power

(5 pts.)

State 

government 

initiatives

(7 pts.)

Appliance 

efficiency 

standards

(2 pts.)

TOTAL 

SCORE 

(50 pts.) 

Change 

in rank 

from 

2013

Change 

in 

score 

from 

2013

1 Massachusetts 20 7 5.5 4.5 5 0 42 0 0

2 California 12.5 8.5 7 4 6.5 2 40.5 0 –0.5

3 Oregon 15 7 5.5 3.5 5.5 1 37.5 1 0.5

3 Rhode Island 20 5 6 3 3 0.5 37.5 3 2

3 Vermont 18.5 6 6 3 4 0 37.5 4 3

6 Connecticut 14 5 5 4.5 6 1 35.5 –1 –0.5

7 New York 13.5 8 5.5 2 6 0 35 –4 –3

8 Washington 13 7 6 2.5 4.5 0.5 33.5 0 0

9 Maryland 10.5 5 6 3 5 0.5 30 0 2.5

10 Minnesota 14 3.5 4.5 1.5 5.5 0 29 1 3.5

11 Illinois 9 5 6 1.5 5.5 0 27 –1 1

12 Michigan 12.5 4 3.5 1.5 4.5 0 26 0 1.5

13 Colorado 10.5 4 5 1 4 0 24.5 3 1.5

14 Iowa 12 2 6 0.5 3.5 0 24 –2 –0.5

15 Arizona 12 3 3 2 3 0.5 23.5 –3 –1

16 Maine 8 5 3.5 3 3 0 22.5 0 –0.5

17 Hawaii 12 3.5 2.5 1 2.5 0 21.5 3 1

17 Wisconsin 8.5 2.5 4 2.5 4 0 21.5 6 3.5

19 New Jersey 8.5 5 3 2 2.5 0 21 –7 –3.5

20 Pennsylvania 5 5.5 4 1 5 0 20.5 –1 –1.5

21 District of Columbia 5.5 5 5 1.5 2.5 0.5 20 9 6

22 New Hampshire 8.5 1.5 4 1.5 2.5 0.5 18.5 –1 –1.5

23 Utah 7 1.5 4.5 1.5 3.5 0 18 1 0.5

24 North Carolina 3 3.5 4 2.5 4.5 0 17.5 0 0

25 Delaware 1 5 6 0.5 4.5 0 17 –3 –1.5

25 New Mexico 7 1 4 1.5 3.5 0 17 –1 –0.5

25 Ohio 8 0 4 1.5 3.5 0 17 –7 –5.5

28 Florida 2.5 4.5 6 1 2.5 0 16.5 –1 1

29 Nevada 5 0.5 6 1 3.5 0 16 4 3

30 Idaho 4 1 5.5 0.5 3.5 0 14.5 1 1

31 Arkansas 8 1.5 3 0 1.5 0 14 6 2

31 Montana 4 0.5 6 0 3.5 0 14 –2 –1

33 Kentucky 3.5 1 4.5 0 4.5 0 13.5 6 2

34 Texas 0.5 2.5 4 1.5 4 0.5 13 –1 0

35 Georgia 2 4 3.5 0 2.5 0.5 12.5 –2 –0.5

35 Oklahoma 4 1 3.5 0.5 3.5 0 12.5 2 0.5

35 Virginia 0 3.5 5 0 4 0 12.5 1 0

38 Tennessee 2 3 2.5 0 4.5 0 12 –7 –1.5

39 Alabama 2.5 0.5 3.5 0 4.5 0 11 0 –0.5

40 Indiana 4 1 3.5 1 1 0 10.5 –13 –5

40 Kansas 0.5 1.5 4 0 4.5 0 10.5 –1 –1

42 Nebraska 1 1 5 0 3 0 10 2 0.5

42 South Carolina 1 2.5 3.5 0 3 0 10 –3 –1.5

44 Louisiana 2.5 1 3.5 0.5 1.5 0 9 0 –0.5

44 Missouri 3 1 2.5 0 2.5 0 9 –1 –1.5

46 West Virginia 0 2.5 4 1 1 0 8.5 0 –0.5

47 Alaska 0 2 1 0.5 4.5 0 8 0 0

47 Mississippi 1 0.5 3.5 0 3 0 8 0 0

49 South Dakota 3.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0 7.5 –2 –0.5

50 Wyoming 2 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 0 6.5 0 1

51 North Dakota 0 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 4 0 0.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

9

How to Interpret Results

Although we provide individual state scores and rankings, the differences between states 

are most instructive in tiers of 10. The difference between states’ total scores in the middle 

tiers of the State Scorecard is small: only 6.5 points separate the states in the second tier, 4

points in the third tier, and 3.5 points in the fourth tier. For the states in these three tiers, 

small improvements in energy efficiency will likely have a significant effect on their 

rankings. Conversely, idling states will easily fall behind as other states in this large group 

ramp up efficiency efforts. 

The top tier, however, exhibits more variation in scoring (with a 13-point range), 

representing more than one-third of the total variation in scoring among all the states. 

Massachusetts and California continued to score higher than other states and retained their 

spots at the top, despite our several methodological changes this year. However, other states 

in the top tier are quickly closing the gap, as evidenced by the three-way tie for third place. 

All of these states have made broad, long-term commitments to energy efficiency, indicated 

by their having remained at the top of the State Scorecard over the past eight years. Notably, 

the top tier did see some significant movement this year, with Rhode Island moving from 

sixth place to third and Vermont moving up four places to tie Rhode Island and Oregon. 

New York fell out of the top four for the first time since 2009. Details on leading states are 

discussed further below.

We did not rank the three territories we included in our research this year, although we did 

score them in all the categories. In general, territories scored near the bottom, largely 

because their publicly owned utilities do not offer energy efficiency programs. Though all 

three territories we reviewed have taken some steps toward ensuring building energy codes 

are up to date, they have not invested heavily in energy efficiency in other sectors. Scores for 

Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are given in table 3. 

Table 3. Summary of scores for territories in the 2014 State Scorecard

Territory

Utility & public 

benefits 

programs & 

policies 

(20 pts.)

Transportation 

policies

(9 pts.)

Building 

energy 

codes

(7 pts.)

Combined 

heat & 

power

(5 pts.)

State 

government 

initiatives

(7 pts.)

Appliance 

efficiency 

standards

(2 pts.)

TOTAL 

SCORE 

(50 pts.) 

Puerto Rico 0 2 3.5 0 2 0 7.5

Guam 0 0 4 0 0.5 0 4.5

U.S. Virgin Islands 0 0 3.5 0 0.5 0 4

2014 Leading States

Massachusetts retained the top spot in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard rankings for 

the fourth year in a row, having overtaken California in 2011, based on its continued 

commitment to energy efficiency under its Green Communities Act of 2008. The legislation 

laid the foundation for greater investments in energy efficiency programs by requiring gas 

and electric utilities to save a large and growing percentage of energy every year through 

energy efficiency. In late 2012, Massachusetts finalized its three-year plan, setting annual 

electricity savings targets of 2.5–2.6% through 2015 and natural gas targets of 1.08–1.19% per 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

10

year through 2015 (State of Massachusetts 2012). These are some of the most ambitious 

savings targets in the country, resulting in Massachusetts achieving net savings of over 2% 

of electricity sales in 2013 and attaining a perfect score for its utilities policies and programs 

in this year’s State Scorecard.

Massachusetts also leads in other areas of the State Scorecard, including its commitment to 

reducing energy use in state buildings and fleets, and its policies to create a supportive 

environment for the development of CHP facilities in the state. 

California was another leading state, following closely behind Massachusetts. California 

was the only state to receive full points for its building energy codes, and it also scores 

highest for its transportation policies and state-led efficiency initiatives. Rhode Island, 

Vermont, and Oregon rose notably in the State Scorecard this year, tying for third place. 

Rhode Island was the only state besides Massachusetts to receive a perfect score for its 

utilities policies and programs. Connecticut, New York, and Washington were each 

separated by 2 points or less, showing that the top 10 is increasingly dynamic, with many 

states having the potential to achieve the top rank. Continuous improvement is needed even 

in top-ranking states to maintain a spot among the top 10.

Table 4 shows the number of years that states have been in the top 5 and top 10 spots in the 

State Scorecard rankings since 2007. In total, 7 states have occupied the top 5 spots, and 14

have appeared somewhere in the top 10. California and Oregon are the only states to have 

held a spot among the top five in all eight years, followed by Massachusetts for seven years, 

New York and Vermont for six years, and Connecticut for four. Rhode Island holds a spot 

among the top five this year for the first time. Rounding out the top 10 are Washington, 

which has been included in that tier in all eight years; Maryland, for four years; and 

Minnesota, which earned a top-10 spot for the seventh time this year after falling out of the 

tier in 2013. Though New Jersey, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Maine have all placed in the top 10 

in the past, none scored highly enough to be ranked in the top tier this year. Nonetheless, all 

14 of these states have made broad, long-term commitments to energy efficiency in the past, 

and most continue to do so. In recent years, however, that commitment has wavered in New 

Jersey and Maine; among other actions, they have not allocated budgets for energy 

efficiency at the same levels as in the past. In 2013, Maine reauthorized and expanded 

funding for its energy efficiency programs, pushing it significantly higher in the rankings, 

although not high enough to put it in the top 10. Wisconsin fell in the rankings due to a dip 

in the savings it achieved in 2011, but it is also seeing improvements in the outcomes of its 

efficiency programs as a period of program administrator turnover comes to an end.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

11

Table 4. Leading states in the State 

Scorecard, by years at the top

State

Years 

in top 5

Years 

in top 

10

California 8 8

Oregon 8 8

Massachusetts 7 8

New York 6 8

Vermont 6 8

Connecticut 4 8

Rhode Island 1 7

Washington 0 8

Minnesota 0 7

Maryland 0 4

Maine 0 2

New Jersey 0 2

Wisconsin 0 1

Illinois 0 1

Changes in Results Compared to the 2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard

Changes in states’ overall scores this year compared to previous State Scorecards are a 

function of both changes in states’ efforts to improve energy efficiency and changes to our 

scoring methodology. As a result, comparisons to last year’s rankings cannot be understood 

as solely due to changes in states’ efforts per se. Because of the number of metrics covered in 

the State Scorecard and states’ differing efforts, relative movement among the states should 

be expected.

Table 5 presents the results of the 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard compared to last 

year, by policy area and direction of change. Overall, 16 states gained points and 21 states 

lost points compared to last year, with 14 states having no change in score.2 Many of these 

changes in points awarded are due to our methodological changes, and the number of states 

losing points should not be interpreted as a sign that states are necessarily losing ground. 

For example, Massachusetts, the best-performing state for four years in a row, continued to 

push its energy efficiency policies and programs forward, but nonetheless did not earn 

additional points. This does not reflect stagnation in effort or outcome. Rather, we raised the 

bar and awarded points for more ambitious programs and policies, particularly in natural 

gas and electricity savings. 

 

2 The State Scorecard looks at all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which, while not a state, is grouped 

under that heading for convenience. This year, we have also scored three territories for the first time.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

12

Table 5. Number ofstates gaining or losing points compared to 2013, by policy

Policy category States gaining 

points No change States losing points

Utility and public benefits 10 20% 21 41% 20 39%

Transportation 33 65% 8 16% 10 20%

Building energy codes 18 35% 19 37% 14 27%

Combined heat and power 13 25% 16 31% 22 43%

State government initiatives 9 18% 21 41% 21 41%

Appliance standards 0 0% 51 100% 0 0%

Total score 16 31% 14 27% 21 41%

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

The landscape for energy efficiency is clearly in constant flux and many opportunities 

remain for states to lead the way. Last year, we made significant changes to the stringency 

of scoring for utility policies and programs. This year, we again raised the bar to reflect the 

deeper savings states are realizing—and will continue to realize—through energy efficiency 

programs delivered to utility customers. States have made significant efforts in utility 

policies and programs over the past year. Budgets for both electricity and natural gas 

increased in 2013. Two states achieved electricity savings of over 2% of sales while several 

others hovered near the 2% mark, demonstrating the significant savings available when 

programs are well funded and well directed. Savings from electric efficiency programs in

2013 totaled approximately 24.3 million megawatt-hours (MWh), a 7% increase over the 

savings total in last year’s State Scorecard, which used 2011 data.

3

This year, 20 states lost points in Chapter 2, Utility and Public Benefits Programs and 

Policies, while only 10 gained points. This overall decrease in points awarded does not 

necessarily reflect diminished effort on the part of most states. While several states did 

backslide in terms of policy, most continued to make progress. Rather, this overall loss in 

points reflects the fact that we once again increased the savings levels required per point 

earned for utility energy efficiency program savings. The increased stringency is an accurate 

reflection of the direction many states are moving, but is nonetheless forward thinking. 

Several states that scored top marks in these metrics in the past did not receive full points 

this year, despite achieving similar levels of savings. However, energy savings targets and 

multiyear plans suggest that more states will receive full points in the future as their 

efficiency programs expand. State scores may also have been affected by methodology 

changes in other chapters. 

 

3 Note that in the 2013 State Scorecard, we reported 2011 savings, while in this year’s State Scorecard we report 

the most recent savings data available. For several states where 2013 data were not available, we report 2012 

savings.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

13

Most-Improved States 

Sixteen states rose in the rankings this year, and while all should be applauded, several 

states saw a notable increase in overall points earned compared to last year. In order to be 

considered for most-improved status, a state needed to have increased its points (reflecting 

its efforts this year relative to last) as well as rank (reflecting its efforts relative to other 

states) compared to those results in the 2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. We summed 

changes in these two categories to determine which states had truly improved over the past 

year.

This year’s most-improved states were the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and 

Kentucky. All four made significant jumps in rank in addition to increases in score. 

Table 6. Changes from 2013 for most-improved states

Change 

in score

Change 

in rank

2014 

ranking

District of Columbia +6 +9 21

Wisconsin +3.5 +6 17

Arkansas +2 +6 31

Kentucky +2 +6 33

Though the State Scorecard places significant emphasis on utility-sector programs and 

policies, these states have made strides in many policy areas. The District of Columbia in 

particular made notable progress, increasing its scores for its utility programs, 

transportation policies, building codes, and CHP policies and incentives. Both the ramping 

up of programs by the D.C. Sustainable Energy Utility and the policies emphasized in the 

District’s sustainability plan, Sustainable D.C., contributed to this major rise in the rankings.

Arkansas also made notable progress over the past year, pushed forward by strong utility 

programs. Budgets for electric efficiency programs increased 30% between 2012 and 2013, 

while electricity savings more than tripled. Arkansas is the first state in the Southeast to 

adopt an EERS, and as a result the state is beginning to realize meaningful energy savings.

Wisconsin bounced back in this year’s State Scorecard after a shift in efficiency 

administrators had caused a temporary drop in savings. With Focus on Energy back on 

track, the state is once again realizing consistent levels of electricity and natural gas savings.

Though budgets for these programs remained about the same, electricity savings increased 

by more than 30%.

Kentucky saw an improvement in the transportation category due to reductions in vehicle 

miles traveled and inclusion of energy efficiency measures within its state freight plan. The 

state has also made clear steps toward the adoption and implementation of a more up-todate commercial building energy code.

Other states have also made recent efforts related to energy efficiency. Vermont saw a 

notable rise in the rankings due to its strong performance in the utilities sector and its 

ongoing adoption of more-stringent building energy codes. Nevada also scored additional 

points for its building codes and compliance measures. Rhode Island continues to reap the 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

14

benefits of its EERS policies, and this year both Rhode Island and Massachusetts reported 

net electricity savings of over 2% of sales. Delaware also passed a significant energy 

efficiency bill in early July, laying the groundwork for customer-funded energy efficiency 

programs.

States Losing Ground

Twenty-three states lost points this year due to a number of factors including changes to the

scoring methodology in several of our policy areas (utilities, transportation, CHP, and 

building codes) and relatively faster progress by other states. Here we can see the complex 

relationship between changes in total score and changes in rank. Of the 23 states that lost 

points, 18 fell in the rankings. The rankings of five others did not change. Meanwhile, Texas 

saw no change in points but nonetheless dropped in the rankings. Because of the number of 

metrics covered in the State Scorecard and states’ differing efforts, relative movement 

among the states should be expected. As mentioned earlier, the difference among states’ 

total scores in the second, third, and fourth tiers of the State Scorecard is small, meaning that 

idling states will easily fall behind as others ramp up efforts to become more energy 

efficient.

However, two states lost significant ground this year due to rollbacks of important energy 

efficiency policies. Legislatures in both Ohio and Indiana voted to remove EERS policies in 

2014. These policy rollbacks are clearly reflected in their scores, as shown in table 7.

Table 7. Changes from 2013 for states losing ground

State

Change 

in score

Change 

in rank

2014

ranking

Ohio –5.5 –7 25

Indiana –5 –13 40

Indiana fell the farthest in this year’s State Scorecard, dropping 13 positions compared to 

last year. This was largely due to the repeal of its EERS, although the state also lost points in 

transportation and state government initiatives. Despite the state legislature’s decision to 

terminate Energizing Indiana, there is some hope that efficiency programs may be 

revitalized under new legislation. Though the bill was passed into law, it was never signed 

by the state’s governor, who indicated that he would call on the Indiana Utility Regulatory 

Commission to develop a new energy efficiency program in the coming years.

Ohio’s ranking dropped for similar reasons. In June, the legislature passed, and Governor 

John Kasich signed, SB 310, freezing the state’s energy efficiency standards. Ohio lost points 

in the utilities section of the State Scorecard as a result. Utilities within the state may 

continue implementing energy efficiency programs, but with no targets to guide progress, it 

is unlikely that the state will continue to realize similarly high levels of energy savings in the 

future. 

Several other states also fell backward in the rankings. New Jersey and Tennessee dropped 

seven rankings, while New York dropped four. Tennessee lost points as a result of 

methodology changes, and points were also removed from the state’s CHP score since its 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

15

interconnection standard does not apply to CHP. New Jersey’s lead-by-example initiatives 

were reassessed this year, and the state failed to earn points for benchmarking requirements 

for public buildings. New Jersey also lost points due to failure to report building code 

compliance activities in the most recent year. New York’s rank fell in large part due to the 

aggressive efficiency efforts of other leading states, but the state also achieved slightly lower 

levels of energy savings than in past years. New York’s EERS goals were also reassessed, 

leading to a slightly lower score in that category. The state is currently undergoing a largescale reorganization of its utility policies and programs, so movement in either direction is 

possible in coming years.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

No state received the full 50 points in the 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, reflecting the 

fact that there is a wide range of opportunities in all states—including leading states—to 

improve energy efficiency. For states wanting to improve their standing in the State 

Scorecard and, more importantly, wanting to capture greater energy savings and the 

concomitant public benefits, we offer the following recommendations based on the metrics 

we track.

Put in place, and adequately fund, an EERS or similar energy savings target. These 

policies establish specific energy savings targets that utilities or independent statewide 

program administrators must meet through customer energy efficiency programs. They also 

serve as an enabling framework for cost-effective investment, savings, and program activity 

that, as seen in many of the leading states, can have a catalytic effect on increasing energy 

efficiency and its associated economic and environmental benefits. The long-term goals 

associated with an EERS send a clear signal to market actors about the importance of energy 

efficiency in utility program planning, creating a level of certainty that encourages largescale, productive investment in energy efficiency technology and services. EERS targets 

should be established through rigorous, robust integrated resources planning. Long-term 

energy savings targets require leadership, sustainable funding sources, and institutional 

support to deliver on their goals. See Chapter 2 for further details.

Examples: Massachusetts, Arizona, Hawaii, Rhode Island

Adopt updated, more-stringent building energy codes, improve code compliance, and 

enable efficiency program administrators to be involved in code support. Buildings 

consume more than 40% of the total energy used in the United States, making them an 

essential target for energy savings. Mandatory building energy codes are one way to ensure 

a minimum level of energy efficiency for new residential and commercial buildings. Model 

codes are only as effective as their level of implementation allows, however, and improved 

compliance activities, including training and code-compliance surveys, are increasingly 

important. Another emerging policy driver for capturing energy savings from codes is the 

enabling of utility and program administrators to be involved in compliance activities. See 

Chapter 4 for further details.

Examples: California, Rhode Island, Illinois, Mississippi
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

16

Adopt stringent tailpipe emissions standards for cars and trucks and set quantitative 

targets for reducing vehicle miles traveled. Like buildings, transportation consumes a 

substantial portion of the total energy used in the United States. States that have adopted 

California’s stringent tailpipe emissions standards (which will yield major reductions in 

energy use) will help to bring advanced vehicle technologies into the market and ensure 

continuing progress on federal fuel economy standards. Codifying targets for reducing 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an important step toward states’ achieving substantial 

reductions in energy use and levels of certain pollutants. See Chapter 3 for further details.

Examples: California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon

Treat CHP as an energy efficiency resource equivalent to other forms of energy 

efficiency. Several states list CHP as an eligible technology within their EERS or RPS, but 

relegate it to a bottom tier, letting other renewable technologies and efficiency resources 

take priority within the standard. ACEEE recommends that CHP be given equal footing, 

which does require states to develop a specific methodology for counting CHP savings. If 

CHP is considered an eligible resource, target levels should take into account CHP potential. 

Massachusetts has accomplished this in its Green Communities Act.

Example: Massachusetts

Expand and make visible state-led efforts, such as funding for energy efficiency incentive 

programs, benchmarking requirements for state building energy use, and investments in 

energy efficiency–related research and development centers. State-led initiatives 

complement the existing landscape of utility programs, leveraging resources from the state’s 

public and private sectors to generate energy and cost savings that benefit taxpayers and 

consumers. States have many opportunities to lead by example, including reducing energy 

use in public buildings and fleets, enabling the market for energy service companies 

(ESCOs) that finance and deliver energy-saving projects, and funding research centers that 

focus on energy-efficient technology breakthroughs. See Chapter 6 for further details. 

Examples: New York, Maryland, Alaska
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

17

Chapter 2. Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policies

Authors: Annie Gilleo and Seth Nowak

INTRODUCTION

The utility sector is critical to the implementation of energy efficiency throughout the 

economy, as electric and natural gas utilities and independent statewide program 

administrators deliver a substantial share of U.S. electricity and natural gas efficiency 

programs.4 Utility customers fund these programs, either through utility rates or statewide 

public benefits funds. Driven by regulation from state utility commissions, utilities and 

independent statewide program administrators in some states have been delivering energy 

efficiency programs for decades, offering various efficiency services for residential, 

commercial, industrial, and low-income customers.5 Today, utilities and third-party 

efficiency administrators in all 50 states and the District of Columbia implement energy 

efficiency programs.6 Utilities’ approaches to delivering energy efficiency may include 

financial incentives such as rebates and loans; technical services such as audits, retrofits, and 

training for architects, engineers, and building owners; and educational campaigns about 

the benefits of energy efficiency improvements. In addition to these common approaches, 

utilities and independent program administrators continually develop new and creative 

ways of delivering energy efficiency to their customer bases. 

This chapter reviews and ranks the states based on their performance in implementing 

utility-sector efficiency programs and enabling policies that are evidence of states’ 

commitment to energy efficiency. The seven subsets of scoring in this chapter are

 Utilities’ electricity program budgets as a percentage of statewide utility revenues

 Utilities’ natural gas program budgets per residential natural gas customer

 Incremental electricity program savings as a percentage of retail sales7

 Incremental natural gas program savings as a percentage of residential and 

commercial sales

 States’ enabling policies, such as EERSs

 Opt-out provisions for large customers

 Financial incentives for utilities, including performance incentives and mechanisms 

for addressing lost revenue

Electricity and Natural Gas Efficiency Program Budgets

The structure and delivery of customer-funded electric energy efficiency programs have 

changed dramatically over the past two decades, mostly in conjunction with restructuring 

 

4 The other major programs are run by state governments and are discussed in Chapter 6.

5 For more information on the historical growth of utility energy efficiency programs, see ACEEE’s Three Decades 

and Counting: A Historical Review and Current Assessment of Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Activity in the States

(York et al. 2012).

6 The three territories surveyed this year did not report savings from ratepayer-funded programs.

7 Incremental annual savings represent new savings from programs in each program cycle, while cumulative 

savings represent all savings accrued over the life of a particular program.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

18

efforts.8 In the 1980s and 1990s, such programs were almost exclusively the domain of 

utilities, which administered and implemented programs under regulatory oversight. 

Efforts in the mid-1990s to restructure and deregulate the electric utility markets led 

numerous states to implement public benefits charges as a new source of funding for 

efficiency programs. These public benefits programs established new structures and, in 

some cases, tasked organizations other than public utilities with the responsibility of 

administering and delivering energy efficiency and related energy programs (including 

energy programs for low-income customers and renewable energy programs). These 

programs are usually administered by utilities, but in several states separate efficiency 

utilities or other third parties may administer programs.9 However, in many cases, funds 

from a public benefits program go to a state’s utilities to administer and implement energy 

efficiency programs themselves. Thus, while there have been changes in funding and 

administrative structures for customer programs over the past 20 to 30 years, utilities are 

still the primary administrators of such programs on a national basis. 

Despite the enactment of public benefits programs in many states, restructuring resulted in 

a precipitous decline in funding for customer-funded electricity energy efficiency programs, 

from almost $1.8 billion in 1993 to about $900 million in 1998 (nominal dollars). The 

principal reasons for this decline included utilities’ uncertainty about newly restructured 

markets and the expected loss of cost recovery mechanisms for their energy efficiency 

programs.10 Generally, utilities did not see customer-funded energy efficiency programs as 

being compatible with competitive retail markets.

After restructuring efforts slowed in some states over the past decade, utility commissions 

are placing renewed focus and importance on energy efficiency programs. From its low 

point in 1998, spending for electricity programs increased fivefold by 2010, from 

approximately $900 million to $4.6 billion. And in 2013, total budgets for electricity 

efficiency programs reached nearly $6.3 billion. Adding this to natural gas program budgets 

of $1.4 billion, we estimate total efficiency program budgets of more than $7.7 billion in 2013 

(see figure 2). 

 

8By “customer-funded energy efficiency” programs—also known as ratepayer-funded energy efficiency 

programs—we mean energy efficiency programs funded through charges wrapped into customer rates or as 

some type of charge on customer utility bills. This includes both utility-administered 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.

9 States that have established non-utility administration of efficiency programs include Vermont, New York, 

Oregon, Wisconsin, Delaware, New Jersey, Maine, and the District of Columbia.

10 Under traditional regulatory structures, utilities do not have an economic incentive to help their customers 

become more energy efficient because their revenues and profits fall in line with falling energy sales due to

energy efficiency programs. To address this disincentive, state regulators allow utilities to recover, at a 

minimum, the costs of running energy efficiency programs through charges on customer bills. For more on this 

issue, see York and Kushler (2011).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

19

Figure 2. Annual electric and natural gas energy efficiency program spending or budgets. *From 1993 to 2008, values represent actual 

program spending (including customer-funded programs); from 2009 on, they represent program budgets. Natural gas spending is not 

available for the years 1993–2004. Sources: Nadel, Kubo, and Geller 2000; York and Kushler 2002, 2005; Eldridge et al. 2008, 2009; 

Molina et al. 2010; Sciortino et al. 2011; Foster et al. 2012; Downs et al. 2013.

Given states’ increasing commitments to energy efficiency, this growth will likely continue 

over the next decade, albeit at a slower rate. In one recent analysis of customer-funded 

energy efficiency program budgets, funding for electric and natural gas programs is 

estimated to rise to $15.6 billion by 2025 due to the impact of all cost-effective efficiency 

policies in leading states, successful achievement of EERS targets, and peer learning 

(Barbose et al. 2013). This analysis also suggests a significant broadening of the U.S. energy 

efficiency market, with a large portion of the projected increases in spending coming from 

states in the Southeast that historically have had relatively low levels of funding for energy 

efficiency.

Furthermore, many states are likely to rely heavily on energy efficiency to meet new 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Power Plan rules for carbon emissions in 

existing power plants (EPA 2014a). While states have only just begun to assess potential 

pathways for meeting the GHG regulations outlined under section 111(d) of the Clean Air 

Act, a study by ACEEE found that rapidly deployable energy efficiency policies can yield a 

26% reduction in GHG emissions overall (Hayes et al. 2014). As state plans to meet 111(d) 

requirements become more concrete over the next several years, it is likely that spending on 

energy efficiency will continue to rise.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

20

Savings from Electric Efficiency Programs 

We assessed the overall performance of electricity energy efficiency programs by the 

reported amount of electricity saved. Utilities and non-utility program administrators 

pursue numerous strategies to achieve energy efficiency savings. Program portfolios may 

initially concentrate on low-hanging fruit like energy-efficient lighting and appliances. As 

utilities gain experience and customers become aware of the benefits of energy efficiency, 

the number of approaches available to efficiency program portfolios increases. Utilities 

calculate the energy savings that result from the programs, which are then subject to 

internal or third-party evaluation, monitoring, and verification (EM&V) and are typically 

reported to the public utility commission on a semiannual or annual basis.

In states ramping up funding levels in response to aggressive EERS policies, programs will 

necessarily shift focus from widget-based approaches (e.g., installing a new, more efficient 

water heater) to more comprehensive deep-savings approaches, which seek to generate 

more energy efficiency savings per program participant by conducting whole-building or 

system retrofits. Some deep-savings approaches also draw on complementary efficiency 

efforts, such as the enforcement of building energy codes.11 Deep-savings approaches may 

also add to the emphasis on whole-building retrofits and comprehensive changes in systems 

and operations by including behavioral elements that empower customers with contextual 

information on energy use. 

Programs for Large Customers

For the first time this year, we assessed opt-out and self-direct provisions for large 

customers. Increasingly, some large customers are seeking to opt out of utility energy 

efficiency programs. They assert that they have already done all the energy efficiency that is 

cost-effective; however, this is seldom the case (Chittum 2011). This situation arises from 

capital allocation decisions (e.g., very-short-term payback requirements) that leave many 

energy efficiency opportunities on the table. Significant cost-effective energy efficiency 

opportunities exist if the funds are available. 

Failure to include large customer programs in an energy efficiency portfolio will increase 

the cost of the resource for all customers and reduce the benefits. In effect, allowing the large 

customers to opt out forces other consumers to subsidize them. While the ideal solution is 

for utilities to offer programs that are responsive to the needs of these large consumers, 

ACEEE’s research suggests that this does not always happen (Chittum 2011). In those cases,

we suggest giving these customers the option of self-directing their energy efficiency 

program dollars.12 This option provides a path for including large customer energy 

efficiency in the state’s portfolio of savings at the same time as it encourages utilities to 

improve program offerings to become more responsive to all customers’ needs. 

 

11 See Nowak et al. (2011) for a full discussion of this topic.

12 Self-direct programs allow some customers, usually large industrial or commercial ones, to self-direct energy 

efficiency fees usually paid on utility bills directly into energy efficiency investments in their facilities instead of 

into a broader aggregated pool of funds. These programs should be designed to include comparable methods for 

verification and measurement of investments and energy savings. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

21

Energy Efficiency Resource Standards

Enabling policies such as EERSs and financial incentives for utilities (see the next section) 

are critical to leveraging energy efficiency funding and encouraging savings over the near 

and long term. Twenty-four states now have fully funded EERS policies that establish 

specific energy savings targets that utilities or independent statewide program 

administrators must meet through customer energy efficiency programs.13 These policies set 

multiyear targets for electricity or natural gas savings, such as 1% or 2% incremental savings 

per year or 20% cumulative savings by 2025.14

EERS policies differ from state to state, but each has the intent of establishing a sustainable, 

long-term role for energy efficiency in the state’s overall energy portfolio. ACEEE considers 

a state to have an EERS if it has a policy in place that

1. Sets clear long-term targets for electricity or natural gas savings

2. Makes it clear that targets are mandatory

3. Includes sufficient funding for full implementation of programs necessary to meet 

targets

Several states have chosen to enforce all cost-effective efficiency requirements, which 

require utilities and program administrators to determine and invest in the maximum 

amount of cost-effective efficiency feasible. ACEEE considers states with all cost-effective 

requirements to have EERS policies in place once these policies have led to multiyear 

savings targets.

EERS policies aim explicitly for quantifiable energy savings, reinforcing the idea that energy 

efficiency is a utility system resource on par with supply-side resources. These standards 

also help utility system planners more clearly anticipate and project the impact of energy 

efficiency programs on utility system loads and resource needs. Energy savings targets are 

generally set at levels that push efficiency programs to achieve higher savings than they 

otherwise would have, with the goals typically based on analysis of the energy efficiency 

savings potential in the state that ensures the targets are realistic and achievable. EERS 

policies maintain strict requirements for cost-effectiveness so that efficiency programs are 

guaranteed to provide overall benefits to customers. And these standards help to ensure a 

long-term commitment to energy efficiency as a resource, building essential customer 

engagement as well as the workforce and market infrastructure necessary to sustain the 

high levels of savings.15

 

13 In last year’s State Scorecard, we reported that 26 states had EERS policies in place. However the Ohio and 

Indiana legislatures rolled back EERS policies in 2014.

14 “Multiyear” is defined as three or more years. EERS policies may set specific targets as a percentage of sales, as 

specific gigawatt-hour energy savings targets without reference to sales in previous years, or as a percentage of 

load growth. 

15 The ACEEE report Energy Efficiency Resource Standards: A New Progress Report on State Experience analyzed 

current trends in EERS implementation and found that most states were meeting or were on track to meet energy 

savings targets (Downs and Cui 2014).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

22

Financial Incentives Affecting Utility Investment in Efficiency: Earning a Return and Addressing 

Lost Revenues 

Under traditional regulatory structures, utilities do not have an economic incentive to help 

their customers become more energy efficient. In fact, they typically have a disincentive, 

because falling energy sales from energy efficiency programs reduce utilities’ revenues and 

profits, an effect referred to as lost revenues or lost sales. Since utilities’ earnings are usually 

based on the total amount of capital invested in certain asset categories (such as 

transmission and distribution infrastructure and power plants) and the amount of electricity 

sold, the financial incentives are very much tilted in favor of increased electricity sales and 

expanding supply-side systems. 

This dynamic has led industry experts to devise ways of addressing the possible loss of 

earnings and profit that can result from customer energy efficiency programs in order to 

remove utilities’ financial disincentive to promote energy efficiency. There are three key 

policy approaches to properly aligning utility incentives and removing barriers to energy 

efficiency. The first is to ensure that utilities can recover the direct costs associated with 

energy efficiency programs. This is a minimum threshold requirement for utilities and 

related organizations to fund and offer energy efficiency programs, and virtually every state 

allows this in some form. Given the wide acceptance of program cost recovery, we do not 

address it in the State Scorecard. 

The other two mechanisms are fixed cost recovery (decoupling and other lost revenue 

adjustment mechanisms) and performance incentives. Decoupling—the disassociation of a 

utility's revenues from its sales—makes the utility indifferent to decreases or increases in 

sales, removing what is known as the throughput incentive. Although decoupling does not 

necessarily make the utility more likely to promote efficiency programs, it removes the 

disincentive for it to do so. Additional mechanisms for addressing lost revenues include 

modifications to customers’ rates that permit utilities to collect these revenues either 

through a lost-revenue adjustment mechanism (LRAM) or other ratemaking approach. 

ACEEE considers decoupling to be the preferred approach for addressing the throughput 

incentive, and LRAMs to be the second-best approach. Performance incentives are financial 

incentives that reward utilities (and in some cases, non-utility organizations) for reaching or 

exceeding specified program goals. These may include a shareholder incentive that is 

awarded based on achievement of energy savings targets and an incentive based on 

spending goals. Of the two, ACEEE recommends the former, shareholder incentives based 

on achieved savings. A number of states have enacted mechanisms such as these that align 

utility incentives with energy efficiency, as seen in table 21.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

A state could earn up to 20 points in this category, or 40% of the total possible 50 points in 

the State Scorecard. Among efficiency programs, studies suggest that electricity programs 

typically achieve at least three times more primary energy savings than natural gas 

programs (Eldridge et al. 2009; SWEEP 2007). However, natural gas programs are beginning 

to constitute more meaningful portions of energy efficiency portfolios. Therefore we 

allocated 10 points to performance metrics for electricity programs (annual budgets and 

savings data) and 4 points to performance metrics for natural gas programs (annual budgets
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

23

and savings data). We also scored states on a variety of enabling policies. Table 8 lists states’ 

overall scoring in this category.

For this chapter of the State Scorecard, we gathered statewide data on: 

 Utility sales to end users in 2012 and 2013

 Utility revenues from sales to end users in 2012 and 2013

 Number of residential natural gas customers in 2012

 Budgets for electricity and natural gas energy efficiency programs in 2013

 Actual spending on electricity and natural gas energy efficiency programs in 2012

 Incremental savings from electricity and natural gas energy efficiency programs in 

2012 and 2013

 Policies to encourage utility investment in energy efficiency

 Utility policies and programs related to large customers, including self-direct and 

opt-out provisions

Table 8. Summary of state scoring on utility and public benefits programs and policies

State

2013 

electricity 

program 

budgets 

(5 pts.)

2013 

natural 

gas 

program 

budgets

(2 pts.)

2013* 

electricity 

program 

savings 

(5 pts.)

2013 

natural 

gas 

program 

savings

(2 pts.)

Opt-out 

provision

(–1 pt.)

Energy 

efficiency 

resource 

standard 

(3 pts.)

Performance 

incentives & 

fixed cost 

recovery

(3 pts.)

Total 

score

(20 pts.)

Massachusetts 5 2 5 2 0 3 3 20

Rhode Island 5 2 5 2 0 3 3 20

Vermont 5 2 4 2 0 3 2.5 18.5

Oregon 5 1.5 3.5 1 0 2.5 1.5 15

Connecticut 4 1.5 2 1 0 2.5 3 14

Minnesota 3 1 2.5 2 0 3 2.5 14

New York 3 2 2.5 0.5 0 2.5 3 13.5

Washington 5 0.5 3 1 0 2 1.5 13

California 3.5 1 3 0.5 0 1.5 3 12.5

Michigan 1.5 1 3.5 2 0 2 2.5 12.5

Arizona 2 0.5 4 0.5 0 3 2 12

Hawaii 1 0.5 4 1.5 0 2 3 12

Iowa 3.5 2 2.5 1.5 0 2.5 0 12

Colorado 2 0.5 2 0.5 0 3 2.5 10.5

Maryland 3.5 0.5 2 0 0 3 1.5 10.5

Illinois 3 1 2 1 0 1 1 9

New Hampshire 2.5 2 1 1.5 0 0 1.5 8.5

New Jersey 4.5 2 1 0 0 0 1 8.5

Wisconsin 1 0.5 2 1.5 0 1 2.5 8.5

Arkansas 2 1 1 1 -1 1.5 2.5 8

Maine 3 1.5 1.5 0 -1 3 0 8
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

24

State

2013 

electricity 

program 

budgets 

(5 pts.)

2013 

natural 

gas 

program 

budgets

(2 pts.)

2013* 

electricity 

program 

savings 

(5 pts.)

2013 

natural 

gas 

program 

savings

(2 pts.)

Opt-out 

provision

(–1 pt.)

Energy 

efficiency 

resource 

standard 

(3 pts.)

Performance 

incentives & 

fixed cost 

recovery

(3 pts.)

Total 

score

(20 pts.)

Ohio 1.5 2 2 0 0 0 2.5 8

New Mexico 1 0.5 1 0 0 2 2.5 7

Utah 1.5 1.5 2 1 0 0 1 7

District of Columbia 1 1 1 0 0 0 2.5 5.5

Nevada 1.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 1 5

Pennsylvania 2 0.5 2 0 0 0.5 0 5

Idaho 2.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 4

Indiana 1 0.5 1 0.5 -1 0 2 4

Montana 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 1 4

Oklahoma 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 -1 0 2.5 4

Kentucky 0.5 0 1 0.5 -1 0 2.5 3.5

South Dakota 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 3.5

Missouri 0.5 0.5 1 0 -1 0 2 3

North Carolina 0.5 0 1 0 -1 0 2.5 3

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5

Florida 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 2.5

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5

Georgia 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 2

Tennessee 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 2

Wyoming 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 2

Delaware 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 1

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Nebraska 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

South Carolina 0 0 0.5 0 -1 0 1.5 1

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5

Texas 0.5 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0.5

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 0 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0

West Virginia 0 0 0.5 0 -1 0 0.5 0

*Where 2013 data were not available for efficiency program savings, states were scored on 2012 savings.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

25

Our data sources included the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE 2014), EIA (EIA 2013, 

2014a, 2014b, 2014c), regional efficiency groups, and information requests sent to state utility 

commissions. Energy efficiency program data were subject to revision and updating 

depending on the timing and completeness of reporting. For these reasons, we sent the 

utility program data we gathered to state utility commissions and independent statewide 

administrators for review. We also asked commissions and program administrators for data 

on natural gas program savings, and whether program savings were reported as gross or 

net.16 Overall scores for utility programs and policies are given in table 8. Tables 10, 12, 14, 

and 16 provide data on electricity and natural gas efficiency budgets and savings in the 

most recent years for which data are available.

Our methodology for this policy area, while comprehensive, does have some unintended 

impacts on state rankings. For example, it disadvantages several states because of the types 

of energy used or fuels offered to consumers. Hawaii, for example, has the lowest natural 

gas consumption among all the states, the bulk of which is accounted for by the commercial 

sector (EIA 2014b); therefore, energy efficiency efforts in that state are aimed at reducing 

electricity consumption only. In past years, Hawaii has not been able to earn points for any 

categories related to natural gas. Last year, we attempted to rectify our likely 

undervaluation of relative efficiency efforts in Hawaii by awarding the state points for 

natural gas efficiency budgets equivalent to the proportion of points earned for electricity 

efficiency program budgets. This year, we carry this practice forward into other scoring 

subjects related to natural gas, including natural gas savings, performance incentives, and 

fixed cost recovery. Elsewhere, particularly in the Northeast, energy efficiency efforts often 

aim to reduce the consumption of fuel oil. While we may capture these efforts where they 

are combined with efficiency programs targeting electricity or natural gas, we have not 

specifically accounted for fuel oil savings from non-electricity programs.

Continuing our practice from last year, we awarded points for natural gas savings. These 

data are not publicly available from a single source, and thus we relied on our contacts at 

state utility commissions to supply the data used for scoring. States whose utility 

commissions did not respond to our request for data therefore did not receive points in this 

category, whether or not they realized savings from natural gas efficiency programs in 2012 

and 2013.

Finally, our decision to report programs’ incremental annual savings (new savings from 

programs in each program cycle) and not cumulative energy savings (all savings accrued 

over the life of a particular program) could be seen as disadvantaging states with longstanding energy efficiency efforts. We choose to report incremental savings in the State 

Scorecard for two reasons. First, basing our scoring on cumulative energy savings would 

invite several new levels of complexity that are beyond the scope of the State Scorecard, 

 

16 Gross savings are those that are expected from energy efficiency programs, crediting all efficiency measures 

that are installed, including those that would have been installed even in the absence of programs. In contrast, 

net savings are those actually attributable to the program, and are typically calculated by removing freeriders, or 

program participants who would have implemented or installed the energy efficiency measures without any 

incentive, or with a lesser incentive. However, states differ in how they define, measure, and account for 

freeridership and other components of the net savings calculation (Haeri and Khawaja 2012).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

26

including identifying the start year for the cumulative series, accurately accounting for the 

life of energy efficiency measures, and measuring the persistence of savings. Second, the 

State Scorecard aims to provide a snapshot of states’ ongoing energy efficiency programs, 

and incremental savings give a clearer picture of recent efforts.

Scoring on Electricity Program Budgets

In this category, we scored states on reported annual electricity energy efficiency program 

budgets for 2013. The data presented in this section are for customer-funded energy 

efficiency programs, which are funded through charges included in utility customers’ rates 

or as a line item on customer bills. This includes budgets for utility-administered 

programs—which may include IOUs, municipal utilities, cooperative utilities, other public 

power companies or authorities—and for customer-funded public benefits programs 

administered by independent statewide program administrators. We did not collect data on 

the federal Weatherization Assistance Program, which gives money to states on a formula 

basis. We did include revenues from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that contribute 

to customer-funded energy efficiency program portfolios of member states. Where Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative funds were channeled to energy efficiency initiatives 

implemented by state governments, we included them in Chapter 6, State Government-Led 

Initiatives. 

In the 2010 edition of the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, we began reporting energy 

efficiency program budgets rather than actual spending figures. This was done to make our 

reporting more timely and to better represent the rapid increases in energy efficiency 

funding that states are making.

17 This year, as in previous years, we gathered energy 

efficiency program budget data from several sources: the CEE 2013 Annual Industry Report, 

Efficiency Program Industry by State and Region Appendices (CEE 2014) and data requests to 

state utility commissions, regional efficiency groups, and other state sources.18As we did last 

year, we also attempted to collect data on actual program spending in 2013. However these 

data are not publicly available through any single source, and only a handful of states were 

able to provide complete spending numbers. Therefore we continued to rely on budgets for 

this year’s scoring, but will continue our efforts to collect data on actual spending. In the 

future, our preference will be to score states on actual, rather than planned, outcomes.

Our reliance on budgets means data may fluctuate, and we capture data only as they are 

calculated at a particular point in time. As mentioned earlier, program data are subject to a 

certain degree of revision and updating by states depending on the timing of reporting and 

differences in reporting requirements of utilities and other program administrators. It is also 

important to note that budget data are subject to some level of subjectivity. Several states 

report shareholder incentives as part of their utility efficiency program budgets, which 

could lead to slightly inflated numbers. As in past years, we sent budget data gathered from 

 

17 Prior to 2010, we depended on actual spending data from EIA, which has a two-year time lag.

18 CEE surveys administrators of public benefits programs annually to capture trends in aggregated budgets and 

expenditures. CEE has granted ACEEE permission to reference survey results as of a point in time for the 

purpose of capturing updates to the budget, expenditure, and impacts data. The full report is viewable at 

http://www.cee1.org/annual-industry-reports.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

27

the sources above to state utility commissions for review. Tables 10 and 12 below report 

electricity and natural gas efficiency program budgets, respectively.

It is important to clarify that budget data capture intention rather than actual energy 

efficiency spending, and that the difference between spending and budgets varies from state 

to state. From year to year, however, the ratio of spending to budgets has remained fairly 

constant. For 2009, the first year for which we tracked both spending and budgets, we found 

that actual spending nationwide on electricity efficiency programs was 89% of the reported 

budget figures, with a total spending gap of $301 million. In 2010, the spending gap rose to 

$505 million, but actual spending remained at 89% of reported electricity program budgets 

nationwide. In 2011, the spending gap grew to more noticeable levels—about $1 billion. 

Actual spending was only about 83% of reported budgets. In 2012, results were similar, with 

states spending about 84% of reported budgets. Despite this pattern of underspending, we 

believe that budgets remain the fairest and most timely way to benchmark states. We will 

continue to monitor the difference between spending and budgets in future years.

States could receive up to 5 points based on the percentage of electric utility revenues 

represented by energy efficiency budgets.19 Budgets representing at least 4% of revenues 

earned the maximum of 5 points. For every 0.4% less than 4%, a state’s score decreased by 

0.5 points. Table 9 lists the scoring bins for each level of spending and table 10 shows stateby-state results and scores for this category.

Table 9. Scoring of electric 

efficiency program budgets

Budgets as % of 

revenues Score

4.00% or greater 5.0

3.60–3.99% 4.5

3.20–3.59% 4.0

2.80–3.19% 3.5

2.40–2.79% 3.0

2.00–2.39% 2.5

1.60–1.99% 2.0

1.20–1.59% 1.5

0.80–1.19% 1.0

0.40–0.79% 0.5

Less than 0.40% 0

 

19 Statewide revenues are from EIA (2014a). We measure budgets as a percentage of revenues to normalize the 

level of energy efficiency spending. Blending utility revenues from all customer classes gives a more accurate 

measure of utilities’ overall spending on energy efficiency than expressing budgets per capita, which might skew 

the data for utilities that have a few very large customers. An alternative metric, statewide electric energy 

efficiency budgets per capita, is presented in Appendix A. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

28

Table 10. 2013 electric efficiency program budgets by state

State

2013 budget

($million)

% of 

statewide 

utility 

revenues

Score

(5 pts.) State

2013 budget

($million)

% of 

statewide 

utility 

revenues

Score

(5 pts.)

Rhode Island1 77.5 8.55% 5 District of Columbia 14.0 1.06% 1

Massachusetts2 507.7 6.42% 5 Hawaii 33.5 1.06% 1

Vermont3 42.8 5.32% 5 Indiana22 76.8 0.86% 1

Washington4 293.7 4.60% 5 Oklahoma23 38.7 0.84% 1

Oregon5 171.3 4.32% 5 Tennessee24 55.7 0.81% 1

New Jersey 395.1 3.88% 4.5 Kentucky25 44.0 0.70% 0.5

Connecticut6 102.4 3.28% 4 Missouri 48.2 0.65% 0.5

California7 1188.8 3.18% 3.5 North Carolina26 74.9 0.63% 0.5

Maryland8 205.9 2.85% 3.5 Texas 181.4 0.56% 0.5

Iowa9 106.7 2.83% 3.5 Nebraska27 13.8 0.53% 0.5

New York 593.9 2.65% 3 Wyoming 6.4 0.50% 0.5

Illinois10 283.8 2.51% 3 South Dakota28 5.1 0.48% 0.5

Maine11 34.2 2.43% 3 West Virginia29 9.0 0.37% 0

Minnesota12 155.5 2.42% 3 Georgia30 40.1 0.32% 0

New Hampshire13 27.4 2.24% 2.5 South Carolina 22.1 0.31% 0

Idaho14 38.8 2.12% 2.5 Delaware31 2.4 0.19% 0

Arizona15 143.2 1.86% 2 Mississippi 7.5 0.17% 0

Arkansas16 65.9 1.81% 2 Alabama 10.8 0.14% 0

Colorado17 89.4 1.69% 2 Louisiana 3.7 0.05% 0

Pennsylvania 237.6 1.66% 2 Kansas 0.7 0.02% 0

Nevada18 50.5 1.59% 1.5 Virginia 0.8 0.01% 0

Ohio 212.8 1.56% 1.5 Alaska 0.0 0.00% 0

Montana19 18.4 1.53% 1.5 Guam32 0.0 0.00% 0

Michigan20 165.5 1.43% 1.5 North Dakota 0.0 0.00% 0

Utah 35.3 1.42% 1.5 Puerto Rico33 0.0 0.00% 0

Florida 258.1 1.13% 1 Virgin Islands34 0.0 0.00% 0

Wisconsin 79.9 1.09% 1 U.S. total 6294.6 -

New Mexico21 23.1 1.08% 1 Median 43.4 1.09%

Budget data are from CEE 2014 except where noted. Statewide revenue data are from EIA 2014a. 1RI PUC 2014.

2MA DOER 2014.3VT PSD 2014.4Includes share 

of budget-based allocation of Bonneville Power Administration(BPA) incentive dollars across states.

5Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and2014; includes share of 

budget from BPA incentive dollars.

6CT DEEP 2014.7CPUC 2014.8MD PSC 2014.9IUB 2014.10ICC 2014.11Efficiency Maine 2014.12 MN COMM 2014.13NH PUC 

2014.

14Includes share of budget from BPA incentive dollars.15SWEEP 2014a.16AR PSC 2014.17CO DORA 2014.18NV PUCN 2014; includes share of budget from 

BPA incentive dollars.

19Includes share of budget from BPA incentive dollars.20MI PSC 2014.21NM PRC 2014.22IURC 2014.23OCC 2014.24TVA 2014.25KY PSC 

2014.

26PSNCUC 2014.27NPPD 2014; OPPD 2014; Lincoln Electric System 2014.28SD PUC 2014.29WV PSC 2014.30GA PSC 2014.31DNREC 2014.32Guam 

Energy Office 2014.

33Puerto Rico Office of the Governor 2014.34Virgin Islands Energy Office 2014.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

29

Scoring on Natural Gas Program Budgets 

We scored states on natural gas efficiency program budgets by awarding up to 2 points 

based on 2013 program budget data gathered from utility commission filings, CEE (CEE 

2014), and a survey of state utility commissions and independent statewide administrators.20

In order to directly compare spending data among the states, we normalized spending by 

the number of residential natural gas customers in each state, as reported by EIA (2014b).21

Table 11 shows scoring bins for natural gas program spending.

Table 11. Scoring of natural gas utility 

and public benefits budgets

Budget range Score

$50 or greater 2.0

$35.00–49.99 1.5

$20.00–34.99 1.0

$5.00–19.99 0.5

Less than $5.00 0

This year, we continued to see dramatic variation in spending on natural gas efficiency 

programs. Overall budgets for natural gas programs rose by more than $150 million 

compared to last year, with many states spending more than $50 per residential customer. 

However, overall natural gas efficiency budgets remained significantly lower than budgets 

for electricity programs. Table 12 shows states’ scores.

 

20 Last year, states were able to earn 3 points in this category. In order to emphasize the importance of energy 

efficiency program outcomes, this year one of those points was moved to the natural gas savings category.

21 We use spending per residential customers for natural gas because reliable natural gas revenue data are 

sparse, and per capita unfairly penalizes states with natural gas service to only a portion of the state’s population 

(such as Vermont). State data on the number of residential customers is from EIA (2014b).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

30

Table 12. 2013 natural gas efficiency program budgets by state

State

2013 

budget

($million)

$ per 

residential 

customer

Score

(2 pts.) State

2013 

budget

($million)

$ per 

residential 

customer

Score

(2 pts.)

Massachusetts1 173.5 $119.99 2 New Mexico 4.0 $7.04 0.5

Rhode Island2 19.5 $83.28 2 Nevada 5.4 $6.88 0.5

New Jersey 196.4 $66.83 2 Missouri18 9.1 $6.56 0.5

Iowa3 50.6 $59.71 2 Arizona19 6.3 $5.44 0.5

Ohio 50.3 $58.78 2 Delaware20 0.8 $5.22 0.5

New Hampshire4 6.3 $55.51 2 Hawaii* — $0.00 0.5

Vermont 2.2 $53.68 2 Virginia 2.9 $2.65 0

New York 174.9 $50.30 2 Kentucky 1.6 $2.14 0

Connecticut5 24.1 $47.38 1.5 North Carolina21 2.1 $1.82 0

Maine6 0.8 $40.42 1.5 North Dakota 0.1 $1.06 0

Oregon7 27.3 $39.37 1.5 Texas 3.1 $0.72 0

Utah8 31.0 $36.87 1.5 South Carolina 0.4 $0.60 0

Minnesota9 44.1 $30.66 1 Montana 0.1 $0.23 0

Florida 18.2 $27.14 1 Alabama 0.0 $0.00 0

Illinois10 98.9 $26.25 1 Alaska 0.0 $0.00 0

Michigan11 83.8 $26.19 1 Georgia 0.0 $0.00 0

California 260.4 $25.72 1 Guam* — $0.00 0

Arkansas12 12.9 $23.46 1 Idaho 0.0 $0.00 0

District of Columbia13 2.9 $22.36 1 Kansas 0.0 $0.00 0

Washington 17.3 $15.85 0.5 Louisiana 0.0 $0.00 0

Maryland14 15.0 $13.76 0.5 Mississippi 0.0 $0.00 0

Indiana15 23.3 $13.33 0.5 Nebraska 0.0 $0.00 0

Oklahoma16 12.1 $13.05 0.5 Puerto Rico* — $0.00 0

Wisconsin 24.2 $12.96 0.5 Tennessee 0.0 $0.00 0

Wyoming 1.4 $11.85 0.5 Virgin Islands* — $0.00 0

Pennsylvania 24.3 $10.22 0.5 West Virginia 0.0 $0.00 0

Colorado 16.5 $9.94 0.5 U.S. total 1,449.4 — 

South Dakota17 1.4 $8.05 0.5 Median 4.0 $9.00 

*Hawaii and the territories use very limited amounts of natural gas. Points are commensurate with points earned for electric efficiency budgets. Budget 

data are from CEE 2014 unless otherwise noted. 1MA DOER 2014.

2RI PUC 2014.3IUB 2014.4NH PUC 2014.5CT DEEP 2014.6Efficiency Maine 2014.

7Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and OR DOE 2014.8SWEEP 2014b.9MN COMM 2014.10ICC 2014.11MI PSC 2014.12AR PSC 2013.13DDOE 2014b.14MD 

PSC 2014.

15IURC 2014.16OCC 2014.17SD PUC 2014.18MO PSC 2014.19SWEEP 2014a.20DNREC 2014.21PSNCUC 2014.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

31

Scoring on Annual Savings in 2013 from Electric Efficiency Programs

We scored states on net annual incremental electricity savings22 that resulted from energy 

efficiency programs offered in 2013.23 Data for electricity sales and savings were based on 

EIA’s Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Report With State Distributions (2014a) and 

Annual Electric Power Industry Report (2013), which we supplemented with data from a 

survey of state utility commissions and independent statewide utility program 

administrators. 

States use different methodologies for determining energy savings from efficiency 

programs, and these differences can produce inequities when making comparisons.24 A 

state’s EM&V process plays a key role in determining how savings are quantified. This is 

particularly true of a state’s treatment of free riders (savings attributed to a program that 

would have occurred anyway in the absence of the program) and spillover (savings not

attributed to a program that would not have occurred without it). Energy savings are 

reported as either net or gross, with net savings accounting for freeriders and freedrivers, 

and gross savings not accounting for these. Our research specifically focuses on net savings 

figures. 

A national survey of evaluation practices for state energy efficiency programs found that of 

the 45 jurisdictions with formally approved customer-funded energy efficiency programs, 

21 jurisdictions reported net savings, 12 reported gross savings, and 9 reported both, for 

different purposes (Kushler, Nowak, and Witte 2012).

25 These findings point to several 

important caveats to the electric program savings data. First, a number of states do not 

estimate or report net savings. In these cases, we have applied a standard factor of 0.9 to 

convert gross savings to net savings (a net-to-gross ratio).26 Doing so allows for more 

straightforward comparison with other states that report net electricity savings. Savings (or 

some portion of savings) reported as gross27 are marked by a dagger (ƚ) in table 14. In 

Arizona, a measurement and verification study concluded that net savings are equal to 

 

22 Net incremental electricity savings are new savings achieved from measures implemented in the reporting 

year.

23Data for 2013 were not available in all states and territories, but we felt that due to the high level of reporting of 

these numbers, it was possible to compare the most recent data available between states. We substituted 2012 

data for states that could not report 2013 savings data. Data for both 2012 and 2013 are presented separately in 

Appendix B. Readers should also note that programs that have been running for several years at a high level of 

funding are achieving the highest levels of cumulative electricity savings (total energy savings achieved to date 

from efficiency measures). Incremental savings data, which measure new savings achieved in the current 

program year, are the best way to directly compare state efforts due to the difficulty in tracking the duration of 

programs and their savings.

24See Sciortino et al. (2011).

25 This includes 44 states and the District of Columbia. Three states did not offer a response to this question.

26 A net-to-gross ratio of 0.9 falls within the range of factors used by several states in calculating net efficiency 

program savings, including Massachusetts (MAGEEPA 2010), Maryland (Itron 2011), New York (NY DPS 2010), 

Vermont (Efficiency Vermont 2012), and Michigan. 

27Savings were determined to be gross based on Kushler, Nowak, and Witte (2012) and on responses to our 

survey of public utility commissions.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

32

gross savings within the state (SWEEP 2014a). In such cases, we have not applied a 

conversion factor, and consider reported savings to be net.

We have reported 2013 statewide energy efficiency savings as a percentage of retail 

electricity sales in 2013 and scored the states on a scale of 0 to 5. Since 2013 savings data 

were not available from EIA at the time of research, we relied on states to provide these 

data. Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia were able to do so. Where no data for 

2013 were reported, we used the most recent savings data available from EIA (2013b). Data 

for both 2012 and 2013 are presented in Appendix B.

This year, to reflect the goals of some of the top-performing states, we once again adjusted 

our scoring. States that achieved savings equivalent to at least 2% of electricity sales earned 

5 points, with scores decreasing by 0.5 points for every 0.20% decrease.28

Table 13 lists the scoring bins for each level of savings and table 14 shows state-by-state 

results and scores. Across the nation, reported savings from utility and public benefits 

electricity programs in 2013 totaled 24 million MWh, equivalent to 0.67% of sales.29

Table 13. Scoring methodology for 

utility and public benefits electricity 

savings

Savings as % of 

sales Score

2% or greater 5

1.80–1.99% 4.5

1.60–1.79% 4

1.40–1.59% 3.5

1.20–1.39% 3

1.00–1.19% 2.5

0.80–0.99% 2

0.60–0.79% 1.5

0.40–0.59% 1

0.20–0.39% 0.5

Less than 0.20% 0

 

28 Last year, states earned full credit for reported net annual incremental sales of 1.5% of sales.

29 As noted above, 2013 savings were not available in some states at the time of publication. In these cases, we 

substituted 2012 electricity savings.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

33

Table 14. 2013 net incremental electricity savings by state

State

2013 net 

incremental 

savings 

(MWh)

% of 

retail 

sales

Score

(5 pts.) State

2013 net 

incremental 

savings 

(MWh)

% of 

retail 

sales

Score

(5 pts.)

Rhode Island1 161,831 2.09% 5 New Mexico24 126,069 0.54% 1

Massachusetts2 1,116,442 2.05% 5 Kentucky25 437,276 0.52% 1

Vermont3 99,074 1.78% 4 Missouri26 406,897 0.49% 1

Arizona4 1,317,329 1.74% 4 Arkansas27 227,531 0.49% 1

Hawaii5 159,056ƚ 1.67% 4 District of Columbia28 52,303 0.47% 1

Michigan6 1,284,863 1.51% 3.5 South Carolina29 298,215 0.38% 0.5

Oregon7 676,046 1.43% 3.5 Tennessee30 273,267ƚ 0.28% 0.5

Washington8 990,143ƚ 1.35% 3 Oklahoma31 156,847 0.27% 0.5

California* 3,223,733 1.25% 3 Florida* 587,083 0.27% 0.5

New York9 1,617,667 1.13% 2.5 West Virginia32 69,241 0.22% 0.5

Iowa10 491,543 1.06% 2.5 Georgia33 288,140ƚ 0.22% 0.5

Minnesota11 699,998ƚ 1.04% 2.5 Nebraska34 53,850 0.20% 0.5

Illinois12 1,318,916 0.99% 2 Texas35 693,968 0.19% 0

Maryland13 641,322 0.97% 2 South Dakota36 21,435 0.18% 0

Pennsylvania14 1,410,305ƚ 0.97% 2 Wyoming* 23,605 0.14% 0

Connecticut15 285,817 0.97% 2 Delaware37 8,809ƚ 0.08% 0

Wisconsin16 619,418 0.90% 2 Mississippi* 36,810 0.08% 0

Ohio* 1,323,498 0.89% 2 North Dakota* 10,330 0.07% 0

Colorado17 472,000 0.88% 2 Alabama* 56,045 0.06% 0

Utah18 264,375 0.87% 2 Virginia* 29,923 0.03% 0

Nevada19 171,369 0.81% 2 Alaska* 1,517 0.02% 0

Idaho* 188,245 0.78% 1.5 Louisiana38* 20,572 0.02% 0

Maine20 92,313 0.78% 1.5 Kansas* 8,907 0.02% 0

Montana* 91,474 0.65% 1.5 Guam39 0 0.00% 0

Indiana* 615,018 0.59% 1 Puerto Rico40 0 0.00% 0

New Jersey21 418,693ƚ 0.56% 1 Virgin Islands41 0 0.00% 0

New Hampshire22 58,774 0.56% 1 U.S. total 24,392,186 0.67% 

North Carolina23 718,739 0.55% 1 Median 245,953 0.56% 

*These states did not report 2013 savings and were scored on 2012 savings. 2012 savings data are as reported in EIA 2013a unless otherwise noted. ƚ At least a portion 

of savings reported as gross. The gross portion has been adjusted by a net-to-gross factor of 0.9 to make it more comparable to net savings figures reported by other 

states. 1RI PUC 2014.

2MA DOER 2014.3VT PSD 2014.4SWEEP 2014a.5HI PUC 2014.6MI PSC 2014.7Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and OR DOE 2014.8WA UTC 2014.9NY 

DPS 2014 and NYSERDA 2014; also includes savings from Long Island Power Authority (LIPA).

10IUB 2014; includes IOU savings only.11MN COMM 2014.

12ICC 2014.13MD PSC 2014.14PA PUC 2014.15CT DEEP 2014.16WI PSC 2014.17SWEEP 2014b and CO DORA 2014.18UT PSC 2014.19NV PUCN 2014.20Efficiency 

Maine 2014.

21NJ BPU 2014.22NH PUC 2014.23PSNCUC 2014.24NM PRC 2014.25KY PSC 2014.26MO PSC 2014.27AR PSC 2014.28DDOE 2014a.29SC ORS 2014. 30 

TVA 2014.

31OCC 2014.32WV PSC 2014.33GA PSC 2014.34NPPD 2014, OPPD 2014, and Lincoln Electric System 2014.35Frontier Associates 2014.36SD PUC 2014.

37DNREC 2014.382012 data from Entergy New Orleans 2013.39Guam Energy Office 2014.40Puerto Rico Office of the Governor 2014.41Virgin Islands Energy Office 

2014.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

34

Scoring on Annual Savings in 2013 from Natural Gas Efficiency Programs 

Increasingly, utilities are beginning to incorporate natural gas programs in their portfolios

of energy efficiency activities. However, data on savings resulting from these programs are 

still limited. In this category, we awarded points to states that were able to track savings 

from their natural gas efficiency programs and that realized savings of at least 0.25% as a 

percentage of sales in the residential and commercial sectors. We relied on data from state 

utility commissions. Table 15 lists scoring criteria for natural gas program savings.

Table 15. Scoring methodology for natural 

gas program savings

Natural gas savings 

as % of sales Score

1% or greater 2.0

0.75–0.99% 1.5

0.50–0.74% 1.0

0.25–0.49% 0.5

Less than 0.25% 0

States that did not provide natural gas data 

were treated as having no 2013 savings.

Table 16 shows states’ scores for natural gas program savings.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

35

Table 16. State scores for 2013 natural gas efficiency program savings

State

2013 net 

incremental 

savings 

(MMTherms)

% of 

commercial 

and 

residential 

retail sales*

Score

(2 pts.) State

2013 net

incremental 

savings 

(MMTherms)

% of 

commercial 

and 

residential 

retail sales*

Score

(2 pts.)

Vermont1 0.80 1.47% 2 Nevada27 0.96 0.14% 0

Minnesota2 26.82ƚ 1.36% 2 New Mexico28 0.68 0.12% 0

Massachusetts3 24.67 1.28% 2 Maryland29 1.00 0.07% 0

Rhode Island4 3.30 1.24% 2 Delaware30 0.10 0.05% 0

Michigan5 44.00 1.02% 2 South Carolina31 0.08 0.02% 0

New Hampshire6 1.39 0.93% 1.5 Alabama 0.00 0.00% 0

Wisconsin7 17.50 0.90% 1.5 Alaska 0.00 0.00% 0

Iowa8 7.92ƚ 0.78% 1.5 Florida 0.00 0.00% 0

Hawaii — 0.00% 1.5** Georgia 0.00 0.00% 0

Arkansas9 5.19 0.75% 1 Guam 0.00 0.00% 0

Oregon10 5.30 0.73% 1 Idaho 0.00 0.00% 0

Utah11 6.37 0.65% 1 Kansas 0.00 0.00% 0

Connecticut12 4.80 0.56% 1 Louisiana 0.00 0.00% 0

Illinois13 29.30 0.52% 1 Mississippi 0.00 0.00% 0

Washington14 7.02ƚ 0.51% 1 Missouri 0.00 0.00% 0

Arizona15 3.30 0.49% 0.5 Montana 0.00 0.00% 0

California16 31.00 0.41% 0.5 Nebraska 0.00 0.00% 0

New York17 25.70 0.40% 0.5 North Carolina 0.00 0.00% 0

Kentucky18 2.96 0.39% 0.5 North Dakota 0.00 0.00% 0

Colorado19 6.10 0.36% 0.5 Ohio 0.00 0.00% 0

Indiana20 6.30 0.34% 0.5 Pennsylvania 0.00 0.00% 0

Oklahoma21 2.90 0.33% 0.5 Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00% 0

New Jersey22 8.82ƚ 0.24% 0 Tennessee 0.00 0.00% 0

South Dakota23 0.43 0.21% 0 Texas 0.00 0.00% 0

District of Columbia24 0.50 0.18% 0 Virgin Islands 0.00 0.00% 0

Maine25 0.14 0.15% 0 Virginia 0.00 0.00% 0

West Virginia26 0.70 0.15% 0 Wyoming 0.00 0.00% 0

States that did not provide natural gas savings data were treated as having no 2013 savings. *Sales include only those attributed to commercial and residential sectors. All 

sales data are from EIA 2013b. **Hawaii is awarded points commensurate with points received for electricity savings. ƚ At least a portion of savings reported as gross. The 

gross portion has been adjusted by a net-to-gross factor of 0.9 to make it more comparable to net savings figures reported by other states. 1VT PSD 2014 2MN COMM 2014.

3MA DOER 2014.4RI PUC 2014.5MI PSC 2014.6NH PUC 2014.7WI PSC 2014.8IUB 2014; includes IOU savings only.9AR PSC 2014.10Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and OR DOE 

2014.

11UT PSC 2014.12CT DEEP 2014.13ICC 2014.14WA UTC 2014.15SWEEP 2014a.16CPUC 2014.17NY DPS 2014.18KY PSC 2014.19CO DORA 2014.20IURC 2014.21OCC 

2014.

22NJ BPU 2014.23SD PUC 2014.24DDOE 2014b.25Efficiency Maine 2014.26WV PSC 2014.27NV PUCN 2014.28NM PRC 2014.29MD PSC 2014.

30DNREC 2014.31Piedmont Natural Gas 2014.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

36

Scoring on Large Customer Opt-Out Provisions

Increasingly, states are considering opt-out provisions for large customers. To reflect this 

trend, which can severely limit the amount of energy efficiency available within a state, for 

the first time this year we included a category in which states may lose, rather than gain, 

points. We subtracted 1 point for states with provisions in place allowing electric or natural 

gas customers, or both, to opt out of energy efficiency programs.30

We did not subtract points for self-direct programs. When implemented properly, these 

programs can be effective ways of meeting the needs of large customers. However, selfdirect programs vary from state to state, with some requiring more stringent measurement 

and verification of energy savings than others. Self-direct programs were not scored, but are 

detailed in Appendix C. In the future, we will likely examine these programs with a more 

critical eye and subtract points from states that lack strong evaluation and measurement 

programs. States with opt-out programs in place are listed in table 17.

Table 17. Provisions allowing large customers to opt out of energy efficiency programs

State Description Score

Arkansas

Customers with over 1 MW or 70,000 therms in monthly demand may opt out. Only 

nonmanufacturing customers must offer documentation of similar planned or 

achieved savings. A significant percentage of eligible load has opted out, although it 

varies by utility.

–1

Indiana

A provision passed in March 2014 allows customers that operate a single site with at 

least one meter constituting more than 1 MW demand for any one billing period 

within the previous 12 months to opt out of programs. 

–1

Kentucky Customers statewide are eligible to opt out of programs based on rate class. –1

Maine

Large customers that take transmission and subtransmission service are 

automatically opted out of Maine's efficiency programming. These customers do not 

pay into Maine's cost-recovery mechanism programming. However, federal stimulus 

funds and collected money from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have allowed 

Efficiency Maine to offer energy efficiency programming to the state's largest 

industrial customers. LD 1559, enacted in 2013, approved the first direct contract 

between Maine’s IOUs and Efficiency Maine for the purpose of delivering new 

efficiency and distributed generation projects for large industrial customers.

–1

Missouri

Any customer meeting one or more of the following criteria may opt out of 

participation in utility-offered demand-side programs.

1. The customer has one or more accounts within the service territory of the electric 

utility that had a demand of the individual accounts of 5,000 kW or more in the 

previous 12 months.

2. The customer operates an interstate pipeline pumping station, regardless of size.

3. The customer has accounts within the service territory of the electric utility that 

had, in aggregate across its accounts, a coincident demand of 2,500 kW or more in 

the previous 12 months and the customer has a comprehensive demand-side or 

energy efficiency program and can demonstrate an achievement of savings at least 

equal to those expected from utility-provided programs.

–1

 

30 By default, most large gas customers already are opted out because they take wholesale delivery (frequently 

directly from transmission) and are thus outside the purview of state government. We did not subtract points in 

these cases.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

37

State Description Score

North 

Carolina

All industrial class electric customers are eligible for opting out. Also by Commission 

Rule R8-68 (d), large commercial class customers with 1 million kWh of annual 

energy consumption are eligible to opt out. Currently, about 45% of eligible load has 

opted out.

–1

Oklahoma

All transportation-only gas customers and electric utility customers with consumption 

of greater than 15 million kWh annually are eligible to opt out. Combined meters may 

meet the threshold. Approximately 80% of eligible customers opt out, representing 

about 25% of total load.

–1

South 

Carolina

Industrial, manufacturing, or retail commercial customers with annual usage of 1

million kWh or greater are eligible to opt out. Self-certification only is required. –1

Texas

In Texas, for-profit customers that take electric service at the transmission level are 

not allowed to participate in utilities' energy efficiency programming and therefore do 

not pay for it. Instead, industrial customers develop their own energy efficiency plans 

if desired and work with third-party providers to implement and finance energy 

efficiency investments. There is no measurement or monitoring of the investments 

these large customers do or do not make. 

–1

Virginia

Certain large customers are exempt from paying for the costs of new energy 

efficiency programs. Dominion Power customers may qualify for its opt-out program 

by having average demands of between 500kW; and 10MW; customers over 10 MW 

do not participate in the state's energy efficiency programming by law. Once 

customers opt out, they cannot take advantage of existing programming or be 

charged for it. Customers must show that they have already made energy efficiency 

investments or plan to in the future. Customers must submit measurement and 

verification reports yearly in support of their opting out of programs funded by a costrecovery mechanism. 

–1

West Virginia

Customers with demand of 1 MW or greater may opt out. Claims of energy and/or 

demand reduction are certified to utilities, with future evaluation by the public utilities 

commission to take place in a later proceeding. The method of such future evaluation 

has not been specified. To date, 16 large customers have opted out.

–1

Scoring on Energy Efficiency Resource Standards

In this category, we credited states that had mandatory savings targets codified in EERS 

policies. We relied on legislation and utility commission dockets for our research in this 

section. 

A state could earn up to 3 points for an EERS policy based on a number of factors. As shown 

in table 18, states were scored on a sliding scale based on the savings called for by their 

electricity savings targets. States could also earn an additional 0.5 points if natural gas was 

included in the savings goals. Some EERS policies also contain cost caps that limit spending, 

thereby reducing the effectiveness of the EERS policy. We reduced a state’s score by 0.5 

points if its EERS policy includes a cost cap provision. This year, we awarded top points to 

states with energy savings targets of 1.5% of sales or greater. However, in the future, we will 

likely be more stringent in our scoring. As more states prove that electricity savings of over 

2% are feasible and cost-effective, raising the bar in this policy area seems necessary.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

38

Table 18. Scoring methodology for energy savings targets

Savings target or current 

level of savings met Score Other considerations Score

1.5% or greater 3 Cost cap is in place –0.5

1–1.49% 2 EERS includes natural gas +0.5

0.5–0.99% 1 

Less than 0.5% 0 

To aid in comparing states, we estimated an average annual savings target over the period 

specified in the policy. For example, Arizona plans to achieve 22% cumulative savings by 

2020, so the annual average target is 2.4%.

States with pending targets had to be on a clear path toward establishing a binding 

mechanism in order to earn points in this category. Examples of a clear path included draft 

decisions by commissions awaiting approval within six months, or agreements among 

major stakeholders on targets. States with a pending EERS policy that had not yet 

established a clear path toward implementation include Alaska, Utah,31 Delaware, and 

Virginia. See table 19 below for scoring results and Appendix D for full policy details.

Since the publication of the 2013 edition of the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, there have 

been changes in the status of EERS policies in two states. Both Ohio and Indiana legislatures 

voted to roll back EERS policies in 2014. Neither of these states is therefore considered to 

have an EERS policy in this year’s State Scorecard. 

Table 19. State scores for energy efficiency resource standards

State

Approx. annual 

electric savings 

target 

(2014–20)

Approx. % of

retail sales 

covered by 

EERS Cost cap Natural gas

Score

(3 pts.)

Massachusetts 2.6% 86% • 3

Arizona 2.4% 56% • 3

Rhode Island 2.3% 99% • 3

Vermont 2.0% 100% 3

Maryland1 1.6% 100% 3

Maine 1.6% 100% • 3

Minnesota 1.5% 86% • 3

Colorado 1.5% 57% • 3

Oregon 1.4% 69% • 2.5

Connecticut 1.4% 93% • 2.5

 

31 Utah has both a legislative goal (House Joint Resolution 9) and a Renewable Portfolio Goal (S.B. 202) that 

includes energy efficiency savings targets. Neither of these goals have been codified into regulatory language by 

the Public Service Commission, so they remain advisory, not binding.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

39

State

Approx. annual 

electric savings 

target 

(2014–20)

Approx. % of

retail sales 

covered by 

EERS Cost cap Natural gas

Score

(3 pts.)

Iowa 1.3% 74% • 2.5

New York2 1.0% 100% • 2.5

Washington 1.4% 79% 2

Hawaii 1.4% 100% 2

New Mexico 1.0% 68% 2

Michigan 1.0% 100% • • 2

California 0.9% 78% • 1.5

Arkansas 0.8% 53% • 1.5

Illinois3 0.9% 89% • • 1

Wisconsin 0.7% 100% • • 1

Pennsylvania 0.8% 97% • 0.5

North Carolina 0.4% 99% 0

Nevada 0.4% 62% 0

Texas 0.1% 70% • 0

1Refers to portion of target assigned to utilities.2Reflects EEPS target for 2012–15 program cycle.

3Average utility targets as approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). See Appendix D for details 

and sources.

Long-term energy savings targets require leadership, sustainable funding sources, and 

institutional support for states to achieve their goals. Several states currently have or in the 

past have had EERS-like structures in place, but have lacked one or more of these enabling 

elements, and thus have undercut the achievement of their savings goals. States in this 

situation include Florida, New Jersey, and Delaware, none of which earned points in this 

category this year.32 However, Delaware recently passed legislation that will likely lead to 

rules requiring utilities to meet long-term targets. On the whole, however, most states with 

EERS policies or other energy savings targets in place are currently meeting their goals and 

on are track to meet future goals (Downs and Cui 2014).

 

32 In Florida, cumulative energy savings targets of approximately 3.3% by 2019 remain in place for seven utilities 

(five IOUs), but the Florida Public Service Commission approved program plans in 2011 for Progress Energy 

(now Duke Florida) and Florida Power & Light, which represent three-quarters of electric load in the state, that 

will fall short of the targets. The five other utilities subject to targets are slated to meet their tailored utility 

targets. In the ongoing 2014 energy efficiency goal proceeding, the Florida utilities have proposed to reduce their 

efficiency efforts from 2010 levels by at least 80%. In New Jersey and Delaware, available funds for energy 

efficiency are far below the amount necessary to meet savings targets laid out by state legislators. However, 

recent legislation in Delaware has clarified that rate recovery for energy efficiency programs is allowable for 

utilities.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

40

Scoring on Financial Incentives Affecting Utility Investment in Efficiency: Earning a Return and 

Addressing Lost Revenues

Like an EERS, regulatory mechanisms that provide incentives and remove disincentives for 

utilities to pursue energy efficiency (i.e., performance incentives and decoupling/LRAMs) 

are critical to leveraging energy efficiency funding and encouraging savings over the near 

and long terms. A state could earn up to 3 points for having adopted financial incentive 

mechanisms for utilities’ efficiency programs for electricity and natural gas and for having 

implemented decoupling to address lost revenues for its electric and natural gas utilities. 

States with a policy in place for at least one major utility were given credit. Information 

about individual state decoupling policies and financial incentive mechanisms is available 

on ACEEE’s State and Local Policy Database (ACEEE 2014). Details describing the scoring 

methodology are provided in table 20.

Table 20.Scoring methodology for utility financial incentives

Scoring criteria for addressing fixed cost recovery Score

Decoupling has been established for at least one major utility, for 

both electric and natural gas. 1.5

Decoupling has been established for at least one major utility, 

either electric or natural gas. An LRAM or ratemaking approach for 

recovery of lost revenues established for at least one major utility, 

for both electricity and natural gas.

1

The legislature or commission has authorized or recommended 

decoupling within the last three years, but it has not yet been 

implemented. An LRAM or ratemaking approach for recovery of lost 

revenues has been established for a major utility, for either electric 

or natural gas.

0.5

Scoring criteria for performance incentives Score

Performance incentives have been established for a major utility 

(or statewide independent administrator) for both electric and 

natural gas. 

1.5

Performance incentives have been established for a major utility 

(or statewide independent administrator) for either electric or 

natural gas.

1

The legislature or commission has authorized or recommended a 

performance incentive within the last three years, but the use of a 

given mechanism has not yet been implemented.

0.5

This year's scores remain largely unchanged compared to last year, with a few exceptions. 

We noted policy changes in two states. In Connecticut, Connecticut Natural Gas was 

decoupled in 2014. Wisconsin allowed a decoupling pilot to lapse, ending contributions in 

2013. We also adjusted our scoring to better reflect existing policy landscapes in a few states. 

We awarded additional points to Vermont, where electric and natural gas utilities are 

decoupled. In Indiana, we did not award full points for electric decoupling, since Vectren’s 

decoupling mechanism was rejected in 2011. In Delaware, we considered decoupling to be 

pending, since the docket was put on hold in late 2011. With proper legislation now in place, 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

41

it is likely that decoupling will be approved in the future, at which point our assessment of 

the policy will change.

This year, 30 states have a performance incentive in place or pending for electric utilities, the 

same number as last year. The number of states with a performance incentive in place or 

pending for gas utilities has also remained the same, with 21 states allowing performance 

incentives for natural gas utilities. 

Due to the ending of decoupling pilots and programs in Wisconsin and Indiana, we counted

15 states with decoupling pending or in place for at least one major electric utility, down 

from 17 last year. The number of states with natural gas decoupled (or pending) for at least 

one major utility has increased from 21 to 22.

Table 21 outlines these efforts.

Table 21. Utility efforts to address lost revenues and financial incentives

Decoupling or LRAM

Performance 

incentives

State Electric

Natural 

gas Electric

Natural 

gas

Score 

(3 pts.)

California Yes Yes Yes Yes 3

Connecticut Yes3 Yes3 Yes Yes 3

Hawaii Yes — Yes — 3

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes 3

New York Yes Yes Yes Yes 3

Rhode Island Yes Yes Yes Yes 3

Alabama Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

Arkansas Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

Colorado Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

District of Columbia Yes No Yes Yes 2.5

Kentucky Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

Louisiana Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

Michigan No Yes Yes Yes 2.5

Minnesota No Yes Yes Yes 2.5

New Mexico Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

North Carolina Yes3 Yes Yes No 2.5

Ohio Yes3 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

Oklahoma Yes2 Yes Yes Yes 2.5

South Dakota Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes 2.5

Vermont Yes Yes Yes No 2.5

Wisconsin No Yes3 Yes Yes 2.5

Arizona Yes2 Yes3 Yes No 2

Indiana Yes2 Yes Yes No 2
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

42

Decoupling or LRAM

Performance 

incentives

State Electric

Natural 

gas Electric

Natural 

gas

Score 

(3 pts.)

Missouri Yes2 Yes2 Yes Yes1 2

Georgia Yes2 No Yes No 1.5

Maryland Yes Yes No No 1.5

New Hampshire No No Yes Yes 1.5

Oregon Yes Yes No No 1.5

South Carolina Yes2 No Yes No 1.5

Washington Yes Yes No No 1.5

Illinois No Yes No No 1

Mississippi Yes2 Yes2 Yes1 Yes1 1

Montana Yes2 Yes2 No No 1

Nevada Yes2 Yes3 No No 1

New Jersey Yes1,2 Yes2 No No 1

Texas No No Yes No 1

Utah No Yes No No 1

Virginia No Yes No No 1

Wyoming Yes2 Yes No No 1

Delaware Yes1 Yes1 No No 0.5

Kansas Yes2 No No No 0.5

Tennessee No Yes2 No No 0.5

West Virginia No No Yes1 No 0.5

Alaska No No No No 0

Florida No No No No 0

Guam No — No — 0

Idaho No No No No 0

Iowa No No No No 0

Maine No No No No 0

Nebraska No No No No 0

North Dakota No No No No 0

Pennsylvania No No No No 0

Puerto Rico No — No — 0

Virgin Islands No — No — 0

1 Decoupling for electric or gas utilities, or both, or performance incentives are authorized according to 

legislation or commission order but are not yet implemented. 2 No decoupling, but some other 

mechanism for lost revenue adjustment. 3 Both decoupling and some other mechanism for lost revenue 

adjustment. *We awarded points to Hawaii only for electric utility business models, since minimal 

amounts of natural gas are used in the state.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

43

OTHER METHODOLOGY NOTES

This year, we attempted to minimize the data lag when scoring states in this chapter of the 

State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. While not every state reported 2013 electricity and natural 

gas savings data, our practice was to use the most recent data available. This led to 

combined 2012–13 savings data being presented in this chapter. Savings data for 2012 and 

2013 are presented separately in Appendix B. In the future, we will continue to work toward 

reporting the most up-to-date data possible.

Leading and Trending States in Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policies 

Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a long record of success in implementing energy efficiency 

programs, which are implemented by electricity and natural gas distributors. The state took a 

major leap forward in 2008 when it passed the Green Communities Act, which established energy 

efficiency as the “first priority” energy resource and created an Energy Efficiency Advisory Council 

to collaborate with utilities on developing statewide efficiency plans in three-year cycles. The first 

three-year plan aimed to achieve annual electric savings equal to 2.4% of sales and annual 

natural gas savings equal to 1.5% of sales in 2012, making it one of the most aggressive EERS 

targets in the nation. In late 2012, Massachusetts finalized its second three-year plan for 

statewide energy efficiency programs. The plan sets electricity targets of 2.5–2.6% and natural 

gas targets of 1.08–1.19% from 2013–15. In 2013, the state saw electricity savings reach over 

2% of retail sales.

Vermont. Vermont pioneered the third-party administration model of implementing energy 

efficiency programs, which has been replicated in many states, including Maine, New Jersey, 

Delaware, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. Efficiency Vermont, the state’s “energy efficiency 

utility,” runs energy efficiency programs for a wide range of customers and leads the nation in 

producing consistent energy savings. Vermont’s excellent performance is due in large part to a 

strategic commitment by the Vermont Public Service Board to fund programs at aggressive levels 

in order to reach new customers and achieve deep savings. The Public Service Board has also put 

into place an optimal mix of policies, including an EERS and performance incentives, to 

encourage successful programs. 

Rhode Island. Rhode Island invests a greater proportion of utility revenues in energy efficiency 

than any other state due to its loading order requirement that utilities invest in all cost-effective 

energy efficiency. A recent revision of the state’s energy efficiency potential study confirmed that 

it should continue to strive for electricity savings of over 2% per year for the next three years. 

Natural gas targets are similarly aggressive, calling for savings of at least 1% per year. The state’s 

energy efficiency plans are overseen by a stakeholder board with representatives from 

government agencies, environmental groups, businesses, and consumer advocates. 

Arkansas. Arkansas is a leading state in the Southeast, having significantly ramped up its utilitysector energy efficiency initiatives since 2007. In that year, the Arkansas Public Service 

Commission approved rules for conservation and energy efficiency programs requiring electric 

and natural gas utilities to administer energy efficiency programs. In 2010, the state adopted an 

EERS for both electricity and natural gas and established rules for cost recovery, performance 

incentives, and utility resource planning. Arkansas recently commissioned a potential study to 

inform future targets. Both electric and natural gas savings continue to increase in the state, 

although an opt-out provision may limit future savings.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

44

Chapter 3. Transportation Policies

Author: Shruti Vaidyanathan

INTRODUCTION

The energy efficiency score for the transportation category is based on a review of state 

actions that go beyond federal policies to achieve a more energy-efficient transportation 

sector. These may be actions to improve the efficiency of vehicles purchased or operated in 

the state, policies to increase the use of more efficient modes of transportation, or the 

integration of land use and transportation planning to reduce the need to drive. 

Tailpipe Emission Standards and Zero-Emission Vehicle Program

As a longtime leader in the vehicle emissions standard–setting process, California has been 

instrumental in prodding the federal government to establish a trajectory of continuing 

improvement that helps to draw new efficiency technologies into the market. The state’s 

success in this role is due in part to auto manufacturers’ preference for minimizing the 

number of distinct regulatory regimes for vehicles. In 2002, California passed the Pavley Bill 

(Assembly Bill 1493), the first law in the United States to address GHG emissions from 

vehicles. The law requires the California Air Resources Board to regulate GHGs as part of 

the California Low Emission Vehicle Program. The GHG reductions that have resulted from 

this law are achieved largely through improved fuel efficiency, making these standards, to a 

large degree, energy efficiency policies. 

In 2010, EPA and DOT issued harmonized national standards for fuel economy and GHG 

emissions for model years 2012 to 2016.The standards match California’s GHG tailpipe 

standards in stringency and call for fleetwide average fuel economy of 34.1 miles per gallon 

(mpg) by 2016. In 2012, the California Air Resources Board adopted new GHG standards for 

model years 2017 to 2025. DOT and EPA subsequently finalized new standards as well, 

calling for a fleetwide average of between 48.7 and 49.7 mpg by 2025. The programs are now 

harmonized, but California also has an updated zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) program that 

requires increasing production of plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel-cell vehicles from 

2018 to 2025. States may also choose to adopt the ZEV program. 

States may choose to adopt either the federal vehicle emissions standards or California’s, 

and 14 states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s GHG regulations. The

states are Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington 

(Clean Cars Campaign 2014). 

Incentives for High-Efficiency Vehicles

High purchase cost is often a major barrier to the entry of fuel-efficient vehicles into the 

marketplace because these vehicles contain new, advanced technologies. To encourage 

consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, states may offer a number of financial 

incentives, including tax credits, rebates, and sales tax exemptions. Several states offer tax 

incentives to individual purchasers of alternative-fuel vehicles, which typically include 

vehicles that run on compressed natural gas, ethanol, propane, or electricity, and in some 

cases hybrid vehicles (electric or hydraulic). Although alternative-fuel vehicles can provide 

substantial environmental benefits by reducing pollution, they do not necessarily increase 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

45

fuel efficiency, and policies to promote their purchase therefore are not included in the State 

Scorecard. However, the State Scorecard does include incentives for EVs and hybrids in 

particular, since these vehicles typically do have high fuel efficiency. With the arrival of a 

wide range of plug-in vehicles in recent years, tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles are 

playing an important role in spurring their adoption. 

We do not give credit for incentives for the use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes and 

preferred parking programs for high-efficiency vehicles, as they promote increased 

automobile use and consequently have questionable net energy benefit. 

EV Registrations

As more EVs become available to drivers, states have a significant role to play in 

overcoming the barriers to their widespread adoption. In addition to reducing the high upfront costs associated with these vehicles, states can provide incentives for the construction 

of the required fueling infrastructure. Additionally, non-financial benefits such as emissions 

testing exemptions make it more convenient to own an EV. The total number of EV

registrations allows us to measure the state’s success in making EVs a feasible vehicle option 

for drivers. 

Integration of Policies for Land Use and Transportation Planning

Sound land use planning is vital in supporting alternatives to driving in the United States. 

Successful strategies for changing land use patterns in order to reduce the need to drive 

vary widely among states due to differences in their existing infrastructure, geography, and 

political environment; however, core principles of smart growth need to be embodied in 

state comprehensive plans. Energy-efficient transportation is inherently tied to the 

integration of transportation and land use policies, and for a state to reduce VMT, it must 

have an approach to planning that successfully addresses land use and transportation 

considerations simultaneously. Such an approach includes measures that encourage the 

creation of

 Transit-oriented development, including mixed land uses (mix of jobs, stores, and 

housing) and good street connectivity that makes neighborhoods friendly to all 

modes of transportation

 Areas of compact development

 Convenient modes of transportation that provide alternatives to automobiles

 Centers of activity where popular destinations are close together

VMT Reduction Targets and VMT Growth

Increasing vehicle fuel economy will not adequately address energy use in the 

transportation sector in the long term if growth in total VMT goes unchecked. While VMT

on U.S. highways have not increased in recent years, continued economic recovery could 

bring a return to an upward trend. Projections by EIA predict a 14% increase in light-duty 

VMT between now and 2030, slightly outpacing anticipated population growth in the 

United States, despite being significantly lower than previous EIA estimates (EIA 2014d). 

Other analyses indicate, however, that lower growth rates for VMT may persist. Relatively 

high fuel prices and gradually rising mode shares for public transit, biking, and walking 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

46

after years of decline could sustain a reduced rate of growth in VMT into the future (Dutzik 

and Baxandall 2013). 

In any case, reducing the growth in VMT is a key component of managing transportation 

energy use. Several states have taken on this challenge directly by setting VMT reduction 

targets. Success in achieving these targets will require the coordination of transportation 

and land use planning. 

State Transit Funding

While states receive some federal funds for public transit, they provide a significant 

proportion of transit funding from their own budgets. A state’s investment in public transit 

is a key indicator of its interest in promoting energy-efficient modes of transportation, 

although realizing the potential for energy savings through transit typically requires land 

use changes as well.

Dedicated Transit Revenue Stream

As states find themselves faced with increasingly uncertain federal funding streams and 

federal transportation policies that remain highway focused, they are taking the lead when 

it comes to finding dedicated funding sources for long-term public transit expenditures. 

To generate a sustainable stream of capital and operating funds, a number of states have 

adopted legislation that identifies specific sources of funding for public transit and other 

alternatives to highway modes of transportation. North Carolina, for instance, established 

an intermodal transportation fund in 2009 that allocates money to local governments for the 

express purpose of maintaining and developing public transportation systems. Likewise, in 

2010 the state of New York passed Assembly Bill 8180, which directs certain vehicle 

registration and renewal fees toward public transportation. 

By enabling the growth of multimodal transportation, such statutes can lead to 

environmental benefits from reduced vehicle emissions, promote better health through 

active transportation, and encourage economic development around transportation nodes in 

expanded transit networks. 

Complete Streets Policies

Complete streets policies focus on the interconnectivity of streets and aim to create safe, 

easy access to roads for all pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation users. 

Complete streets foster increased use of alternatives to driving and, therefore, can have a 

significant impact on a state’s fuel consumption. According to the National Complete Streets 

Coalition, modest increases in biking and walking can potentially save 2.4 billion gallons of 

fuel annually across the country (NCSC 2012). A complete streets policy directs states’ 

transportation agencies to evaluate and incorporate complete streets principles. 

Transportation planners are tasked with ensuring that all roadway infrastructure projects 

allow for equitable access to and use of those roadways. 

Freight

Many states, though not all, have freight transportation plans in place. With the passage of 

the 2012 federal transportation funding authorization bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

47

21st Century (MAP-21), DOT now requires that states have such plans in place in order to 

be eligible for a 95% federal match on freight projects. MAP-21 also requires that plans 

include a description of the freight policies, strategies, and performance measures that will 

guide the freight-related transportation investment decisions of the state (U.S. Congress 

2012). 

As part of these plans, states may adopt concrete energy efficiency targets or performance 

measures. The adoption of energy efficiency as a performance measure should mean 

tracking and reporting the energy efficiency of freight movement in the state as a whole, as 

well as the use of energy efficiency as a criterion for selecting or evaluating freight projects. 

Energy efficiency performance targets may be formulated in terms of gallons per ton-mile of 

freight moved and should reflect performance across all freight modes. Closely related 

performance measures such as grams of GHG emitted per ton-mile of freight were eligible 

for points under this metric as well.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Major steps have been taken recently at the federal level to reduce fuel consumption in the 

United States. In 2012, EPA and DOT finalized new GHG and fuel economy standards for 

model year 2017 to 2025 light-duty vehicles. The first standards for model year 2014 to 2018 

heavy-duty vehicles were adopted in 2011. Nevertheless, states continue to play a crucial 

role in driving improvements in vehicle fuel economy. Consequently, states that have 

chosen to adopt California’s GHG tailpipe emissions standards and ZEV program earned 

1.5 points in this chapter. Additionally, states with consumer incentives for the purchase of 

high-efficiency vehicles were awarded 0.5 points, while those with more than 20 registered 

EVs per 100,000 people qualified for an additional 0.5 points. 

States lead the way in improving not only public fleet fuel efficiency, but also the efficiency 

of transportation systems more broadly. Several states have made significant progress 

toward developing financially stable, comprehensive transit systems. New Jersey and 

Minnesota saw a 17% and 18% increase in per capita transit spending, respectively, between 

fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Additionally, 18 states have transit statutes in place that provide 

sustainable funding sources for operating expenses in addition to the expansion and 

maintenance of transit facilities. States that have adopted such statutes earned 1 point in this 

year’s State Scorecard. For details, see Appendix E. States also received points based on the 

magnitude of their transit spending: relatively large investments ($50 per capita or more) 

received 1 point, while investments ranging from $20 to $50 per capita received 0.5 points. 

Policies promoting compact development and ensuring the accessibility of major 

destinations are essential to reducing energy use in transportation in the long term. States 

with smart growth statutes earned 1 point. These statutes include the creation of zoning 

overlay districts such as the Massachusetts Chapter 40R program, as well as various other 

incentives to encourage sustainable growth. For further detail, refer to the ACEEE State and 

Local Policy Database (ACEEE 2014). States that adopted reduction targets for VMT

statewide were also eligible for 1 point. This year Vermont earned a point for the VMT goals 

outlined in the Comprehensive Energy Plan adopted in 2011. The Comprehensive Energy 

Plan requires per capita VMT to remain at or below 2011 levels and overall VMT growth to 

be limited to 1.5% annually. An additional point was awarded to states whose rolling 10-
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

48

year VMT average fell by 5% or more between 2010 and 2012. A reduction of between 1% 

and 5% earned 0.5 points. VMT data were not adjusted to account for fluctuations in 

economic conditions during the time period. We also awarded 0.5 points to states with 

complete streets statutes that ensure proper attention to the needs of pedestrians and 

cyclists in all road projects.

With regard to freight system efficiency, states could earn 0.5 points if they have a freightspecific transportation plan meeting MAP-21 requirements. An additional 0.5 points were

awarded if those plans contained energy efficiency performance metrics. 

Table 22 shows the results.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

49

Table 22. State scores for transportation policies

State

GHG 

tailpipe 

emissions 

standards 

and ZEV 

program 

(1.5 pts.)1

EV 

registrations 

per 100,000 

people

(0.5 pts.)2

Integration of 

transportation

and land use 

planning 

(1 pt.)3

MAP21 

freight 

plans 

and 

goals 

(1 pt.)4

VMT 

targets 

(1 pt.)5

Average % 

change in 

VMT per 

capita

2010–

2012 

(1 pt.)

Transit 

funding 

(1 pt.)6

Dedicated 

transit 

revenue 

stream 

statutes 

(1 pt.)7

Complete 

streets 

legislation 

(0.5 pts.)8

Highefficiency 

vehicle

consumer 

incentives 

(0.5 pts.)9

Total 

score

(9 pts.)

California 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 8.5

New York 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 8

Massachusetts 1.5 0 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 7

Oregon 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 7

Washington 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 7

Vermont 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0.5 0 6

Pennsylvania 1 0 0 0.5 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.5

Connecticut 1.5 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 0 5

Delaware 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 1 0 0.5 0 5

District of Columbia 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 1 0 0 0.5 5

Illinois 0 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 5

Maine 1.5 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 5

Maryland 1.5 0 1 0.5 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 5

New Jersey 1.5 0 1 0.5 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 5

Rhode Island 1.5 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 0 5

Florida 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 4.5

Colorado 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 4

Georgia 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 4

Michigan 0 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 4

Hawaii 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 3.5

Minnesota 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 3.5

North Carolina 0 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 3.5

Virginia 0 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 3.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

50

State

GHG 

tailpipe 

emissions 

standards 

and ZEV 

program 

(1.5 pts.)1

EV 

registrations 

per 100,000 

people

(0.5 pts.)2

Integration of 

transportation

and land use 

planning 

(1 pt.)3

MAP21 

freight 

plans 

and 

goals 

(1 pt.)4

VMT 

targets 

(1 pt.)5

Average % 

change in 

VMT per 

capita

2010–

2012 

(1 pt.)

Transit 

funding 

(1 pt.)6

Dedicated 

transit 

revenue 

stream 

statutes 

(1 pt.)7

Complete 

streets 

legislation 

(0.5 pts.)8

Highefficiency 

vehicle

consumer 

incentives 

(0.5 pts.)9

Total 

score

(9 pts.)

Arizona 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 3

Tennessee 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0 3

South Carolina 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 2.5

Texas 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 2.5

West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0 2.5

Wisconsin 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 2.5

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Iowa 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

Puerto Rico 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 2

Arkansas 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.5

Kansas 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.5

New Hampshire 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5

North Dakota 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5

Utah 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.5 1.5

Wyoming 0 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.5

Idaho 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

Indiana 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 1

Kentucky 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1

Missouri 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

Nebraska 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

New Mexico 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

Alabama 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

51

State

GHG 

tailpipe 

emissions 

standards 

and ZEV 

program 

(1.5 pts.)1

EV 

registrations 

per 100,000 

people

(0.5 pts.)2

Integration of 

transportation

and land use 

planning 

(1 pt.)3

MAP21 

freight 

plans 

and 

goals 

(1 pt.)4

VMT 

targets 

(1 pt.)5

Average % 

change in 

VMT per 

capita

2010–

2012 

(1 pt.)

Transit 

funding 

(1 pt.)6

Dedicated 

transit 

revenue 

stream 

statutes 

(1 pt.)7

Complete 

streets 

legislation 

(0.5 pts.)8

Highefficiency 

vehicle

consumer 

incentives 

(0.5 pts.)9

Total 

score

(9 pts.)

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5

Montana 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5

Nevada 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5

South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Clean Cars Campaign 2014.2 IHS Automotive Polk 2014.3 State legislation.4 State legislation.5 State legislation.6 AASHTO 2014.7State legislation;see Appendix E for a complete description of state transit funding.

8NCSC 2014.9 DOE 2014.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

52

Table 23 outlines states’ consumer incentives available for the purchase of high-efficiency 

vehicles.

Table 23. State purchase incentives for high-efficiency vehicles

State Tax incentive

Arizona

EV owners in Arizona pay a significantly reduced vehicle license tax—$4 for every 

$100 in assessed value—as part of the state’s Reduced Alternative Fuel Vehicle 

License Tax program. 

California

AB 118 targets medium- and heavy-duty trucks in a voucher program whose goal 

is to reduce the up-front incremental cost of purchasing a hybrid vehicle. 

Vouchers range from $6,000 to $45,000, depending on vehicle specifications, 

and are paid directly to fleets that purchase hybrid trucks for use within the 

state. California also offers tax rebates of up to $2,500 for light-duty zeroemission EVs and plug-in hybrid EVs on a first-come, first-served basis, effective 

until 2023.

Colorado

In 2013, Colorado extended to 2021 its financial incentives available for 

purchasers of high-efficiency vehicles. Consumers can claim up to $6,000 for 

the purchase of a plug-in or hybrid vehicle. Individuals that convert a personal 

vehicle to plug-in hybrid technology can claim up to $7,500. Credits are also 

available for the purchase of all-electric or plug-in electric medium- and heavyduty vehicles. 

District of Columbia

The Department of Motor Vehicles Reform Amendment Act of 2004 exempts 

owners of hybrid-electric and all-electric vehicles from the vehicle excise tax and 

reduces the vehicle registration charge.

Georgia

An income tax credit is available to individuals who purchase or lease a new 

ZEV. A ZEV is defined as a vehicle that has zero tailpipe and evaporative 

emission. The amount of the tax credit is 20% of the vehicle cost, up to $5,000.

Illinois

Residents of Illinois may claim a rebate for 80% of the incremental cost of 

purchasing an EV (up to $4,000) as part of the Illinois Alternate Fuels Rebate 

Program. 

Louisiana

Louisiana offers an income tax credit equivalent to 50% of the incremental cost 

of purchasing an EV under the state’s alternative-fuel vehicle tax credit program. 

Alternatively, taxpayers may claim the lesser of 10% of the total cost of the 

vehicle or $3,000. 

Maryland

Purchasers of qualifying all-electric and plug-in hybrid-electric light-duty vehicles 

may claim up to $3,000 against the vehicle excise tax in the state of Maryland, 

depending on the battery weight of the vehicle. 

Massachusetts The Massachusetts Offers Rebates for EVs (MOR-EV) program offers rebates of 

up to $2,500 to customers purchasing plug-in EVs. 

New Jersey All ZEVs in the state of New Jersey are exempt from state sales and use taxes. 

New York

The state of New York started the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program 

this year. Vouchers of up to $60,000 are available for the purchase of hybrid 

and all-electric class 3–8 trucks. 

Pennsylvania The state’s Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant Program provides rebates of up to 

$3,000 for qualifying electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

53

State Tax incentive

Puerto Rico

In 2012 Puerto Rico amended the Internal Revenue Code to allow an excise tax 

reimbursement of up to 65% for buyers of hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The 

reimbursement ranges from $2,000 to $8,000 and is available until 2016. 

Buyers of fully EVs are waived from paying excise tax altogether. 

South Carolina

South Carolina offers up to $2,000 in tax credits for the purchase of a plug-in 

hybrid EV. The credit is equal to $667, plus $111 if the vehicle has at least 5 

kWh of battery capacity, and an additional $111 for each additional kWh above 

5 kWh.

Texas EVs weighing 8,500 pounds or less that are purchased after September 1, 

2013, are eligible for a $2,500 rebate.

Utah Until December 31, 2014, EVs qualify for up to $605 in tax credits.

Washington EVs are exempt from state motor vehicle sales and use taxes under the 

Alternative Fuel Vehicle Tax Exemption Program. 

Source: DOE 2013 for all states except Puerto Rico. Data for Puerto Rico obtained by survey from the Puerto Rico Department of 

Transportation and Public Works. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

54

Leading and Trending States: Transportation Policies 

New York. New York has steadily moved up the ranks in recent years with its strong efforts toward 

transportation efficiency. On the vehicle efficiency side, in 2013 New York signed a memorandum 

of understanding with seven other states to put a combined 3.3 million zero-emission vehicles on 

the road by 2025.This action supplements the California low-emission vehicle emissions standards 

that were adopted in 2005.

The state has also made a number of changes to improve system efficiency in the transportation 

sector. New York is one of the few states in the nation to have a concrete VMT reduction target. A 

goal set in 2008 calls for a 10% reduction in 10 years. With one of the highest transit ridership 

rates in the country, the state in 2010 passed Assembly Bill 8180, directing a portion of vehicle 

registration and license renewal fees to public transportation. The bill also created the 

Metropolitan Transit Authority Financial Assistance Fund to support subway, bus and rail service 

and capital improvements. In 2011 New York adopted a new complete streets policy aimed at 

providing accessibility for multiple modes of transport.

Massachusetts. Massachusetts has long been a leader in the implementation of transportation 

efficiency policies. The state is dedicated to encouraging compact, transit-oriented development 

through a number of measures. The Massachusetts 40R program provides financial incentives for 

the use of zoning overlays that promote smart growth development in cities and municipalities. 

The state also has a GHG reduction target that aims to reduce transportation emissions by 2 

million tons by 2020 and a comprehensive complete streets statute that incorporates pedestrian 

and bicycle travel in all road construction projects.

In an effort to continue curbing emissions and energy consumption in the transportation sector, 

Massachusetts adopted the California ZEV program to encourage the adoption of EVs in the state. 

With approximately 28 EVs registered per 100,000 residents, the state is increasingly making EVs 

a valid option for drivers. 

Oregon. The state of Oregon has made steady progress toward reducing its fuel consumption and 

VMT in recent years. In 2011, Oregon adopted transportation-specific GHG reduction goals for six 

of its largest metropolitan areas that call for a reduction of 17–21% below 2005 levels by 2035. In 

combination with the state’s stringent growth management act, these new goals have helped to 

move Oregon toward the top of the rankings in this policy area.

The state also passed HB 2186 in 2009, which calls for all metropolitan planning organizations to 

create a GHG emissions task force that looks for alternative land use and transportation planning 

scenarios that would meet community growth needs while reducing GHG emissions across the 

state.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

55

Chapter 4. Building Energy Codes

Author: Max Neubauer

INTRODUCTION

Buildings consume 74% of electricity and 41% of total energy used in the United States and 

account for 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (DOE 2011a). This makes buildings an 

essential target for energy savings. However, because buildings have long lifetimes and are not 

easily retrofitted, it is crucial to encourage building efficiency measures during construction. 

Mandatory building energy codes are one way to target energy efficiency by legally requiring a 

minimum level of energy efficiency for new residential and commercial buildings.

In 1978, California enacted the first statewide building energy code in its Title 24 Building 

Standard. Several states (including Florida, New York, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington) 

followed with state-developed codes in the 1980s. During the 1980s and 1990s, the International 

Code Council® (ICC) and its predecessor code development organizations developed the 

Model Energy Code (MEC), later renamed the International Energy Conservation Code®

(IECC). Today, most states use a version of the IECC for their residential building code, which 

requires a minimum level of energy efficiency in new residential construction. Most commercial 

building codes are based on ASHRAE 90.1, jointly developed by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The IECC commercial building provisions also 

include prescriptive and performance requirements that largely coincide with ASHRAE 

requirements.

The most recent versions of the IECC and ASHRAE codes that the Department of Energy (DOE) 

has certified are the 2012 IECC and the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 standards.33 Eleven states have 

officially adopted the latest standards for both residential and commercial buildings: California, 

Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, 

and Washington.34 The District of Columbia has also adopted the most recent codes for both 

commercial and residential buildings. An additional seven states have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-

2010 for commercial buildings.35 A handful of states are in the process of adopting the most 

recent building energy codes. 

Historically, the commercial provisions in the IECC have consistently differed from those in 

ASHRAE 90.1, and the ASHRAE 90.1 standard has generally been considered to be more 

stringent. According to a DOE analysis comparing the 2012 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2010, both 

exceed the energy savings of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and the 2009 IECC; therefore, their adoption 

meets or exceeds the standards referenced in ARRA (see the ARRA section below). Therefore, 

 

33New determinations for the 2015 IECC and ASHRAE 2013 were not published in time to be included in the research 

and writing of this report.

34Virginia and Idaho have adopted the 2012 International Residential Code®; however, state-specific amendments 

make it equivalent to the 2009 IECC. 

35Idaho, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Oregon
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

56

states can adopt either commercial provision and still meet the requirements stipulated in 

ARRA (DOE 2011b). 

DOE Building Code Determinations

With the publication of each new edition of the IECC and ASHRAE standards, DOE issues 

determinations on the codes that ascertain their relative impact when compared to older 

versions and, if justified, establish the latest iteration as the base code with which all states must 

comply. While no enforcement mechanism is in place to address noncompliance, within two 

years of the final determination states are required to send letters certifying their compliance, 

requesting an extension, or explaining their decision not to comply. 

On May 17, 2012, DOE issued its final determination on the 2012 IECC, reporting that it

achieved greater energy efficiency than its predecessors (DOE 2012). DOE estimates that the 

2012 IECC achieves about 20% greater site energy savings than the 2009 IECC (DOE 2012). 

States were required to file certification statements with DOE by July 19, 2013.

On October 19, 2011, DOE issued its final determination on ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, 

reporting that it achieved greater energy efficiency than the preceding editions by generating 

18.2% greater site energy savings than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 (DOE 2011b). States needed to file 

certification statements with DOE by October 18, 2013. States could elect to file a single 

certification to address both Standard 90.1-2007 and Standard 90.1-2010 determinations. The 

certification had to be filed by July 20, 2013.36

Building Codes and ARRA

The impact of ARRA on building code adoption has shown that federal policy can catalyze 

tremendous progress at the state level. The appropriation of stimulus funding through DOE's 

State Energy Program has spurred the majority of states to adopt at least the 2009 IECC and 

American National Standards Institute/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 (hereafter 

referred to as the ARRA codes). 

Forty states, the District of Columbia, and the three U.S. territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands) have either adopted or are on a clear path toward adopting codes at least 

equivalent to the ARRA codes for either residential or commercial buildings, or both. 

Additionally, there are jurisdictions in most home-rule states—where adoption is under the 

control of local jurisdictions—that have adopted codes at least equivalent to the ARRA codes.37

While a few states still have not yet complied with the ARRA requirements, the vast majority of 

new construction across the country, both residential and commercial, is subject to compliance 

with the ARRA codes.

Some states have acknowledged the value of regularly adopting the latest iterations of the IECC 

and ASHRAE 90.1 code standards and have already moved beyond the ARRA codes, having 

 

36Determinations for the 2015 IECC and ASHRAE 2013 were not published in time to be included in the research and 

writing of this report.

37 Home rule decentralizes power, allowing a locality to exercise certain powers of governance within its own 

administrative area.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

57

either adopted the 2010/2012 code iterations or begun the process toward adoption. While these 

efforts to adopt stringent building energy codes are laudable, ensuring that states will reap the 

benefits of their proactivity requires robust implementation and enforcement of the codes. As a 

result, DOE designated the six regional energy efficiency organizations as support 

organizations for states in their geographic areas to aid them with their adoption and 

compliance efforts.38

Building Code Compliance and ARRA

ARRA called for each of the 50 states accepting ARRA funding for code implementation and 

compliance measurement to achieve compliance in 90% of its building stock with the ARRA 

minimum standard building energy code (2009 IECC for residential; ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for 

commercial) by 2017. According to our survey results, almost every state in the country has 

made some modicum of effort to support code compliance, whether a statewide code is 

mandatory or not. However, for all states to attain the 90% compliance goal, they will have to 

join utilities and other stakeholders in putting forth a concerted effort involving a variety of 

facets beyond training and outreach. 

A variety of methods exist to increase compliance with building codes, many of which are 

promoted and facilitated by the Building Codes Awareness Project (BCAP). The project began 

its Compliance Planning Assistance (CPA) program that “works with states to help them take 

practical steps toward achieving full compliance with the model energy codes.” The CPA 

program is divided into two phases:

 Phase 1 helps states conduct a gap analysis report, which documents a state’s existing 

energy code infrastructure to assess the current gaps, identify best practices, and offer 

initial recommendations for improvement.

 In Phase 2, BCAP works with states to develop a strategic compliance plan, a targeted, 

state-specific plan with practical near- and long-term action items to move a state 

toward full energy code compliance.

Along with the CPA program, BCAP has also been working with the National Association of 

State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) to 

promote Energy Codes Compliance Collaboratives. The collaboratives are made up of groups of 

stakeholders exploring the adoption of and compliance with energy codes. The idea of 

establishing state collaboratives came out of Idaho, which was the first state to create a 

compliance collaborative in 2001. NEEA shared its experiences with BCAP, which based its 

efforts on the Idaho model and supplemented it with its own work in the CPA program. Under 

that program, BCAP worked with 18 states to research and document gaps and best practices 

for building energy codes. The research found that establishing a collaborative was pivotal in 

 

38 The six regional energy efficiency organizations are Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), the 

Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA), the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA), South-Central 

Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource (SPEER), the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), and the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). These organizations cover all states except California, Hawaii, and 

Alaska.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

58

several states not only to the success of state adoption of building codes, but also to supporting 

education and training, developing key messaging, advocacy, and other related activities. 

In addition to CPA and compliance collaboratives, states can take other measures to support 

code compliance to earn points in this policy area. These include:

 Conducting a study to determine actual rates of energy code compliance, which should 

also focus on determining compliance patterns, creating protocols for measuring 

compliance and developing best practice training programs, and updating the study at 

least every five years

 Establishing a system through which utilities are encouraged to support code 

compliance (discussed below in greater detail)

 Providing and supporting training programs and outreach for code compliance in order 

to increase the number and effectiveness of contractors and code officials that monitor 

and evaluate compliance

Nearly every state in the country incorporates at least one of these methods for boosting 

compliance, and a growing number of states utilize approaches that incorporate most or all of 

them. Given this, the focus of states between now and 2017, and beyond, should be the 

thorough evaluation and estimation of rates of compliance. Changes to our scoring 

methodology reflect this need for a more specific focus on compliance studies, which we discuss 

below. 

Utility Involvement in Building Codes

In several states that have passed EERS policies, programs have been established that allow 

utilities to claim savings for code enhancement activities, both for adoption and for compliance. 

Many utilities across the country offer energy efficiency programs that target improving energy 

efficiency in new construction specifically; therefore, combining code compliance efforts with 

efforts to improve energy efficiency beyond code requirements is something that, ideally, 

would happen concomitantly. 

There are a number of ways that utilities can augment compliance with state and local building 

codes. They can fund and/or administer training and certification programs, assist local 

jurisdictions with the implementation of tools that streamline enforcement, provide funding for 

the purchase of diagnostic equipment, and assist with compliance evaluation. To encourage 

utilities to participate, prudent regulatory mechanisms such as program cost recovery or shared 

savings policies must be in place to compensate them for their efforts.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

States earn credit on two measures of building energy codes: the stringency of residential and 

commercial codes and the level of efforts to support compliance with codes. States can earn a 

maximum of 5 points for stringency and 2 points for compliance. Although our metrics for 

evaluating state compliance and enforcement efforts have not changed, we have shifted the 

allocation of points to award more credit to states that have completed compliance studies in 

the last five years. Our thought is that, as we approach the 2017 deadline for 90% compliance, a 

state’s code enforcement efforts will be reflected in its compliance rates. So while it is important 

for states to incorporate these various compliance strategies, the paramount concern is whether 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

59

or not new construction is actually complying with the state-mandated building energy codes.

Currently, 33 states have completed compliance studies at some point, though only 26 states 

have completed a study in the last five years.

Scoring on Code Stringency 

Our review of state building energy code stringency is based predominantly on publicly 

available information such as that provided by the Online Code Environment and Advocacy 

Network (OCEAN), which maintains maps and state overviews of building energy codes, as 

well as the DOE Building Energy Codes Program and the expert knowledge of several 

individuals who are active in state building energy code policy and evaluation. Very recent 

code adoptions may not be captured by OCEAN or DOE, so we also rely on surveys sent to 

various state contacts to acquire the latest code developments. 

We assigned each state a score of 0 to 2.5 points each for residential and for commercial 

building energy codes, with 2.5 being assigned to the most stringent codes (see table 24), for a 

total of 5 possible points for building code stringency. For detailed information on building 

code stringency in each state, visit ACEEE’s State and Local Policy Database or see Appendix G

(ACEEE 2014). 

A handful of states are still in the process of updating their building energy codes, so we 

awarded full credit (commensurate with the degree of code stringency as noted in table 24) to 

those states that have exhibited progress and show a clear path leading toward the adoption 

and implementation of codes within the next year, or by September 1, 2015. In other words, we 

have not limited qualification to codes that have already become effective. There are also states 

that have begun the process of updating their codes but have not yet officially adopted them,

nor have they demonstrated a clear path toward adoption with a definitive effective date for 

implementation. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the processes in these states have 

begun and are moving along. In table 26, we denote those states with a clear path toward 

adoption and implementation with an asterisk and award them full credit. 

We also awarded credit to states without statewide mandatory building energy codes for 

various levels of adoptions by major jurisdictions. Many home rule states such as Arizona, 

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma do not have mandatory statewide codes and, 

instead, adopt and enforce building energy codes at the local level. Some of these local 

jurisdictions are major urban areas that have adopted the ARRA and 2012 codes and should be 

given credit for their efforts. We have not developed a quantitative method for determining the 

overall impact of jurisdictional code adoptions relative to statewide energy consumption or 

some other normalizing metric, in part because of a lack of consistent data across states, but we 

have flagged this for incorporation into the next iteration of our State Scorecard.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

60

Table 24. Scoring methodology for stringency of state residential and commercial building energy codes 

Residential building code Commercial building code Score

Exceeds 2012 IECC or equivalent Exceeds 2012 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2010 

or equivalent 2.5

Meets 2012 IECC or equivalent Meets 2012 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2010 or 

equivalent 2.0

Meets or exceeds 2009 IECC or equivalent Meets or exceeds 2009 IECC or equivalent 

or ASHRAE 90.1-2007 or equivalent 1.5

Meets or exceeds 1998–2006 MEC/IECC 

(meets EPCA39) or equivalent, or significant 

adoption in major jurisdictions

Meets or exceeds 1998–2006 MEC/IECC 

or ASHRAE 90.1-1999/2001–ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 or equivalent, or significant 

adoptions in major jurisdictions

1.0

No mandatory state energy code, but some 

adoption in major jurisdictions

No mandatory state energy code, but some 

adoption in major jurisdictions 0.5

No mandatory state energy code or precedes 

1998 MEC/IECC (does not meet Energy Policy 

Act of 1992)

No mandatory state energy code or 

precedes ASHRAE 90.1-1999 or equivalent 

(does not meet Energy Policy Act of 1992)

0

Scoring on Code Compliance 

In addition, we also scored states' efforts to enforce compliance with state building codes. 

Scoring states on compliance is difficult due to the lack of consistent data on actual compliance 

rates and the fact that other efforts taken to measure compliance are largely qualitative. 

However, ARRA requires that states achieve 90% compliance with mandated codes by 2017, so 

our compliance scoring methodology will change somewhat every year for the next four to five

years to reflect an increasing emphasis on the quantitative aspect of this requirement. The 

number of states that have estimated actual compliance rates is slowly increasing, and 

eventually ACEEE intends to award credit to states based on the publication of compliance 

studies, the rigor of those studies, and the actual level of compliance reported in those studies in 

order to provide motivation for states to reach the 90% compliance goal and above. By 

gradually decreasing the relative scoring weight of the qualitative compliance activities and 

allocating more points to measuring compliance, we are not implying that the qualitative 

activities are unimportant, but that states that are achieving high rates of compliance are likely 

incorporating most if not all of these activities into their compliance/enforcement efforts.

In order to collect information on code compliance and enforcement activities, we distributed a 

survey to energy offices and other knowledgeable officials in each state requesting information 

on their efforts to measure and enforce code compliance. We have grouped the metrics to 

convey our focus on compliance studies versus qualitative compliance activities. Table 25 shows 

the various compliance metrics and the scoring methodology for measuring state compliance 

efforts. A total of 2 points is possible: A state receives 1 point for simply having conducted a 

compliance study in the past five years, regardless of whether or not that study has been 

 

39 Under the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), each state is required to review and adopt the 

MEC/IECC and the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which DOE has made a positive 

determination for energy savings (currently 90.1-2010) or submit to the secretary of energy its reason for not doing so.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

61

updated during that time. A state can then earn an additional 0.5 points for engaging in one or 

two of the compliance metrics, and another 0.5 points for engaging in an additional one or two 

of the compliance metrics, so that those states that engage in three or four of the compliance 

metrics earn a full point for their efforts. 

For more information on state compliance efforts, visit ACEEE’s State and Local Policy 

Database or see Appendix H (ACEEE 2014).

Table 25. Scoring methodology for state compliance efforts

Metrics for state compliance efforts 

Number of compliance 

metrics achieved

Score

(2 pts.)

Compliance study completed in last five years Compliance study +1

Assessments/gap analysis/strategic compliance plan 3–4 +0.5

Stakeholder advisory group/compliance collaborative 1–2 +0.5

Utility involvement 

Training and outreach 

Table 26 presents state scores for building energy code stringency and compliance efforts.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

62

Table 26. Scoring for state building energy codes: stringency and compliance

State

Residential

code 

stringency

(2.5 pts.)

Commercial 

code 

stringency

(2.5 pts.)

Compliance

(2 pts.)

Score

(7 pts.)

California 2.5 2.5 2 7

Delaware* 2 2 2 6

Florida 2 2 2 6

Illinois 2 2 2 6

Iowa 2 2 2 6

Maryland 2 2 2 6

Montana 2 2 2 6

Nevada* 2 2 2 6

Rhode Island 2 2 2 6

Vermont* 2 2 2 6

Washington 2 2 2 6

Idaho* 1.5 2 2 5.5

Massachusetts 2 2 1.5 5.5

New York 1.5 2 2 5.5

Oregon 1.5 2 2 5.5

Colorado 1.5 1.5 2 5

Connecticut 1.5 1.5 2 5

District of Columbia 2.5 2 0.5 5

Nebraska 1.5 1.5 2 5

Virginia 1.5 2 1.5 5

Kentucky* 1.5 2 1 4.5

Minnesota* 2 1 1.5 4.5

Utah 1 2 1.5 4.5

Guam 1.5 1.5 1 4

Kansas 1.5 1 1.5 4

New Hampshire 1.5 1.5 1 4

New Mexico 1.5 1.5 1 4

North Carolina 1.5 2 0.5 4

Ohio 1.5 1.5 1 4

Pennsylvania 1.5 1.5 1 4

Texas 1.5 1.5 1 4

West Virginia 1.5 1.5 1 4

Wisconsin 1 1.5 1.5 4

Alabama 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

Georgia 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

Indiana 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

63

State

Residential

code 

stringency

(2.5 pts.)

Commercial 

code 

stringency

(2.5 pts.)

Compliance

(2 pts.)

Score

(7 pts.)

Louisiana 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

Maine 1 1 1.5 3.5

Michigan 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

Mississippi 0 2 1.5 3.5

Oklahoma 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

Puerto Rico 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

South Carolina 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

U.S. Virgin Islands 1.5 1.5 0.5 3.5

Arizona 1.5 1 0.5 3

Arkansas 1 1.5 0.5 3

New Jersey 1.5 1.5 0 3

Hawaii 1 1 0.5 2.5

Missouri 1 1 0.5 2.5

Tennessee 1 1 0.5 2.5

North Dakota 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5

South Dakota 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5

Wyoming 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5

Alaska 0.5 0 0.5 1

* These states have signed or passed legislation mandating compliance with a new iteration of codes effective by 

September 1, 2015, or their rulemaking processes are far enough along that mandatory compliance is imminent. 

These states are awarded full credit commensurate with the degree of code stringency as noted in table 24.

Sources: Stringency scores derived from data request responses, DOE Building Energy Codes Program (DOE 

2014), and discussions with code experts, as of August 2014. Compliance and enforcement scores are based on 

information gathered in surveys of state building energy code contacts. See the ACEEE State and Local Policy 

Database for more information on state codes and compliance (ACEEE 2014).

Compared to the 2013 State Scorecard, an additional 13 states have adopted—or will adopt over 

the next year—the latest iteration of the IECC and ASHRAE energy codes for either residential 

or commercial new construction. Illinois and Maryland were the first to adopt these codes in 

2012. This year, only California was awarded the maximum score of 7 points, though several 

states achieved scores of 6 points due to a combination of stringent energy codes and laudable 

compliance efforts. 

Nine states lack mandatory statewide energy codes for either residential or commercial new 

construction or for both: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Some of these home-rule states are nonetheless showing 

high rates of adoption at the jurisdictional level, including Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and 

Missouri. These states are awarded points accordingly. States that received zero points for 

compliance efforts are those that did not respond to our survey. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

64

Chapter 5. Combined Heat and Power

Authors: David Ribeiro, Anna Chittum, and Kate Farley

INTRODUCTION

Combined heat and power (CHP) systems generate electricity and thermal energy in a single 

integrated system. CHP is more energy efficient than separate generation of electricity and 

thermal energy because heat that is normally wasted in conventional power generation is 

recovered as useful energy. That recovered energy is used to satisfy an existing thermal 

demand, such as the heating and cooling of a building, process, or water supply. CHP systems 

can save customers money and reduce overall net emissions. The majority of CHP systems are 

powered by natural gas, but many are fueled by biomass, biogas, or other types of fossil fuels.

A state could earn up to 5 points based on its adoption of regulations and policies that 

encourage the deployment of CHP systems. There are multiple ways in which states can 

actively encourage or discourage the deployment of CHP. Financial, technical, policy, and 

regulatory factors all impact the extent to which CHP is deployed. The eight factors considered 

when scoring CHP for the 2014 State Scorecard were

 Standard interconnection rules

 Inclusion of CHP in a state EERS

 Inclusion of CHP/waste heat recovery in a state RPS or other standard

 Favorable revenue streams, including wholesale net metering, feed-in tariffs, or 

standard offer programs

 Applicable financial incentive programs

 Loan and loan guarantee programs

 Output-based air emissions regulations

 Any additional supportive policies 

We also assessed, but did not score, two additional factors in the 2014 State Scorecard:

 The number of CHP installations in each state, and the total CHP capacity 

installed in each state 

 State retail industrial electricity and natural gas prices

Some states have recently adopted new and improved policies or regulations, while some are 

still in the process of developing or improving them. Generally, credit was not given for a 

policy unless it had been enacted by a legislative body or promulgated as an order from an 

agency or regulatory body. Some states that had policies in place have since removed or in 

other ways nullified them; in these situations, we did not give credit for the policy in question. 

For example, although Ohio has received credit for including CHP as an allowable resource 

within its EERS in the past, the rollback of that policy meant that it did not receive points this 

year. Policies in place as of August 2014 were considered for this review.

METHODOLOGY

We continued to use, with some modifications, the methodology that we developed for the 

State Scorecard in 2012. This chapter includes a brief explanation of our scoring criteria for each 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

65

category. For an in-depth discussion of our methodology, see the ACEEE white paper CHP 

Methodology in the 2012 Scorecard (Chittum 2012).The maximum combined score is 5 points. 

Interconnection Standards

States could receive up to 1 point for having an interconnection standard that explicitly 

established parameters and procedures for the interconnection of CHP systems. We relied on 

secondary sources—such as the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency

(DSIRE 2014) and EPA’s CHP Partnership database (EPA 2014b)—as well as primary sources 

such as public utility commission dockets and responses to data requests. To receive a top score, 

a state’s interconnection standards needed to

 Be adopted by all major utilities

 Cover all forms of CHP, regardless of fuel

 Have multiple tiers of interconnection or some kind of fast track for smaller systems

 Apply to systems over 10 MW

States that have interconnection standards that apply to systems only up to 10 MW but 

otherwise meet the above criteria obtained half credit. 

Having multiple levels (or tiers) of interconnection is important to CHP deployment because 

smaller systems offer a faster—and often cheaper—path toward interconnection than larger 

systems. Scaling these transaction costs to project size makes economic sense, because 

customers with larger projects—and thus larger potential economic gains—often have more 

incentive to spend time and money to interconnect their more complex systems than do 

customers with smaller projects facing smaller economic returns. Additionally, interconnection 

standards that have higher size limits are preferred by CHP developers, as are standards that 

are based on widely accepted technical industry standards, such as the IEEE 1547 standard.40

CHP Inclusion in EERS Policies

We awarded up to 1 point for CHP’s eligibility in an EERS. EERS policies define a particular 

amount of a state’s electric resources that must be derived from energy efficiency resources. 

Most states with EERS policies set goals for future years. These goals are generally a percentage 

of total electricity sold that must be derived from efficiency resources, with the percentage of 

these resources increasing as a percentage of total electricity sold in future years. Not only are 

utilities required to meet the state goals, but also standards are often paired with utility 

incentives or support programs to implement and encourage eligible technologies. Thus, when 

CHP is explicitly listed as eligible for EERS credit, it creates a large incentive to deploy CHP 

systems. To receive full credit, state EERSs must

 Explicitly apply to CHP powered by natural gas

 Treat CHP as a resource in the top tier or category 

 Establish specific CHP targets

 

40 This standard establishes criteria and requirements for interconnection of distributed energy resources with electric 

power systems. It provides requirements relevant to the performance, operation, testing, safety considerations, and 

maintenance of the interconnection. For more information, visit http://www.ieee.org.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

66

 Be binding, including penalties for utilities that do not meet goals

Half a point was awarded to states that met the above criteria, but did not establish any specific 

targets for CHP within their EERSs. 

CHP Inclusion in RPS Policies

We awarded 0.5 points for CHP’s eligibility in an RPS. In previous years we assigned a single 

point for both EERS and RPS policies; this year we separated the two to emphasize the 

importance of EERS policies and to note the different roles the two standards can play. As with 

EERSs, most states with RPS policies set goals for future years that require a percentage of the

total electricity sold to be derived from renewable resources. To receive full credit, state RPSs 

must

 Explicitly define waste heat–, biomass-, or biogas-powered CHP as an eligible resource 

 Be binding, and include penalties for utilities that do not meet goals

Favorable Revenue Streams

We awarded up to 0.5 points for the presence of favorable revenue streams that apply to CHP. 

In the past, we scored states based only on their net metering policies. However, this year we 

wanted to emphasize additional policies such as favorable feed-in tariffs and standard offer 

programs. Sound net metering regulations allow owners of small distributed generation 

systems to get credit for excess electricity that they produce on-site. With wholesale net 

metering, which is sometimes referred to as dual metering, utilities pay customers at the 

wholesale avoided cost rate for any excess electricity exported to the grid. We gave credit to 

states that offered at least wholesale net metering to all customer classes, and specifically 

offered it to natural gas–fired CHP systems. States where CHP systems were being paid solely 

as qualified facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) Section 210 did 

not receive credit in this category, as PURPA is a federal law and its applicability has been 

diminished in a number of states. Additionally, states where certain CHP systems are receiving 

some credit for their power production only through bespoke bilateral contracts did not receive 

credit. In order to receive credit in this category, a specific policy that was relevant and 

applicable to all customers had to be in place. Feed-in tariffs are usually a payment CHP 

operators receive in addition to payment for exporting electricity to the grid, providing 

additional incentive for investment in CHP. To receive credit for revenue streams, states must 

have at least one of the following policies:

 A statewide wholesale net metering policy that can be used by all customer classes and 

applies to CHP systems powered by natural gas

 A statewide feed-in tariff policy that applies to CHP powered by natural gas

 Any other state program that offers wholesale prices for natural gas–powered CHP, 

such as a standard offer program

See Appendix I for the revenue streams that earned points.

Incentives for CHP

States could also receive up to 0.5 points for incentives for CHP. Incentives can include per-kW 

or per-kWh production incentives or project-based grants. They can also include tax incentives, 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

67

which are usually more permanent than grant programs. Tax incentives for CHP take many 

forms, but are often credits taken against business or real estate taxes. Rebates, grants, and 

deductions are all ways in which CHP can be encouraged at the state level, and the leading 

states have mixtures of multiple types of incentives. To be eligible for 0.5 points, at least one 

available incentive must

 Apply to all CHP, regardless of fuel

 Be a production credit, an investment credit, a credit for installed capacity, or a grant

 Apply to both the commercial and industrial sectors

In general, ratepayer-funded custom incentives marketed to commercial and industrial sectors 

that could potentially be used for CHP were not given credit in this area, as the spending and 

savings for these programs are reflected in other parts of the State Scorecard. However, if 

programs had a specific CHP-focused component, such as the identification of and outreach to 

appropriate contenders for CHP, they were credited. Additional information on incentives for 

CHP is available from EPA through its CHP Partnership (EPA 2014b) and from the Database of 

State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE 2014).

Financing Assistance

States could receive up to 0.5 points for the level of financing assistance available for CHP 

systems. Appropriate financing opportunities can be a major barrier to development of CHP 

systems. Low-interest loan programs, loan guarantees, and bonding authorities are all strategies 

states can use to make CHP systems financially attractive. To receive a top score, key programs 

must be available to all forms of CHP and be substantial enough that they can truly be used by 

a CHP project. Additionally, CHP had to be clearly identified as an eligible target project type.

See Appendix I for more detailed descriptions of state incentives and financing programs that 

received credit in this chapter.

Emissions Treatment

We also awarded 0.5 points for the presence of output-based emissions regulations. These are 

air quality regulations that take the useful energy output of CHP systems into consideration 

when quantifying a system’s criteria pollutant emissions. Many states employ emissions 

regulations for generators by calculating levels of pollutants based on the fuel input into a 

system. For CHP systems, electricity and useful thermal outputs are generated from a single 

fuel input. Therefore, calculating emissions based solely on input ignores the additional power 

created by the system using little or no additional fuel. To receive full credit, states must have

 A fast-track CHP permitting process in place for sulfur oxides and/or nitrogen oxides

 Output-based parameters for all major applicable air permits

Additional information on policies in this category is also available from EPA via its CHP 

Partnership website (EPA 2014b).

Other Supportive Policies

We also awarded 0.5 points for other supportive policies. Such policies can include targeted 

technical assistance programs, education campaigns, or other unique policies or incentives that 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

68

support CHP. Detailed descriptions of these policies in applicable states are noted in the CHP 

section of the ACEEE State and Local Policy Database (ACEEE 2014). 

RESULTS

Table 27 lists each state’s total and its point distribution in each of the above categories. As was 

the case last year, no state received the full 5 points. Connecticut and Massachusetts, the latter 

of which was last year’s top scorer, both received the top score this year, 4.5 points. They were 

two of only four states—the others being Rhode Island and California—to have EERSs that 

included specific targets for CHP. Neither Connecticut nor Massachusetts earned credit in the 

revenue stream metric this year. Rounding out the top four were California with 4 points and 

Oregon with 3.5. Both California and Oregon have regularly made efforts to include CHP in 

new policies and to assess how they could better meet their CHP potential. Unfortunately, some 

states allowed policies that are favorable to CHP to expire, resulting in a lower average score 

across all states compared to last year.

Table 27. State scores for CHP

State

Interconnection

standard

(1 pt.)

EERS 

treatment

(1 pt.) 

RPS 

treatment 

(0.5 pts.)

Revenue

streams

(0.5pts.)

Incentives 

(0.5 pts.)

Financing 

(0.5 pts.)

Emissions 

treatment

(0.5 pts.)

Other 

policies 

(0.5 pts.)

Score 

(5 pts.)

Connecticut 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.5

Massachusetts 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.5

California 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 4

Oregon 1 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 3.5

Maine 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 3

Maryland 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 3

Rhode Island 0.5 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 3

Vermont 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 3

North Carolina 1 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 2.5

Washington 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 2.5

Wisconsin 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 2.5

Arizona 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 2

New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2

New York 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 2

D.C. 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 1.5

Illinois 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5

Michigan 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.5

Minnesota 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1.5

New Hampshire 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 1.5

New Mexico 1 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 1.5

Ohio 1 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5

Texas 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1.5

Utah 1 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

69

State

Interconnection

standard

(1 pt.)

EERS 

treatment

(1 pt.) 

RPS 

treatment 

(0.5 pts.)

Revenue

streams

(0.5pts.)

Incentives 

(0.5 pts.)

Financing 

(0.5 pts.)

Emissions 

treatment

(0.5 pts.)

Other 

policies 

(0.5 pts.)

Score 

(5 pts.)

Colorado 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

Florida 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 1

Hawaii 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1

Indiana 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Nevada 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1

Pennsylvania 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

West Virginia 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5

Iowa 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5

North Dakota 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5

South Dakota 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Virgin Is. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Few notable policies have been enacted to enhance CHP’s attractiveness to CHP developers in 

the year since the 2013 State Scorecard was published. However, there were some noteworthy 

policies adopted in early 2013 and some focused state actions to support CHP, and we describe 

a sampling of them below. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

70

Additional Metrics

There are two additional sets of factors that are noted but do not factor into a state’s score.

We include data on the number of individual CHP systems installed in each state in the past 

two years, as well as the total capacity installed in each state in each of the past two years.41

CHP systems often take a long time to plan and install, so a single year may not best reflect the 

CHP activity of each state. We believe such information is useful for comparing states, though it 

is not, in its own right, a full indicator of a state’s CHP friendliness. Economic factors well 

beyond the control of a state may strongly impact the degree to which CHP projects are 

installed. Future editions of the State Scorecard may score states on their installed CHP as 

compared to some measure of technical or economic potential. 

Finally, the retail electric and natural gas rates paid by facilities in a given state can have 

significant impacts on the overall economics of a CHP system. This reflects one aspect of 

economic attractiveness to CHP developers. Higher electricity prices may make the economic 

case for CHP easier in some states, while lower and stable natural gas prices may help hasten 

investment in CHP in some states. A recent analysis of state-by-state CHP resource potential 

performed for a study looking at carbon reduction potential from energy efficiency clearly 

demonstrates these state differences (Hayes et al. 2014). The fact that these prices do not enter 

 

41 We use data from ICF International’s CHP database (2014), which is being updated to include CHP units installed 

in 2013. Therefore there may be some new CHP systems that are not included here. For the most up-to-date numbers, 

see http://www.eea-inc.com/chpdata/.

Leading and Trending States in Policies to Encourage CHP Development 

Maryland. Several investor-owned utilities in Maryland operate successful CHP programs. For 

example, in 2013 the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) launched a new CHP 

program to encourage its use by commercial and industrial customers. The program provides up

to $2 million in assistance for each preapproved CHP project through a series of design, 

installation, and production incentives. The program is one of the utility’s EmPOWER Maryland 

efficiency programs to achieve statewide energy savings targets. The program was well received 

by commercial and industrial customers, and the utility is beginning its second round of funding, 

for projects that will be in place by 2016.

Oregon. Oregon’s Department of Energy has continued to identify CHP as a critical energy 

efficiency resource that is particularly well suited to the biomass resources of the state. In 

addition to supporting an updated statewide assessment of CHP potential, the state also has 

specifically targeted the food processing and forest product sectors for future CHP development. 

To support CHP goals, the state administers a dedicated competitive CHP incentive program that 

can fund up to 35% of project cost.

Rhode Island. Recognizing the many benefits of CHP beyond energy savings, Rhode Island 

requires its main utility, National Grid, to develop and implement a CHP-focused plan each year. 

These plans are to incorporate specific capacity targets, incentive offerings, and efforts to 

identify appropriate CHP candidates. Additionally, when calculating the cost-effectiveness of CHP 

projects, National Grid must consider the projects’ additional benefits, such as their economic 

development value, emissions benefits, and the enhanced reliability benefits to the grid.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

71

into each state’s ranking recognizes that a state cannot directly control the retail price of 

electricity or gas to customers. However, the prices of electricity and gas directly drive a state’s 

CHP market to varying degrees, and policymakers can implement policies that help overcome 

economic barriers erected in part by lower electricity prices or higher gas prices. Table 28 shows 

the industrial retail prices of both electricity and natural gas, reflecting the fact that the largest 

opportunity for CHP remains in the industrial sector. 

Table 28. Installed CHP capacity and fuel prices by state, 2012–13

State

Number of new 

CHP 

installations in 

2013

Total new 

capacity 

installed in 

2013 (kW)

Number of 

new CHP 

installations 

in 2012

Total new 

capacity 

installed in 

2012 (kW)

2013 industrial 

electricity price 

(cents/kWh)

2013 industrial 

gas price 

($/1,000 cubic ft.)

Alabama 0 0 1 500 5.99 5.00

Alaska 2 770 7 16,750 15.77 5.11*

Arizona 0 0 3 1,036 6.69 6.32

California 32 50,322 62 214,505 11.17 5.77*

Colorado 0 0 5 33,330 7.22 5.76

Connecticut 10 3,000 11 18,560 12.68 6.85

Delaware 1 104,000 0 0 8.50 11.61*

Florida 1 5,400 3 32,500 7.68 6.96*

Georgia 2 41,100 1 6,500 6.11 5.28

Hawaii 0 0 1 60 29.87 27.81

Idaho 0 0 4 10,765 6.12 5.73*

Illinois 1 138 3 3,110 5.73 5.91

Indiana 1 1,200 1 15,000 6.59 6.19*

Kansas 0 0 1 30 7.07 4.87

Louisiana 0 0 2 51,400 5.89 3.91

Maine 3 610 3 53,630 8.32 10.35*

Maryland 1 24,500 0 0 8.36 8.01*

Massachusetts 10 12,920 10 4,245 13.09 9.82*

Michigan 3 101,095 1 1,000 7.78 6.89

Minnesota 1 300 0 0 7.06 5.09

Missouri 1 16,000 1 5,000 6.14 7.93*

Montana 1 2,500 0 0 5.37 7.37

Nevada 0 0 1 11,000 6.52 6.55

New Hampshire 1 80 0 0 11.41 10.42

New Jersey 9 6,405 13 36,600 10.71 7.87*

New York 30 15,712 33 19,489 6.29 6.92*

North Carolina 3 1,900 9 17,395 6.34 6.37*

Ohio 2 195 5 1,980 6.10 5.33

Oklahoma 0 0 1 15,000 5.34 6.87

Oregon 2 1,650 6 18,550 5.86 5.69
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

72

State

Number of new 

CHP 

installations in 

2013

Total new 

capacity 

installed in 

2013 (kW)

Number of 

new CHP 

installations 

in 2012

Total new 

capacity 

installed in 

2012 (kW)

2013 industrial 

electricity price 

(cents/kWh)

2013 industrial 

gas price 

($/1,000 cubic ft.)

Pennsylvania 11 18,635 12 20,080 7.00 9.58*

Rhode Island 0 0 2 110 11.87 9.78*

South Carolina 4 19,808 2 20,800 5.92 5.35

Tennessee 1 128 0 0 6.44 5.70

Texas 2 810 4 342,820 5.93 3.93

Utah 0 0 1 3,200 5.88 5.32

Vermont 0 0 4 1,040 10.19 5.02

Virginia 4 79,380 0 0 6.65 5.29*

Washington 1 20,000 3 6,350 4.22 8.77*

West Virginia 0 0 1 390 6.20 3.56

Wisconsin 9 67,754 7 5,287 7.54 5.98

Wyoming 0 0 1 3,900 6.41 4.87*

Only states with CHP installations completed in 2012 or 2013 are included in this table. Those with no new CHP installations in either year are 

not reported.*The industrial gas prices were not available for some states. The prices displayed for these states are the 2012 industrial gas 

prices. Sources: ICF 2014; EIA 2014a; EIA 2014b.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

73

Chapter 6. State Government-Led Initiatives

Author: David Ribeiro

INTRODUCTION

State legislatures and governors can advance policies and programs that affect many of the 

sectors discussed in previous chapters, including utility-sector energy efficiency, transportation 

efficiency, building codes, and CHP. This chapter, however, is dedicated to the energy 

efficiency initiatives that are designed, funded, and implemented by a broad array of state-level 

administrators, such as state energy offices, universities, and economic development and 

general services agencies. We focus on four initiatives commonly undertaken by state 

governments: financial incentive programs for consumers, businesses, and industry; policies 

that require commercial and residential buildings to disclose energy usage data; lead-byexample policies and programs put in place by states to improve the energy efficiency of their 

facilities and fleets; and research, development, and demonstration activities for energy 

efficiency technologies and practices.

ARRA channeled nearly $80 billion through DOE for clean energy projects, a significant portion 

of which was passed through to states for energy efficiency projects (DOE 2013). This wave of 

funding laid the groundwork for the expansion of energy efficiency programs in states across 

the country. Many states continue to leverage ARRA funds and implement programs that will 

carry on even as federal support diminishes. It is critical to recognize state government–led 

initiatives, which play a unique role in fostering an energy-efficient economy. State 

government–led initiatives complement the existing landscape of utility programs, leveraging 

resources from the state’s public and private sectors to generate energy and cost savings that 

benefit consumers (Sciortino and Eldridge 2010). 

Financial Incentives 

Financial incentives are an important instrument to spur the adoption of technologies and 

practices in homes and businesses. They can take many forms: rebates, loans, grants, or bonds 

for energy efficiency improvements; income tax credits and income tax deductions for 

individuals or businesses; and sales tax exemptions or reductions for eligible products. 

Financial incentives can lower the up-front cost and shorten the payback period of energy 

efficiency upgrades, two critical barriers to consumers and businesses making cost-effective 

efficiency investments. Incentives also raise consumer awareness of eligible products, 

encouraging manufacturers and retailers to market these products more actively and to 

continue to innovate. As economies of scale improve, prices of energy-efficient products fall, 

and the products eventually compete well in the market without the incentives.

Disclosure of Buildings’ Energy Use

Building energy disclosure laws improve consumers’ awareness of the energy use of homes and 

commercial buildings being offered for sale or lease, which can have a significant impact on the 

economic value of a home or building. A requirement to disclose a building’s energy use also 

provides building owners with the information necessary to consider improving the energy 

efficiency of their buildings. 

Energy-use disclosure requirements are a fairly recent policy innovation. New York’s Truth in 

Heating Law, enacted in 1980, led the way for residential disclosure laws, which states began to 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

74

adopt in the mid-2000s. Commercial disclosure policies are less common at the state level, with 

only California, Washington, and the District of Columbia requiring energy-use disclosure upon 

sale or lease (IMT 2014). These policies tend to be pursued more aggressively by local 

governments, but are an effective way for state governments to incentivize building stock 

upgrades.

Lead by Example

State governments can advance energy-efficient technologies and practices in the marketplace 

by adopting policies and programs to save energy in public-sector buildings and fleets, a 

practice commonly referred to as “lead by example.” In the current environment of fiscal 

austerity, lead-by-example policies and programs are a proven strategy for improving the 

operational efficiency and economic performance of states’ assets. Furthermore, lead-byexample initiatives reduce negative environmental and health impacts of high energy use and 

promote energy efficiency to the broader public.

States commonly adopt policies and comprehensive programs that aim to reduce energy use in 

state buildings. State governments operate numerous facilities, including office buildings, 

public schools, colleges, and universities, the energy costs of which can account for as much as 

10% of a typical government’s annual operating budget (EPA 2009). Only a handful of states 

have not yet implemented a significant energy efficiency policy for public facilities. The most 

widely adopted measure at the state level is a mandatory energy savings target for new and 

existing state government facilities. These energy savings requirements encourage states to 

invest in the construction of new, efficient buildings and retrofit projects, lowering energy bills 

and promoting economic development in the energy services and construction sectors. 

Two critical elements of successful energy efficiency initiatives in the public sector are proper 

building energy management and institutional support for energy savings performance 

contracts, such as locating state support for energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) 

within a specific state agency that serves as the lead contact for implementing them. Both of 

these initiatives can help projects overcome information and cost barriers to implementation. If 

the necessary encouragement, leadership, and resources are in place, states can finance energy 

improvements through ESPCs, which allow the state to enter into a performance-based 

agreement with an energy service company (ESCO). The contract allows the state to pay the 

company for its services with money saved by installing energy efficiency measures.42 Adding a 

third type of initiative, benchmarking energy use in public-sector buildings through tailored or 

widely available tools such as the EPAENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager ensures a 

comprehensive set of energy-use data that can drive cost-effective energy efficiency 

investments.43 Comparing building energy performance across agencies can also help prioritize 

energy efficiency projects.

 

42 For a full discussion of ESPCs, the ESCO market, and actual implementation trends see Satchwell et al. 2010 and 

the Energy Services Coalition website (http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/). 

43 Some states have their own databases of public building energy use that integrate with the EPA Portfolio Manager. 

For example, Maryland’s EnergyCap database compiles the energy use (based on utility bills) of all public buildings 

in the state and provides a means of comparing buildings owned by different state agencies. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

75

In addition to lead-by-example initiatives in state government buildings, states have also put in 

place policies encouraging or requiring efficient vehicle fleets in order to reduce fleet fuel costs 

and hedge against rising fuel prices. Collectively, state governments own approximately 500,000 

vehicles, with a median fleet size of about 3,500 vehicles. Operation and maintenance costs for 

these fleets every year run to more than $2.5 billion nationwide, ranging from $7 million to $250 

million per state (NCFSA 2007). In response to this significant cost, states have often adopted a 

definitive efficiency standard for state vehicle fleets, a tool that ensures a reduction in fuel 

consumption and GHG emissions. 

Research and Development

Research and development (R&D) programs drive advances in energy-efficient technologies, 

and states play a unique role in laying the foundation for such progress. By leveraging 

resources in the public and private sectors, state governments can foster collaborative efforts 

that achieve the goals of rapidly creating, developing, and commercializing new energyefficient technologies. These programs can also encourage cooperation among organizations 

from different sectors and backgrounds to further spur innovation in energy-efficient 

technologies. 

State R&D efforts, in addition to providing a variety of services to create, develop, and deploy 

new technologies for energy efficiency, can address a number of failures in the energy services 

marketplace that impede the diffusion of new technologies (Pye and Nadel 1997). In response to 

the increasing need for state initiatives in energy-related R&D, several state institutions 

established the Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions 

(ASERTTI) in 1990. Members of ASERTTI collaborate on applied R&D and share technical and 

operational information with a strong focus on end-use efficiency and conservation. 

Aside from those institutions affiliated with ASERTTI, numerous other state-level entities 

conduct R&D programs. A diverse set of institutions (including universities, state governments, 

research centers, and utilities) fund and implement R&D programs for the purpose of 

advancing energy efficiency throughout the economy. Such programs include research on 

energy consumption patterns in local industries and development of energy-saving 

technologies at state or university research centers, and through public–private partnerships.

Individual state research institutions provide expertise and knowledge policymakers can draw 

from in order to advance successful efficiency programs. These institutions provide the R&D

needed to spur commercial investment in and manufacturing of new energy-efficient 

technologies. State research institutions enable valuable knowledge spillover to other states 

through the sharing of information—facilitated through membership in ASERTTI—allowing 

states to benefit from one another’s research. States without R&D institutions can use this 

shared information as a roadmap to begin or advance their own efficiency programs. Even 

leading states have the potential to improve or add to their R&D efforts by drawing from the 

programs and best practices of other states.

ARRA and State Governments

ARRA included the largest single investment in energy efficiency in U.S. history. The law 

directed approximately $17 billion to improve the country’s energy efficiency, and, as seen in 

table 29 below, a substantial share went to states from the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

76

Renewable Energy (DOE 2013).

44 Additional programs that may indirectly provide money for 

state and local government programs include the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy 

(ARPA-E), which funds energy efficiency research projects at state universities. These programs 

have provided an important first step, particularly in states minimally served by utility 

efficiency programs, to introduce consumers and decision makers to the benefits of energy 

efficiency programs. 

Table 29. ARRA energy efficiency funding made available to state and local governments

Program

Budget prior to 

Recovery Act 

(FY 2008)

Recovery Act 

funding

(FY 2009–2012)

Weatherization Assistance Program $227 million $5 billion

State Energy Program $33 million* $3.1 billion

Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Block Grant Program N/A $2.8 billion

Appliance Rebate Program N/A $300 million

Total $260 million $11.2billion

Note that funding levels have now returned to 2008 levels, although states continue to leverage unspent 

funds.* Required states to contribute funds worth 20% of the DOE grant toward energy projects supported by 

the grant. Source: DOE 2013. 

While ARRA’s main intent was to stimulate rapid job growth, its effects on state-level energy 

efficiency programs have been significant and will last for years, if not decades. From the outset, 

state governments were encouraged to use ARRA funds to establish energy efficiency financing 

mechanisms that could leverage private-sector capital and maximize the usefulness of the 

funds. Thirty-five established 66 revolving loan funds with approximately $925 million in 

ARRA money. The majority of these programs have transitioned to at least partial state funding 

(NASEO 2013). ARRA also cemented better connections among state energy offices, DOE, and 

lending institutions, in particular community development financial institutions. Along with its 

lasting effects on state-level energy efficiency, ARRA established connections between state and 

local governments to advance building and transportation energy efficiency at the community 

level (see Sciortino et al. 2011). In order to receive and spend funding provided through DOE’s 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, local governments have developed 

knowledge of and staff capacity to implement energy efficiency projects, providing a solid 

foundation for future programs. And as ARRA funds are spent, states have begun prioritizing 

energy efficiency programs and incentives in their own capital budgets.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

States could earn up to 7 points in this policy area: 2.5 points for financial incentives, 1 point for 

residential and commercial disclosure policies, 2 points for lead-by-example policies, and 1.5 

points for R&D programs. Table 30 presents the overall results of scoring on state initiatives. 

 

44 An additional $15 billion was allocated to programs and projects under which funding could be used for energy 

efficiency improvements, among numerous other modernization or renovation measures.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

77

Table 30. Summary of scoring on state government–led initiatives

State

Financial 

incentives 

(2.5 pts.)

Building

energy 

disclosure 

(1 pt.)

Lead by 

example

(2 pts.)

R&D

(1.5 pts.)

Score

(7 pts.)

California 2.5 0.5 2 1.5 6.5

Connecticut 2.5 0 2 1.5 6

New York 2.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 6

Illinois 2.5 0 2 1 5.5

Minnesota 2 0 2 1.5 5.5

Oregon 2.5 0 1.5 1.5 5.5

Maryland 2.5 0 1.5 1 5

Massachusetts 2.5 0 1.5 1 5

Pennsylvania 2.5 0 1 1.5 5

Alabama 2 0 2 0.5 4.5

Alaska 2.5 0.5 1 0.5 4.5

Delaware 2.5 0 2 0 4.5

Kansas 1.5 0.5 1.5 1 4.5

Kentucky 2.5 0 1.5 0.5 4.5

Michigan 2 0 1.5 1 4.5

North Carolina 1 0 2 1.5 4.5

Tennessee 2.5 0 1 1 4.5

Washington 1.5 0.5 2 0.5 4.5

Colorado 1.5 0 1 1.5 4

Texas 1 0 2 1 4

Vermont 2 0 1.5 0.5 4

Virginia 2.5 0 0.5 1 4

Wisconsin 1 0 1.5 1.5 4

Idaho 2.5 0 0.5 0.5 3.5

Iowa 1.5 0 1 1 3.5

Montana 1.5 0 2 0 3.5

Nevada 1.5 0 1.5 0.5 3.5

New Mexico 1.5 0 2 0 3.5

Ohio 2 0 1 0.5 3.5

Oklahoma 2.5 0 1 0 3.5

Utah 1 0 2 0.5 3.5

Arizona 1 0 1 1 3

Maine 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 3

Mississippi 1 0 1.5 0.5 3

Nebraska 1 0 0.5 1.5 3

Rhode Island 1 0 1.5 0.5 3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

78

State

Financial 

incentives 

(2.5 pts.)

Building

energy 

disclosure 

(1 pt.)

Lead by 

example

(2 pts.)

R&D

(1.5 pts.)

Score

(7 pts.)

South Carolina 1.5 0 1.5 0 3

District of Columbia 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 2.5

Florida 0 0 1 1.5 2.5

Georgia 0 0 1.5 1 2.5

Hawaii 0 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.5

Missouri 1 0 1.5 0 2.5

New Hampshire 1.5 0 1 0 2.5

New Jersey 1 0 1 0.5 2.5

Puerto Rico 0 0 1.5 0.5 2

Arkansas 0 0 1.5 0 1.5

Louisiana 0.5 0 1 0 1.5

South Dakota 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1.5

Wyoming 1 0 0.5 0 1.5

Indiana 0.5 0 0.5 0 1

West Virginia 0 0 0.5 0.5 1

Guam 0 0 0.5 0 0.5

North Dakota 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

U.S. Virgin Islands 0 0 0.5 0 0.5

While many of the programs in this section rely on federal grants for a portion of their funding, 

state programs funded solely through ARRA or another federal source did not earn points. 

Because ARRA funds came from the federal stimulus, the existence of ARRA-funded programs 

does not necessarily reflect the efforts of the state. We do recognize that some states are utilizing 

these federal funds in an exemplary fashion by creating innovative and effective energy 

efficiency programs. However, for ACEEE to complete an assessment of a state’s handling of 

stimulus funds, we would have to rely on fluctuating spending data, which rests outside the 

scope of this report. Examples of exemplary ARRA-funded programs are presented in Sciortino 

and Eldridge (2010), on DOE’s Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office website

(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/recovery_act.html), and in publications of the National 

Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO 2011).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

79

Financial Incentives

We relied primarily on the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE 

2014) for information on current state financial incentive programs. We supplemented this data 

with information from a survey of state energy officials and from a review of state government 

websites and other online resources.

In this chapter, points were not given for utilities’ customer-funded financial incentive 

programs, which are covered in Chapter 2, Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policies. 

Nor were they given for programs solely funded by ARRA (see table 29). Acceptable sources of 

funding included state appropriations or bonds, oil overcharge revenues, auction proceeds from 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or California’s Cap-and-Trade Program, other 

noncustomer sources, and tax incentives. While there is some overlap of state and customer 

funding—for example, where state R&D is funded through a systems benefits charge—this 

category is designed to capture energy efficiency initiatives not already covered in Chapter 2. 

States earned up to 2.5 points for major financial incentive programs that encourage the 

purchase of energy-efficient products. These programs were judged on their relative strength, 

customer reach, and impact.45 Incentive programs generally received 0.5 points each, but several 

states have major incentive programs that were deemed worth 1 point each; these include 

Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Table 31 describes 

the bases for our scoring of state financial incentives.

There are limitations in scoring states based on the number of programs implemented, so this 

year we attempted to collect additional information from state energy offices regarding state 

budgets for financial incentives, program participation rates, verified savings from incentives, 

and leveraging of private capital. For more information, see the end of this chapter for a 

discussion of potential new metrics for state-led initiatives.

 

45 Energy-efficient products include any product or process that reduces energy consumption. While renewable 

energy technologies such as solar hot-water heating may reduce energy consumption, they are not included at this 

time.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

80

Table 31. State scoring on major financial incentive programs

State Major state financial incentives for energy efficiency

Score 

(2.5 pts.)

Alaska Major rebate program (Home Energy Rebate Program), loan/grant programs 2.5

California

Two grant programs for school facilities, sales tax exemption for alternative energy 

manufacturing equipment (includes energy efficiency), rebate program (Energy 

Upgrade California), loan program for public-sector projects

2.5

Connecticut One rebate, one loan, and one grant program, sales tax exemption for energyefficient products, Clean Energy Communities incentive program 2.5

Delaware Three loan programs, two grant programs, and one rebate program for energyefficient new homes 2.5

Idaho Income tax deduction for energy efficiency improvements, grant program for school 

districts, one major low-interest loan program 2.5

Illinois Multiple grant programs, three rebate, one loan, and one bond program 2.5

Kentucky Three grant programs, personal and corporate energy efficiency tax credits, loan 

program for state agencies, sales tax exemption for energy-efficient products 2.5

Maryland Smart Energy Communities program, five loan programs, one rebate program 2.5

Massachusetts Alternative Energy and Energy Conservation Patent Exemption (personal and

corporate); grant, rebate, and bond programs 2.5

New York Green Jobs–Green NY Program, several rebate, loan, and grant programs, Energy 

Conservation Improvements Property Tax Exemption 2.5

Oklahoma Energy Efficient Residential Construction Tax Credit (personal and corporate), three 

loan programs 2.5

Oregon Residential energy tax credit, several loan programs, one grant program 2.5

Pennsylvania State-led Alternative Energy Investment Fund, three grant and three loan programs 2.5

Tennessee Energy Efficient Schools Initiative (loans and grants), one grant and one loan 

program, sales tax credit for emerging energy industry 2.5

Virginia Energy Leasing Program for state-owned facilities, Clean Energy Manufacturing Grant 

Program, one loan program, personal and property tax incentives 2.5

Alabama Two state-funded loan programs, AlabamaWISE Home Energy Program (rebates and 

loans) 2

Michigan Two loan programs, AgriEnergy Program, one rebate program 2

Minnesota Four loan programs 2

Ohio Energy Loan Fund and one other loan program, property tax exemption for energyefficient projects 2

Vermont Two loan programs, Weatherization Trust Fund, Thermal Energy and Process Fuel 

Efficiency Program 2

Colorado Mortgage discount for ENERGY STAR homes, loan loss reserve program 1.5

Iowa Major loan program (Iowa Energy Bank), one grant program 1.5

Kansas Major loan program (Efficiency Kansas), one grant program 1.5

Montana Energy conservation installation tax credit, tax deduction for energy-conserving 

investment, one loan program 1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

81

State Major state financial incentives for energy efficiency

Score 

(2.5 pts.)

Nevada Wide-reaching property tax abatement for green buildings, Home Energy Retrofit 

Opportunities for Seniors program 1.5

New Hampshire Two loan programs (Business Energy Conservation Revolving Loan Fund and 

Municipal Energy Reduction Fund), one rebate program 1.5

New Mexico Sustainable Building Tax Credit (personal and corporate), bond program 1.5

South Carolina Tax credit for purchase of new energy-efficient manufactured homes, sales tax cap 

on energy-efficient manufactured homes, one loan program 1.5

Washington Major grant program for energy efficiency in public facilities and local communities,

Washington Farm Energy Program 1.5

Arizona Property tax exemption for energy-efficient building components 1

Mississippi One loan program, one public-sector lease program for energy-efficient equipment 1

Missouri Two loan programs 1

Nebraska Major loan program (Dollar and Energy Saving Loans) 1

New Jersey Edison Innovation Clean Energy Manufacturing Fund (grants and loans), Edison 

Innovation Green Growth Fund loan program

1

North Carolina One rebate and one loan program 1

Rhode Island Home Energy Assistance Loan Program, School Grant Program 1

Texas Major loan program (Texas LoanSTAR) 1

Utah Two loan programs for state-owned buildings and schools 1

Wisconsin Major loan program (Clean Energy Manufacturing Loan Program) 1

Wyoming One grant and one loan program 1

District of Columbia One rebate program 0.5

Indiana One rebate program 0.5

Louisiana Home Energy Loan Program 0.5

Maine One loan program 0.5

North Dakota One grant program 0.5

South Dakota One loan program 0.5

Arkansas None 0

Florida None 0

Georgia None 0

Guam None 0

Hawaii None 0

Puerto Rico None 0

U.S. Virgin Islands None 0

West Virginia None 0
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

82

Building Energy-Use Disclosure Requirements

Disclosure policies require commercial and/or residential building owners to disclose building 

energy assessments, such as past energy consumption data or energy asset ratings, to 

prospective buyers, lessees, or lenders. Our review of energy-use disclosure laws is based on 

policy information compiled by the Institute for Market Transformation’s BuildingRating.org 

project (IMT 2014). States with energy-use disclosure laws in place received 0.5 points each for 

commercial or residential policies. States with both policies in place received 1 point.

Several states have taken the lead in requiring building energy-use disclosure, but no additional 

states have adopted disclosure policies since our scoring last year. No states currently require 

both commercial and residential disclosure, although as disclosure policies become more 

common, it is likely that states will expand the scope of their policies to target both commercial 

and residential markets. More often, these policies are pursued by local-level jurisdictions; most 

recently, a commercial benchmarking ordinance was adopted in Montgomery County, 

Maryland.

46 State disclosure policies are presented in table 32.

 

46 For more information on how municipalities are encouraging building energy disclosure, see ACEEE’s 2013 City 

Energy Efficiency Scorecard (Mackres et al. 2013) and Residential Energy Use Disclosure: A Review of Existing Policies

(Cluett and Amann 2013).

Leading and Trending States for Financial and Information Incentives

Connecticut. Connecticut offers many state-level financial incentives that target a variety of 

sectors. In 2013, the state’s green bank, the Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority 

(CEFIA), deployed public and private capital into the residential, commercial, industrial, and 

municipal sectors through several products, including Smart-E Loans and the Connecticut 

Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) program. Of particular note, CEFIA recently 

completed the first-in-the-country C-PACE securitization, auctioning off the first $30 million 

of C-PACE projects. Proceeds will be used in part to fund additional C-PACE transactions in 

the commercial buildings market. 

Alaska. Alaska uses a substantial amount of state appropriations to fund energy efficiency 

incentive programs. The Home Energy Rebate Program utilizes $160 million in state funding 

appropriated in 2008, a major investment relative to the state’s population. The program allows 

rebates of up to $10,000 based on improved efficiency and eligible receipts. Energy ratings are 

required before and after the home improvements. The program also provides expert advice on 

energy efficiency improvements for consumers and tracks savings. 

Tennessee. Tennessee has partnered with Pathway Lending to provide low-interest energy 

efficiency loans to businesses. The state also offers energy efficiency grants to state 

government agencies, businesses, and utility districts for projects that promote energy 

efficiency, clean energy technologies, and improvements in air quality. Tax credits are also 

available for the manufacture of energy-efficient technologies.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

83

Table 32. State disclosure policies

State

Disclosure 

type Building energy-use disclosure requirements

Score 

(1 pt.)

Alaska Residential Alaska statute AS34.70.101 requires the release of utility data for 

residential buildings at the time of sale. 0.5

California Commercial

Assembly Bill 1103 requires nonresidential building owners or 

operators to disclose the energy consumption data consistent with 

the ENERGY STAR rating system to buyers, lenders, and lessees.

0.5

District of 

Columbia Commercial

The Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008 requires privately

owned commercial buildings to be benchmarked using Portfolio 

Manager on an annual basis. Results are published on a publicly 

available online database.

0.5

Hawaii1 Residential

§508D-10.5 requires residential property owners to disclose 

energy efficiency consumer information at the time of sale or 

lease.

0.5

Kansas Residential

HB 2036 requires builders or sellers of new residential singlefamily or multifamily buildings of four units of less to disclose 

information regarding the energy efficiency of the structure to 

buyers (or prospective buyers) prior to the signing of the contract 

to purchase and prior to the closing of the sale.

0.5

Maine Residential

H.P. 1468 requires the disclosure of an energy efficiency checklist 

and allows for the release of audit information of residential 

buildings. This policy is triggered at the time of rental and can be 

triggered at the time of sale.

0.5

New York Residential Beginning in 1981, the Truth in Heating law required the release 

of utility data for residential buildings at the time of sale or rental. 0.5

South Dakota Residential

SB 64 (2009) established certain energy efficiency disclosure 

requirements for new residential buildings. This policy is triggered 

at the time of sale.

0.5

Washington Commercial

SB 5854 (2009–10) required all nonresidential customers and 

qualifying public agency buildings to maintain records of energy 

data with an ENERGY STAR rating system. Resulting metrics to be 

disclosed to a prospective buyer, lessee, or lender.

0.5

Disclosure policies based on IMT 2014.

1Jim Flanagan Associates 2013.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

84

Lead by Example

Our review of states’ lead-by-example initiatives is based on information from the Database of 

State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE 2014), a survey of state energy officials, 

and independent research. States could earn up to 2 points in the lead-by-example category: 0.5 

points for energy savings targets in new and existing state buildings, 0.5 points for a 

benchmarking requirement for public facilities, 0.5 points for energy savings performance 

contracting activities, and 0.5 points for fleet fuel efficiency mandates. 

Energy savings targets must commit state government facilities to a specific energy reduction 

goal over a distinct time period. The adoption of efficiency requirements for state facilities that 

surpass efficiency requirements in the statewide building code also earn 0.5 points. Leadership 

in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards are only partially focused on energy 

savings and are not focused primarily on active energy management. The result is that some 

LEED buildings do not have energy performance that matches their design intentions (Turner 

and Frankel 2008). Thus, states with above-code LEED requirements for public buildings only 

received credit if energy efficiency points were specifically emphasized in the policy.

A benchmarking policy refers to a requirement that all buildings undergo an energy audit or 

have their energy performance tracked using a recognized tool such as the EPA Portfolio 

Manager. Large-scale public-sector energy benchmarking programs could also qualify for the 

0.5 points. 

Scoring on activities related to energy savings performance contracting was based on three 

metrics: support, leadership, and resources. Descriptions of qualifying actions are described in 

table 33. A state was awarded 0.5 points if it satisfied at least two of the three criteria. 

State Energy Disclosure Policies: Leading States 

Kansas: In 2003, Kansas passed a law requiring the disclosure of energy efficiency 

information for new homes (K.S.A. 66-1228). The state developed a standard reporting 

format for builders and sellers of new homes in which the home’s features are compared 

to the state’s energy code guidelines. The energy rating law was amended in 2007 to 

move the time of disclosure from the time of closing to the time the house is being 

shown. A completed energy efficiency checklist is required to be made available to buyers 

or potential buyers.

District of Columbia: Starting in 2014, all commercial and multifamily buildings over 

50,000 square feet are required to report benchmarking data to the District on a yearly 

basis. EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used as standard for a building’s energy 

performance, including total energy use, energy intensity, and carbon emissions. In the 

District, 266 buildings, representing 90 million square feet, have taken the next step and 

been certified with the ENERGY STAR label. Prior to April 2013, District buildings of more 

than 150,000 square feet were required to report their 2012 energy and water use to the 

District Department of the Environment. The scope of the policy is set to expand in 

upcoming years, and will include all District buildings (commercial and multifamily) of 

more than 50,000 square feet.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

85

Table 33. Scoring criteria for ESPC policies and programs

Criterion Qualifying action

Support

The state explicitly promotes the use of ESPCs to improve the energy efficiency of public 

buildings through statutory requirements, recommendations, or explicit preference for 

using ESPCs; executive orders that promote or require ESPCs; and/or financial incentives 

for agencies seeking to use ESPCs

Leadership The state houses a program that directly coordinates energy savings performance 

contracting, or a specific state agency serves as lead contact for implementing ESPCs

Resources

The state offers documents that streamline and standardize the ESPC process, including 

a list of prequalified service companies, model contracts, and/or a manual that lays out 

the procedures required to order for state agencies to utilize ESPCs

States must satisfy at least two of the three criteria above to receive credit.

For state fleet initiatives, states received credit only if the plan or policy for increasing the 

efficiency of the state’s fleet presented a specific, mandatory requirement. For example, states 

could qualify for 0.5 points if fleet policies specified fuel economy improvements that exceeded 

existing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Other policies that earned points 

include binding goals to reduce petroleum use by a certain amount over a given time frame, 

meaningful GHG reduction targets for fleets, and procurement requirements for hybrid-electric 

or all-electric vehicles. State requirements for the procurement of alternative-fuel vehicles that 

gave only a voluntary option to count efficient vehicles were not included because, although 

they may have environmental benefits, they will likely not result in improved fuel economy. 

Table 34 presents states’ scores for lead-by-example initiatives.

Table 34. State scoring on lead-by-example initiatives

State

New and existing 

state building 

requirements

Benchmarking 

requirements for 

public building

Efficient 

fleets

ESPC policies 

and 

programs

Score 

(2 pts.)

Alabama • • • • 2

California • • • • 2

Connecticut • • • • 2

Delaware • • • • 2

Illinois • • • • 2

Minnesota • • • • 2

Montana • • • • 2

New Mexico • • • • 2

North Carolina • • • • 2

Texas • • • • 2

Utah • • • • 2

Washington • • • • 2

Arkansas • • • 1.5

Georgia • • • 1.5

Hawaii • • • 1.5

Kansas • • • 1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

86

State

New and existing 

state building 

requirements

Benchmarking 

requirements for 

public building

Efficient 

fleets

ESPC policies 

and 

programs

Score 

(2 pts.)

Kentucky • • • 1.5

Maine • • • 1.5

Maryland • • • 1.5

Massachusetts • • • 1.5

Michigan • • • 1.5

Mississippi • • • 1.5

Missouri • • • 1.5

Nevada • • • 1.5

New York • • • 1.5

Oregon • • • 1.5

Puerto Rico • • • 1.5

Rhode Island • • • 1.5

South Carolina • • • 1.5

Vermont • • • 1.5

Wisconsin • • • 1.5

Alaska • • 1

Arizona • • 1

Colorado • • 1

District of Columbia • • 1

Florida • • 1

Iowa • • 1

Louisiana • • 1

New Hampshire • • 1

New Jersey • • 1

Ohio • • 1

Oklahoma • • 1

Pennsylvania • • 1

Tennessee • • 1

Guam • 0.5

Idaho • 0.5

Indiana • 0.5

Nebraska • 0.5

South Dakota • 0.5

U.S. Virgin Islands • 0.5

Virginia • 0.5

West Virginia • 0.5

Wyoming • 0.5

North Dakota 0
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

87

Research and Development

We reviewed state energy efficiency R&D institutions based on information collected from a 

survey of state energy officials and other secondary research. This research complemented

information we previously collected from the National Guide to State Energy Research Centers

(ASERTTI 2013). In our scoring of this metric, 0.5 points were awarded for each major R&D 

program dedicated to energy efficiency that is funded by the state government, including 

programs administered by state government agencies, public–private partnerships, and 

university programs.47 Because R&D funding often fluctuates and it is difficult to determine the 

dollar amount that specifically supports energy efficiency, devising a quantitative metric based 

on R&D program funding or staffing levels is currently outside the scope of this report. 

Table 35 presents the results. See Appendix J for expanded descriptions of state energy 

efficiency R&D program activities.

 

47 Institutions that are primarily focused on renewable energy technology or alternative-fuel RD&D do not receive 

credit in the Scorecard. In addition, programs that serve primarily an educational or policy development purpose 

also do not receive points.

Lead-by-Example Initiatives: Leading and Trending States 

Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico expanded its lead-by-example policies in 2014 through the 

passage of Act No. 57-2014. It requires all state agencies, public corporations, and 

judicial branch buildings to increase electricity savings by at least 40% over the next eight 

years. It also mandates government staff to benchmark energy use and monitor energy 

efficiency measures in all public buildings. Also, the Energy Savings Performance 

Contracts Act of 2012 established an ESPC program for state government buildings. Six 

state agencies are or will be participating in the ESPC program in 2014, potentially 

impacting more than 100 public buildings.

Minnesota: Over the past decade, the state of Minnesota has shown its commitment to 

sustainable buildings by providing leadership, setting high performance standards, and 

implementing an integrated framework of programs that provide a comprehensive system 

for designing, managing, and improving building energy performance. Beginning with 

aggressive standards for state buildings based on the long-term goal of having a zerocarbon building stock by 2030, the state offers a complementary benchmarking program 

for tracking energy use, and the Public Building Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program that 

aids in implementing retrofits. Minnesota also requires on-road vehicles owned by state 

departments to reduce gasoline consumption by 50% by 2015. Additionally, new on-road 

vehicles must also have a fuel efficiency rating that exceeds 30 mpg for city usage and 

35 mpg for highway usage. 

Mississippi: In 2013, the Mississippi Energy Sustainability and Development Act went into 

effect, requiring all state agencies to report energy consumption or face penalties. State 

agencies work with the Mississippi Development Authority Energy and Natural Resources 

Division to develop energy management plans. The state also set a goal of achieving 20% 

energy savings in public university facilities by 2020. To reach its energy savings goals, 

the state significantly upgraded its energy codes for both public and private buildings. 

Mississippi is also working to improve its fleet efficiency, requiring at least 75% of all 

state vehicles to meet fuel economy standards of at least 40 mpg by July 1, 2014. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

88

Table 35. State scoring on R&D programs

State Major R&D programs 

Score 

(1.5 pts.)

California

California Energy Commission Electric Program Investment Charge 

(EPIC) program and Natural Gas Research, Development, and 

Demonstration program; University of California–Davis Center for 

Water-Energy Efficiency and Energy Efficiency Center; University of 

California–Berkeley Center for the Built Environment; University of 

California–Los Angeles Center for Energy Science and Technology 

Advanced Research and Smart Grid Energy Research Center

1.5

Colorado

Colorado State University Engines and Energy Conversion Lab and 

Institute for the Built Environment; University of Colorado–Boulder 

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute; Colorado School of 

Mines Research in Delivery, Usage, and Control of Energy program;

Center for Renewable Energy Economic Development; Colorado 

Energy Research Collaboratory

1.5

Connecticut

University of Connecticut Center for Clean Energy Engineering and

Fraunhofer Center for Energy Innovation; Connecticut Center for 

Advanced Technology

1.5

Florida

University of Central Florida Florida Solar Energy Center; Florida 

State University Energy and Sustainability Center; University of 

Florida Florida Institute for Sustainable Energy and Florida Energy 

Systems Consortium; University of South Florida Clean Energy 

Research Center 

1.5

Minnesota

Conservation Applied Research and Development Grant Program;

University of Minnesota Center for Diesel Research; Center for 

Energy and Environment Innovation Exchange

1.5

Nebraska

University of Nebraska–Lincoln Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences 

Research; Energy Savings Potential program; Nebraska Utility 

Corporation

1.5

New York

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; State 

University of New York Center for Sustainable and Renewable 

Energy; Syracuse University Building Energy and Environmental 

Systems Laboratory; City University of New York Institute for Urban 

Systems; Albany State University Energy and Environmental 

Technology Applications Center 

1.5

North Carolina

North Carolina State University North Carolina Solar Center; North 

Carolina A&T State University Center for Energy Research and 

Technology; and Appalachian State University Energy Center

1.5

Oregon

Oregon State University Oregon Built Environment and Sustainable 

Technologies Center; University of Oregon Energy Studies in 

Buildings Laboratory and Baker Lighting Lab; Portland State 

University PGE Foundation Renewable Energy Research Lab; Energy 

Trust of Oregon; Oregon Transportation Research and Education 

Consortium

1.5

Pennsylvania

Leigh University Energy Research Center; Pennsylvania State 

University Indoor Environment Center and Consortium for Building 

Energy Innovation

1.5

Wisconsin Energy Center of Wisconsin; Focus on Energy; University of 

Wisconsin–Madison Solar Energy Laboratory 1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

89

State Major R&D programs 

Score 

(1.5 pts.)

Arizona Northern Arizona University Institute for Sustainable Energy 

Solutions; Arizona State University LightWorks 1

Georgia Southface Energy Institute; Georgia Institute of Technology Brook 

Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems 1

Illinois University of Illinois at Chicago Energy Resources Center; University 

of Illinois Illinois Sustainable Technology Center 1

Iowa Iowa Energy Center, research support through the Iowa Economic 

Development Authority 1

Kansas Studio 804, Inc.; Wichita State University Center for Energy Studies 1

Maryland University of Maryland Energy Research Center; Maryland Clean 

Energy Center 1

Massachusetts Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Partnership; U. of Massachusetts

Amherst Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 1

Michigan NextEnergy Center; Oakland University Clean Energy Research 

Center 1

Tennessee University of Tennessee partnerships with Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory and the Electric Power Research Institute; CURENT 1

Texas Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station; University of Texas at 

Austin Center for Energy and Environmental Resources 1

Virginia Riverstone Energy Center; R&D Center for Advanced Manufacturing 

and Energy Efficiency 1

Alabama University of Alabama Center for Advanced Vehicle Technologies 0.5

Alaska Cold Climate Housing Research Center 0.5

District of 

Columbia

Green Building Fund Grant Program 0.5

Hawaii University of Hawaii Hawaii Natural Energy Institute 0.5

Idaho Center for Advanced Energy Studies 0.5

Kentucky University of Louisville Conn Center for Renewable Energy Research 0.5

Maine Maine Technology Institute 0.5

Mississippi Mississippi State University Energy Institute 0.5

Nevada University of Nevada–Las Vegas Center for Energy Research 0.5

New Jersey Edison Innovation Clean Energy Manufacturing Fund 0.5

Ohio Ohio State University Center for Energy, Sustainability, and the 

Environment 0.5

Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Energy Center 0.5

Rhode Island University of Rhode Island Outreach Center Sustainable Energy 

Education Programs

0.5

Utah Utah State University 0.5

Vermont University of Vermont Smart Grid Research Center 0.5

Washington Northwest Building Efficiency Technology Hub 0.5

West Virginia West Virginia University Advanced Energy Initiative 0.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

90

POTENTIAL METRICS

During the data collection process for the 2014 State Scorecard, we examined a variety of new 

metrics that could more accurately and comprehensively reflect the efforts states are making to 

improve energy efficiency across sectors. This year, we attempted to refine our analysis of 

financial incentives by collecting data on state budgets for incentives and financing programs, 

participation rates, verified energy savings, and the leveraging of private capital in state 

financial incentives. We relied on our requests to state energy offices for this data collection. We 

sought to collect information on each potential metric in the hope that enough data would be 

available for a given metric that we could potentially include it in our analysis. While we 

received data on some of these potential metrics, the data returned to us were not robust 

enough to add any of these metrics to our analysis. For example, 13 states provided data on 

savings from incentives and financing programs, but savings data were generally program 

specific rather than portfolio wide, and in several cases savings were projected rather than 

verified savings.

State Research, Development, and Demonstration Initiatives: Leading and Trending States 

Colorado. The state of Colorado is demonstrating leadership in areas of energy efficiency. 

State universities, including Colorado State University, the University of Colorado, and the 

Colorado School of Mines, have displayed a commitment to energy efficiency by dedicating 

research centers and facilities to the development of energy efficiency and clean energy 

technologies. The Center for Renewable Energy Economic Development also plays a major 

role in Colorado’s energy efficiency activities by promoting and supporting new clean tech 

companies throughout the state. 

New York. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is 

an outstanding model of an effective and influential research and development institution. 

Its RD&D activities include a wide range of energy efficiency and renewable energy 

programs organized into seven program areas: energy resources; transportation and power 

systems; energy and environmental markets; industry; buildings; transmission and 

distribution; and environmental research. 

Oregon. Oregon boasts an impressive array of organizations committed to energy 

efficiency. The Oregon Built Environment and Sustainable Technologies Center promotes 

cutting-edge technology related to energy efficiency and green buildings, the Energy Trust 

of Oregon provides funding for the testing of emerging technologies specifically related to 

utilities, and the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium supports 

innovation specifically geared toward energy efficiency in the areas of land use and 

transportation. 

Florida. Florida’s universities host a wide array of energy efficiency research. The University 

of Florida’s Florida Institute for Sustainable Energy performs research on efficient 

construction and lighting, and has a faculty of over 150 spread among 22 energy research 

centers. The University of Central Florida’s Florida Solar Energy Center focuses on energyefficient buildings, schools, and standards, and has a similarly large faculty. The state 

created the Florida Energy Systems Consortium to bring universities together to share their 

energy-related expertise. Eleven universities participate in the working group, conducting 

research and development on innovative energy systems that lead to improved energy 

efficiency and expanded economic development for the state.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

91

We will continue to investigate the data collection issues surrounding these potential metrics 

and refine our financial incentives scoring methodology in the future based on data availability. 

State Policies to Enable Local Energy Efficiency

Regions, counties, and municipalities have increasingly become active in energy efficiency 

program development. The energy efficiency policy and program efforts of the largest 

municipalities are captured in ACEEE’s City Energy Efficiency Scorecard (Mackres et al. 2013).

Local efforts to increase efficiency in communities can be supported, and many cases already 

have been, through effective collaboration between state and local governments. By working 

with local governments and stakeholders, state governments can make a particularly strong 

impact on land use and transportation, residential and commercial buildings, schools, and local 

government buildings and facilities through technical assistance, financial assistance, and 

legislative or regulatory mandates (Sciortino 2011). A sample of currently enacted policies that 

enable energy efficiency at the local level is included on the next page.

48

Some metrics in the State Scorecard capture non-state efforts, but due to the significant impact 

state governments can have in enabling local actions, we will explore creating a metric that 

scores states based on the policies and programs they have enacted to assist local governments.

The criteria may include any of the following:

 Technical assistance. Resources, including guidebooks, online resources, and state staff, 

dedicated to assisting local government with increasing efficiency in municipal 

buildings and schools 

 Financial assistance. Incentives aimed at local governments to increase the efficiency of 

public facilities

 Legislative or regulatory requirements. Requirements promulgated by the state requiring 

municipal fleets or buildings to achieve specific energy reductions

 

48 For more information on state government programs and policies aimed at local governments, see How State 

Governments Enable Local Governments to Advance Energy Efficiency (Sciortino 2011).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

92

State Policies that Enable Local Energy Efficiency 

Maryland. The Maryland Energy Administration runs the Maryland Smart Energy 

Communities program, which incentivizes local governments to adopt policies related to the 

energy efficiency of their buildings and fleets. By participating in this program, local 

governments set the goal of reducing their fleets’ petroleum consumption by at least 20%. 

There are more than 50 participating local governments, including the largest cities and 

counties in the state.

Colorado. K–12 schools are subject to very high efficiency standards after the passage of 

SB 13-279 in 2013. The goal of this school efficiency bill is to create resource-efficient 

schools that use 33% less energy and 32% less water than their conventional counterparts. 

Any school receiving an operations budget from the state must meet the highest energy 

efficiency standards practicable. This may include ENERGY STAR or other high-efficiency 

performance certification. In addition to new facilities, redesign or renovation projects also 

must meet these high efficiency standards. 

Connecticut. In January 2014, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental 

Protection implemented a new lead-by-example initiative that extends the Small Business 

Energy Advantage program to state agencies and municipalities interested in installing 

energy efficiency measures in their buildings and allows them to pay for these investments 

on their utility bills, which removes a barrier for the government sector.

Minnesota. Initiated in late 2012, the state of Minnesota in partnership with the St. Paul 

Port Authority launched the Energy Savings Partnership (ESP) program to provide local units 

of government and school districts throughout the state with low-cost lease purchase 

agreement (LPA) financing. Using ESP, local units of government and school districts are 

able to access LPA financing to invest in energy efficiency projects by leveraging the energy 

and operational savings attained through the improvements to fund the LPA repayment, 

thereby allowing projects to be implemented on a budget-neutral basis via the state’s 

Guaranteed Energy Savings Program (GESP) or the Public Buildings Enhanced Energy 

Efficiency Program (PBEEEP).

Puerto Rico. Municipalities in Puerto Rico must reduce 5% of their electrical energy 

consumption annually for three years, computed from the average of the highest three 

consumption years from 2004 to 2014, for a total reduction of 15%. 

Nebraska. Nebraska public school districts are eligible for 1% loans of up to $750,000 and 

are required to benchmark all school buildings for the term of the loan. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

93

Chapter 7. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards

Author: Max Neubauer

INTRODUCTION

Every day in our homes, offices, and public buildings, we use appliances and equipment that 

are less energy efficient than other available models. While the energy consumption and cost for 

a single device may seem small, the extra energy consumed by less-efficient products 

collectively adds up to a significant amount of wasted energy. For example, one device’s battery 

charger may draw a small amount of electricity and waste an even smaller amount. Yet with 

more than 1.7 billion battery chargers in the United States, the total amount of energy wasted is 

significant. Real and persistent market barriers, however, inhibit sales of more efficient models

to consumers. Appliance efficiency standards overcome these barriers by initiating change in 

the manufacturer’s—not the consumer’s—actions, by requiring manufacturers to meet 

minimum efficiency levels for all products, thereby removing the most inefficient products from 

the market.

States have historically led the way when it comes to establishing standards for appliances and 

other equipment. California was the first state to introduce appliance standards in 1976. Many 

states, such as New York and Massachusetts, followed soon after. The federal government did 

not institute any national standards until 1988 through the passing of the National Appliance 

Energy Conservation Act of 1987, which created national standards based on those that had 

been adopted by California and several other states. Congress enacted additional national 

standards in 1988, 1992, 2005, and 2007. In general, these laws set initial standards for products 

and require DOE to review and strengthen standards for specific products. All told, about 60 

products are now subject to national efficiency standards.

In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed a presidential memorandum that, over the 

next four years, required the introduction or updating of standards for 26 products. To date, 

DOE has set or updated 21 standards. When DOE rulemaking activity picks up, the impetus for 

states to set standards decreases. Conversely, when the national standard-setting process lags, 

activity in the states increases, serving as a catalyst for national standards. We find ourselves in 

the former category today. Unsurprisingly, this uptick in DOE activity coincides with only two 

states—California and Connecticut—having adopted new, higher standards in the last year.

Federal preemption generally prevents states from setting standards stronger than existing 

federal requirements for a given product. Under the general federal preemption rules applied 

by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, states 

that have set standards prior to federal enactment may enforce their state standards until the 

federal standards become effective; states that have not yet set standards are preempted 

immediately. States that wish to implement their own standards after federal preemption must 

apply for a waiver; however, states remain free to set standards for any products that are not 

subject to national standards. These additional standards can have significant energy efficiency 

benefits, and set precedents for adopting new standards at other levels of government. 

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

A state could earn up to 2 points for adopting appliance efficiency standards, based on the 

potential savings in billion British thermal units (BBtu) generated through 2030 by appliance 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

94

efficiency standards not presently preempted by federal standards. The savings estimates, 

based on an analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and ACEEE 

(Lowenberger et al. 2012), were normalized based on the number of residential customers in 

each state so that the state was ranked on the amount of savings generated per customer. Each 

state earned up to 2 points in 0.5-point increments. Table 36 shows the scoring methodology

and table 37, the results.

Table 36. Scoring methodology for 

savings from appliance standards

Energy savings per 

customer through 

2030 (BBtu/customer) Score

≥ 100 2

50 ≤ x < 100 1.5

10 ≤ x < 50 1

0 < x < 10 0.5

0 0

Table 37. State scoring for appliance efficiency standards

State

Energy savings 

per customer 

through 2030 

(BBtu/customer)

Year most 

recent 

standards 

adopted

Score

(2 pts.)

California* 129.1 2012 2

Oregon 37.1 2013 1

Connecticut 25.8 2011 1

Washington 8.7 2009 0.5

Arizona 8.5 2009 0.5

District of Columbia 0.7 2007 0.5

Maryland 0.7 2007 0.5

New Hampshire 0.6 2008 0.5

Rhode Island 0.6 2006 0.5

Georgia* NA 2010 0.5

Texas* NA 2010 0.5

* Georgia and Texas adopted standards on plumbing products in 2010, as did California in 

2007, which include toilets, urinals, faucet aerators, showerheads, and commercial prerinse spray valves. Since no analysis has yet been completed that estimates savings, we 

awarded Georgia and Texas 0.5 points since the savings would at least be greater than zero. 

California was already awarded the maximum number of points. Sources: Lowenberger et al. 

2012; ASAP website as of September 2013.

California, scoring the maximum of 2 points, continues to take the lead on appliance efficiency 

standards, most recently adopting standards for battery chargers and external power supplies. 

Not only has California adopted the greatest number of standards, but many other states’ 

standards are based on California’s, such as the television standards passed in Connecticut in 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

95

2011. Oregon passed new standards in 2013 for battery chargers, televisions, and double-ended 

quartz halogen lamps.

For the past several years, a number of states have received no credit for their standards in the 

State Scorecard due to either failing to implement signed legislation or because their state 

standards were preempted by federal standards. For example, New York passed legislation to 

create several state standards for which federal standards do not exist;

49 however the standards’

levels have yet to be officially developed. As a result, no savings have been generated and we 

did not award any points for New York’s efforts. In our 2011 Scorecard, Nevada earned credit 

for adopting standards for general-service incandescent lamps that are more stringent than the 

existing federal standards. However those standards were never enforced and it is likely that 

they never will be enforced. Additionally, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont all had 

their state standards preempted by federal standards.

It is worth noting that the standards adopted for plumbing products by California, Georgia, and 

Texas, which include standards for toilets, urinals, faucet aerators, showerheads, and 

commercial pre-rinse spray valves, will generate a significant volume of water savings. The 

energy savings come from the reduced need for hot water as well as the energy required to 

pump and treat both water and wastewater. These standards are particularly important in these 

three states, which have been experiencing frequent and persistent droughts in their regions at 

an increasing rate over the last decade.

 

49 The new standards in New York covered televisions, pool pumps, hot tubs, portable light fixtures, water 

dispensers, commercial hot-food holding cabinets, audio/video equipment, and digital TV adapters.

Leading States: Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards 

Oregon. Oregon has introduced a number of its own standards, beginning in 2002

concentrating on some of the most energy-intensive appliances and equipment, such as 

hot tubs, televisions, and other consumer electronics. On June 13, 2013, with the signing 

of Senate Bill 692, Oregon added three new standards to its books for consumer battery 

chargers, televisions, and double-ended quartz halogen lamps. This new legislation brings 

the number of non-preempted standards to seven, second only to California. 

California. California was the first state in the country to adopt appliance and equipment 

efficiency standards. The authority to adopt appliance and equipment efficiency standards 

was bestowed upon the California Energy Commission as stipulated under the WarrenAlquist Act, which was enacted in 1974. Over the years, California has adopted standards 

on more than 50 products, and many have subsequently become federal standards. 

California’s 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations became effective on December 30, 

2005, replacing all previous versions of the regulations. The regulations create standards 

for 21 categories of appliances, including both federally regulated and non-federally

regulated appliances. Presently, California has adopted standards for10 products that are 

not covered by federal standards.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

96

Chapter 8. Conclusions

Energy efficiency policies and programs have continued to advance at the state level over the 

past year. A group of leading states remains committed to pursuing the more efficient use of 

energy in transportation, buildings, and industry. In doing so they are fostering economic 

development in the energy efficiency services and technology industries and saving money for 

consumers to spur growth in all sectors of the economy. 

A number of states have progressed—some rapidly—over the past few years in the pursuit of 

their energy efficiency goals. There has been significant movement both within and outside of 

the top tier of states, with Rhode Island, Vermont, and Oregon continuing to climb toward a top 

ranking and Washington D.C. making notable progress through its holistic approach to a 

sustainable energy future. Arkansas is also making significant strides from the lower tiers of 

states. The dynamism of these states is reflected in growing utility program budgets and 

savings, as well as in the range of other actions the states are taking to improve their energy 

efficiency through strong leadership and smart public policy.

At the same time, some states have faced pushback on energy efficiency policies. EERS policies 

in Ohio and Indiana were rolled back despite support from local communities and businesses. 

Utilities in Florida maintain that they have run out of cost-effective energy efficiency measures, 

though this is largely due to the state’s reliance on the ratepayer impact measure (RIM) test and 

its lopsided use of all benefit-cost tests. Pushback on energy efficiency will likely continue 

across the country from anti-regulation groups and from industrial groups looking to opt out of 

energy efficiency programs. 

A wide gap remains between states near the top and those at the bottom of the State Scorecard

rankings. Market barriers and the regulation of the energy sector remain major challenges to 

energy efficiency investments. A regulatory environment that levels the playing field for energy 

efficiency—the fastest, cheapest, cleanest energy resource—is critical to capturing the full range 

of its benefits for states and for consumers. 

LOOKING AHEAD

We see signs that many states will continue to raise the bar on their energy efficiency program 

and policy commitments in 2014 and beyond. Going forward, national policies will have an 

even greater effect on state-level energy planning. In June 2014, the EPA released a draft version 

of its Clean Power Plan, calling on states to reduce emissions under flexible frameworks (EPA 

2014a). Energy efficiency programs are likely to offer the most cost-effective way of complying 

with the proposed rules. 

States have already begun to plan for their energy future under these new rules. For example, 

The Louisiana Public Service Commission recently opened a docket on utility plans in response 

to the Clean Power Plan. With other energy efficiency rules also under consideration in 

Louisiana, there may be an important opportunity to expand energy efficiency in the state. 

Other states, including Illinois, Arkansas, and Ohio, are also actively planning for the new

energy policies called for by the proposed rules.

Delaware is also poised to expand its energy efficiency programs. Legislation passed in July 

2014 calls for the development of savings targets and requires utilities to develop and 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

97

implement energy efficiency programs to meet these targets. The law also allows for cost 

recovery and improved evaluation, measurement, and verification protocols. New York, 

meanwhile, is in the process of significantly altering its utility regulatory structures. Although 

its outcomes are as yet unclear, the state’s Reforming the Energy Vision initiative will likely 

have a strong impact on New York’s energy efficiency programs. 

In addition, several states that only recently began implementing utility-sector energy efficiency 

programs (e.g., Michigan, Arkansas, and Arizona) will likely continue to ramp up program 

activity over the next few years to meet rising goals.50 As noted in Chapter 2, combined utility 

spending on electricity and natural gas efficiency programs is estimated to rise to $15.6 billion 

by 2025 if many states give energy efficiency a prominent role as a resource (Barbose et al. 2013). 

An increasing role for energy efficiency will not, however, occur in a vacuum. State support for 

energy efficiency and external factors beyond states’ control will influence the impact and 

expansion of energy efficiency programs and policies in 2015 and beyond. Continued 

uncertainty around the economic recovery could dampen consumer demand for energy 

efficiency upgrades in the residential and commercial sectors, reducing savings from efficiency 

programs. Even more concerning is the impact on budgets for efficiency. Some policymakers 

have responded to a continued strain on state budgets by redirecting funds from utility 

customers or other sources originally meant for efficiency programs to shore up state finances 

in other areas.51 Some have also failed to fund energy efficiency budgets at levels high enough 

to meet mandated savings goals. 

Energy efficiency can save consumers money, drive investment across many sectors of the 

economy, and create jobs. While several states are consistently leading the way on energy 

efficiency and many more are notably increasing their efforts, there are still many opportunities 

to sustain current efforts and to continue to scale up. Energy efficiency is a resource that is 

abundant in every state. Reaping its full economic, energy-security, and environmental benefits 

will require continued leadership from all stakeholders, including legislators, regulators, and 

the utility industry. 

FURTHER RESEARCH

Addressing Data Needs

The scoring framework we used in this report is our best current attempt to represent the 

myriad efficiency metrics as a quantitative score. Any effort to convert state spending data, 

energy savings data, and adoption of best practice policies across six policy areas into one state 

energy efficiency score has obvious limitations. Here we suggest a few areas for future research 

that will help refine the State Scorecard scoring methodology and more accurately represent the 

changing landscape of energy efficiency in the states.

 

50 See Nowak et al. 2011 for a full discussion of how states are preparing to meet higher energy savings targets.

51 New Jersey Governor Christie redirected $42.5 million from the state’s Clean Energy Fund in fiscal year 2011 to 

cover state energy bills, and he will do the same in FY 2013 (which started July 1, 2012) with a reallocation of $210 

million (NJ Spotlight 2012). New Jersey also withdrew from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which had been 

providing the state with substantial funding for energy efficiency projects.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

98

One of the most pronounced limitations is access to recent, reliable data on the results of energy 

efficiency work. Since many states do not gather data on the performance of energy efficiency 

policy efforts, we have used a best-practices approach to score some policy areas. As an 

example, it is difficult to score states on building energy code compliance rates because the 

majority of them do not collect the relevant data. The current Scorecard again expands our bestpractices approach in this category, but performance metrics would allow for more objective 

and accurate assessment. While states should be applauded for adopting stringent building 

energy codes, the success of these codes in reducing energy consumption is unclear without a 

way to verify actual implementation.

We face a similar difficulty in scoring state-backed financing and incentive programs for energy 

efficiency investments. Though many states have seemingly robust programs aimed at 

residential and commercial consumers, few are able to relay information on program budgets or 

energy savings resulting from such initiatives. As a result, we can offer only a qualitative 

analysis of these programs.

In the utility sector, we urge states to systematically track and report statewide savings and 

spending levels for energy efficiency programs. The current resources available for state-bystate comparisons of energy efficiency program spending and savings do not capture the full set 

of programs available to customers. In particular, programs administered by third parties, 

public power generators, and cooperative and municipal utilities may be underrepresented in 

the datasets we used in this report. We were able to address this deficiency to some extent, but 

future editions of the Scorecard would benefit from higher levels of reporting from utilities and 

administrators to the EIA, CEE, state utility commissions, and national groups such as the 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the American Public Power Association.52

We would also like to see spending and savings data for energy efficiency programs targeting 

home heating fuel and propane. We continue to expand our research on natural gas efficiency 

programs, and, if data were available, we could also examine metrics for fuel oil and propane 

efficiency.

Additional or Revised Metrics for Potential Inclusion

We have described relevant potential future metrics in several chapters of this year’s State 

Scorecard. While we believe our data collection and scoring methodology are comprehensive, 

there is always room for modifications. As the energy efficiency market continues to evolve and 

data become more available, we will continue to adjust each chapter’s scoring metrics. Here we 

present some additional metrics that currently fall outside the scope of our report but that

nonetheless indicate important efficiency pathways.

State efficiency programs that fall outside the realm of utility-sector and public benefits 

programs are one area we hope assess more comprehensively and quantitatively in future 

versions of the Scorecard. Since the passage of ARRA in 2009, scoring states on energy efficiency 

programs run by state governments has become a complex task. Our hope is that as ARRA 

funds run their course, states will become more adept at tracking and presenting program 

 

52 See MJB&A (2011) for an assessment of the data gaps that inhibit the comprehensive benchmarking of utility 

energy efficiency spending and savings. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

99

spending and savings data. We also hope to recognize state government and regulatory efforts 

to enable home and business owners to finance energy efficiency improvements through on-bill 

financing and other innovative incentive programs. As discussed in Chapter 6, one possible 

metric to compare state financial incentives is the level and sustainability of budgets for these 

programs. This information is available in some cases, but gathering it for all programs will 

continue to present challenges. We may also be able to compare state energy efficiency R&D 

efforts on the basis of budgets and staffing levels, but data availability is again an issue.

Internet-connected devices, smart meters, and other intelligent efficiency technologies are 

proliferating in many states. These devices help overcome informational and motivational 

barriers to consumer uptake of energy efficiency, especially in the residential sector. A new 

industry is emerging that uses social marketing and social media to encourage consumers to 

save energy, for example by giving them frequent feedback on their energy use and tailored 

energy savings tips. Data-focused policies can enable the growth of this promising area of 

energy efficiency, including state data privacy policies, disclosure policies for building energy 

use, and data-access policies such as the industry-led Green Button standard. We will consider 

including some of these enabling policies in future versions of the Scorecard.

We also hope to dive further into the ways that state policies can enable local governments to 

invest in energy efficiency policies and programs. This year we captured some anecdotal 

evidence of state policies affecting local energy efficiency outcomes, and we will analyze such 

outcomes in our 2015 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard. The interaction between these two 

levels of government is increasingly dynamic, and we will continue to explore a State Scorecard 

metric that compares states on the policies and programs they have enacted to assist local 

governments. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

100

References

AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials). 2014. Survey of 

State Funding for Public Transportation—FY2012 Data. Washington, DC: American 

Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. 

ACEEE (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy). 2014. “State Energy Efficiency 

Policy Database. “Washington, DC: ACEEE. http://database.aceee.org/. 

AR PSC (Arkansas Public Utility Commission). 2014. Eddy Moore, Commission Legal Advisor, 

personal communication. June 18.

ASERTTI (Association of State Energy Research Technology and Transfer Institutions). 2013. 

National Guide to State Energy Research Centers. 

http://asertti.org/researchcenters/ASERTTI_State_Research_Guide.pdf.

Barbose, G., C. Goldman, I. Hoffman, and M. Billingsley. 2013. The Future of Utility CustomerFunded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United States: Projected Spending and Savings to 2025.

Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl5803e.pdf.

CEE (Consortium for Energy Efficiency). 2014. 2013 Annual Industry Report. Appendices: The 

Efficiency Program Industry by State and Region. Boston: Consortium for Energy Efficiency. 

http://library.cee1.org/content/efficiency-program-industry-state-and-region-appendices2013. 

Chittum, A. 2011. Follow the Leaders: Improving Large Customer Self-Direct Programs. Washington, 

DC: ACEEE. http://www.aceee.org/research-report/ie112.

———. 2012. CHP Methodology in the 2012 Scorecard. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

http://aceee.org/white-paper/chp-methodology.

Clean Cars Campaign. 2014. State Action. Accessed May 2014. 

http://cleancarscampaign.org/web-content/stateaction/stateaction.html.

Cluett, R., and J. Amann. 2013. Residential Energy Use Disclosure: A Review of Existing Policies.

Washington, DC: ACEEE. http://www.aceee.org/research-report/a131.

CO DORA (Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs). 2014. Rachel Ackermann. 

Rate/Financial Analyst, personal communication. June 9.

CPUC (California Public Utility Commission). 2014. Amy Reardon, Senior Regulatory Analyst, 

personal communication. June 13.

CT DEEP (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection). 2014. Diane 

Duva, Office Director, and Michele Melley, Associate Research Analyst, personal 

communication. June 9.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

101

DDOE (District Department of the Environment). 2014a. Taresa Lawrence, Deputy Director, 

personal communication. June 4.

———. 2014b. Bill Updike, Program Analyst, personal communication. August 27.

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2014. Jessica 

Quinn, Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Project Manager, personal 

communication. June 6.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011a. 2011 Buildings Energy Data Book. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/.

———. 2011b. Comparison of Standard 90.1-2010 and the 2012 IECC with Respect to Commercial 

Buildings. Prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy.

———. 2012. National Energy and Cost Savings for New Single and Multifamily Homes: A Comparison 

of the 2006, 2009, and 2012 Editions of the IECC. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program.

———. 2013. “Recovery Act.” Accessed July 2013. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/index.html.

———. 2014. “Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Data Center: State Incentives and Laws.” 

Accessed June 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/state.

Downs, A., A. Chittum, S. Hayes, M. Neubauer, S. Nowak, S. Vaidyanathan, K. Farley, and C. 

Cui. 2013. The 2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: ACEEE. 

http://aceee.org/research-report/e13k . 

Downs, A., and C. Cui. 2014. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards: A New Progress Report on State 

Experience. Washington, DC: ACEEE. http://www.aceee.org/research-report/u1403. 

DSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency). 2014. http://dsireusa.org/.

Dutzik, T., and P. Baxandall. 2013. A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship with Driving and 

the Implications for America’s Future. Washington, DC: U.S. PIRG Education Fund.

Efficiency Maine. 2014. Laura Martel, Research and Data Analyst, personal communication. 

June 9. 

Efficiency Vermont. 2012. 2011 Gross to Net Factors. Burlington: Efficiency Vermont.

https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/docs/about_efficiency_vermont/annual_reports/201

1_Gross_to_Net_Report_EfficiencyVermont.pdf.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

102

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2012. “Hawaii State Energy Profile Analysis.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 

http://205.254.135.7/state/state-energy-profiles-analysis.cfm?sid=HI.

———. 2013. Annual Electric Power Industry Report 2012. Form EIA-861. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 

———. 2014a. Data Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Data. Form EIA-826.Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia826.html.

———. 2014b. Natural Gas Annual Respondent Query System (EIA-176 Data Through 2012). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ngqs/ngqs.cfm?f_report=RP1.

———. 2014c. Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/.

———. 2014d. “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Data.” Accessed June 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.gov/renewable/afv/supply.cfm. 

Eldridge, M., M. Neubauer, D. York, S. Vaidyanathan, A. Chittum, and S. Nadel. 2008. The 2008 

State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

Eldridge, M., W. Prindle, D. York, and S. Nadel. 2007. The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 

2006. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

Eldridge, M., M. Sciortino, L. Furrey, S. Nowak, S. Vaidyanathan, M. Neubauer, N. Kaufman, A. 

Chittum, and S. Black. 2009. The 2009 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: 

ACEEE. http://aceee.org/research-report/e097.

Energy Trust of Oregon. 2014. Adam Shick, Planning Project Analyst, personal communication. 

June 9.

Entergy New Orleans. 2013. Energy Smart Year 2 Annual Report. New Orleans: LA: Entergy. 

http://www.entergyneworleans.com/content/docs/2013_0621_Energy_Smart_Year_2_Annual_Rpt_Algiers_Qu

arterly_Rpt.pdf.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Clean Energy Lead by Example Guide: Strategies, 

Resources and Action Steps for State Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/epa_lbe_full.pdf. 

———. 2014a. Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units. Proposed Rule. 79 FR 34829. Washington, DC. Environmental 

Protection Agency. https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-13726.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

103

———. 2014b. “dCHPP (CHP Policies and Incentives Database).”Accessed May 2014. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.epa.gov/chp/policies/database.html. 

Foster, B., A. Chittum, S. Hayes, M. Neubauer, S. Nowak, S. Vaidyanathan, K. Farley, K. 

Schultz, and T. Sullivan. 2012. The 2012 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: 

ACEEE. http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e12c.

Frontier Associates. 2014. Amy Martin, Manager of Program Design and Evaluation, personal 

communication. July 3.

GA PSC (George Public Service Commission). 2014. Jamie Barber, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy Manager, personal communication. June 6.

Guam Energy Office. 2014. Peter Calvo, Director, personal communication. June 14. 

Haeri, H., and M. S. Khawaja. 2012. “The Trouble with Freeriders: The Debate About 

Freeridership in Energy Efficiency Isn’t Wrong, But It Is Wrongheaded.” Public Utilities 

Fortnightly. March. http://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2012/03/trouble-freeriders. 

Hayes, S., G. Herndon, J.P. Barrett, J. Mauer, M. Molina, M. Neubauer, D. Trombley, and L. 

Ungar. 2014. Change is in the Air: How States Can Harness Energy Efficiency to Strengthen the 

Economy and Reduce Pollution. Washington, DC: ACEEE. http://www.aceee.org/researchreport/e1401. 

HI PUC (Hawaii Public Utility Commission). 2014. David Parsons, Economist, personal 

communication. June 13.

ICC (Illinois Commerce Commission). 2014. Jim Zolnierek, Director of Policy, personal 

communication. June 17.

ICF (ICF International). 2014. “Combined Heat and Power Installation Database.” Accessed July 

2014. Washington, DC: ICF International. http://www.eea-inc.com/chpdata/. 

IHS Automotive Polk. 2014. “Electric Vehicle Registration Dataset (purchased).” Received 

September 2014. Chagrin Falls, OH: IHS Automotive Polk.

IMT (Institute for Market Transformation). 2014. Building Energy Performance Benchmarking and 

Disclosure. Accessed June. http://www.imt.org/policy/building-energy-performancepolicy

Itron. 2011. Verification of Reported Energy and Peak Savings from the EmPOWER Maryland Energy 

Efficiency Programs: Final Report. Prepared for the Maryland Public Service Commission. 

Oakland: Itron.

IUB (Iowa Utilities Board). 2014. Brenda Biddle, Utility Specialist, personal communication. 

June 4.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

104

IURC (Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission). 2014. Bradley Borum, Electric Director, and 

Carmen Pippenger, Utility Analyst, personal communication. June 16.

Jim Flanagan Associates. 2013. Jim Flanagan, personal communication. June 11.

Kushler, M., S. Nowak, and P. Witte. 2012. A National Survey of State Policies and Practices for the 

Evaluation of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs. Washington, DC: ACEEE. 

http://aceee.org/research-report/u122. 

KY PSC (Kentucky Public Service Commission). 2014. Bob Russell, Financial Analyst, personal 

communication. May 29.

Lincoln Electric System. 2014. Marc Schkolnick, Manager of Energy Services, personal 

communication. June 6.

Lowenberger, A., J. Mauer, A. deLaski, M. DiMascio, J. Amann, and S. Nadel. 2012. The 

Efficiency Boom: Cashing In on the Savings from Appliance Standards. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

Mackres, E., K. Johnson, A. Downs, R. Cluett, S. Vaidyanathan, and K. Schultz. 2013. The 

2013City Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e13k.

MA DOER (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Resources). 2014. Sue Kaplan, 

Director of Marketing and Stakeholder Engagement, personal communication. June 4.

MAGEEPA (Massachusetts Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Program Administrators). 2010. 

Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for Estimating Savings from Energy Efficiency

Measures. 2011 Program Year—Plan Version. http://www.maeeac.org/docs/MA%20TRM_2011%20PLAN%20VERSION.PDF.

MD PSC (Maryland Public Service Commission). 2014. Stacy Sherwood, Assistant Director, 

Energy Analysis and Planning Division, personal communication. May 30.

MI PSC (Michigan Public Service Commission). 2014. Karen Gould, Staff, Energy Efficiency 

Section, personal communication. June 2.

MJB&A (M.J. Bradley & Associates). 2011. Benchmarking Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Portfolios 

in the U.S. Concord, MA: M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC.

http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/benchmarking-electric-utilities-2011.

MN COMM (Minnesota Department of Commerce). 2014. Jessica Burdette, Supervisor, 

Conservation Improvement Program, personal communication. August 1. Molina, M., R.N. 

Elliott, and S. Vaidyanathan. 2010. North Carolina’s Energy Future: Electricity, Water, and 

Transportation Efficiency. Washington, D.C.: ACEEE.

Molina, M., M. Neubauer, M. Sciortino, S. Nowak, S. Vaidyanathan, N. Kaufman, and A. 

Chittum. 2010. The 2010 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e107.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

105

Molina, M., S. Watson, N. Kaufman, J.S. Laitner, E. Mackres, D. Trombley, and D. York. 2011. 

Missouri’s Energy Efficiency Potential: Opportunities for Economic Growth and Energy 

Sustainability. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

MO PSC (Missouri Public Service Commission). 2014. John Rogers. Manager, Energy Unit, 

Resource Analysis Section, personal communication. May 30.

Nadel, S., T. Kubo, and H. Geller. 2000. State Scorecard on Utility Energy Efficiency Programs in 

2000. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

NASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials). 2011. U.S. State Energy Program: An 

Activity Report of U.S. State Energy Program Success Stories from the State and Territory Energy 

Offices. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Energy Officials.

http://www.naseo.org/programs/sep/documents/SEP_Success_Stories.pdf.

———. 2013. State Energy Revolving Loan Funds—Overview and Trends. Alexandria, VA: National 

Association of State Energy Officials. 

http://www.naseo.org/Data/Sites/1/documents/selfs/state_energy_rlf_report.pdf.

NCFSA (National Conference of State Fleet Administrators). 2007. 2007NCSFA Target 

Membership Estimated Fleet Totals and Dollars (Reported by State Fleets). Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Conference of State Fleet Administrators.

NCSC (National Complete Streets Coalition). 2012. “Complete Streets and High Gas Prices.” 

Washington, DC: National Complete Streets Coalition. 

http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/factsheets/cs-gasprices.pdf.

———. 2014. Best Complete Streets Policies of 2013. Washington, DC: National Complete Streets 

Coalition. 

Neubauer, M., S. Nadel, J. Talbot, A. Lowenberger, D. Trombley, S. Black, S. Vaidyanathan, B. 

Foster, and J.S. Laitner. 2011. Advancing Energy Efficiency Opportunities in Arkansas: 

Opportunities for a Clean Energy Economy. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

Neubauer, M., S. Watson, J. S. Laitner, J. Talbot, D. Trombley, A. Chittum, and S. Black. 2009. 

South Carolina’s Energy Future: Minding its Efficiency Resources. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

NH PUC (New Hampshire Public Utility Commission). 2014. Jim Cunningham, Utility Analyst, 

personal communication. June 16.

NJ BPU (New Jersey Board of Public Utilities). 2014. Sherri Jones, Marketing Administrator, 

personal communication. June 18.

NJ Spotlight. 2012. “Christie plans to siphon off hundreds of millions earmarked for 

environment.” Accessed June 28. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0507/2327/.

NM PRC (New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission). 2014. John Reynolds, Economist, 

personal communication. May 12.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

106

Nowak, S., M. Kushler, M. Sciortino, D. York, and P. Witte. 2011. Energy Efficiency Resource 

Standards: State and Utility Strategies for Higher Energy Savings. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

NPPD (Nebraska Public Power District). 2014. Steven Zach, Energy Efficiency Supervisor, 

personal communication. June 10. 

NV PUCN (Nevada Public Utility Commission). 2014. Cristina Zuniga, Economist, personal 

communication. June 10.

NY DPS (New York Department of Public Service). 2010. New York Standard Approach for 

Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs. Prepared by New York Evaluation 

Advisory Contractor Team and TecMarket Works. Albany: New York Department of Public 

Service. 

http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/0/06f2fee55575bd8a852576e4006f9af7/$FILE/T

echManualNYRevised10-15-10.pdf.

———. 2014. Bill Wade, Utility Supervisor, personal communication. May 30.

NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority). 2014. Rebecca Reed, 

Project Manager, Reporting and Quality Assurance, personal communication. June 9.

OCC (Oklahoma Corporation Commission). 2014. Kathy Champion, Regulatory Analyst, 

personal communication. June 4. 

OPPD (Omaha Public Power District). 2014. Christene Bywater, Project Manager, Sustainable 

Energy, personal communication. June 9.

OR DOE (Oregon Department of Energy). 2014. Warren Cook, Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Manager, personal communication. August 25.

PA PUC (Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission). 2014. Act 129 Statewide Evaluator Final 

Report. http://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1274547.pdf. 

Piedmont Natural Gas. 2014. Energy Efficiency Program Report. Docket No. 2009-411-G. 

http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/matters/AE87A491-155D-141F-23F32D8922B461CE.pdf

PSNCUC (Public Staff North Carolina Utilities Commission). 2014.Jack Floyd, Utilities 

Engineer, personal communication. June 5. 

Puerto Rico Office of the Governor. 2014. Efrain O’Neill Carrillo, Senior Energy Advisor, 

personal communication. June 10.

Pye, M., and S. Nadel. 1997. Energy Technology Innovation at the State Level: Review of State Energy 

RD&D Programs. Washington, DC: ACEEE. http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e973.

RI PUC (Rhode Island Public Utility Commission). 2014. Alan Nault, Public Utilities Analyst, 

personal communication. June 5. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

107

Satchwell, A., C. Goldman, P. Larsen, D. Gilligan, and T. Singer. 2010. A Survey of the U.S. ESCO 

Industry: Market Growth and Development from 2008 to 2011. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-3479e.pdf.

Sciortino, M., M. Neubauer, S. Vaidyanathan, A. Chittum, S. Hayes, S. Nowak, and M. Molina. 

2011. The 2011 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e115.

Sciortino, M., and M. Eldridge. 2010. “The Growing Landscape of State Energy Efficiency 

Programs: A New Taxonomy.” Proceedings of the 2010 ACEEE Summer Study in Buildings.

Washington, DC: ACEEE.

SC ORS (South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff). 2014. Linda Shafer, Electric Utilities 

Specialist, personal communication. May 29.

SD PUC (South Dakota Public Utility Commission). 2014. Brian Rounds, Utility Analyst, 

personal communication. May 30.

State of Massachusetts. 2012. 2013-2015 Massachusetts Joint Statewide Three-Year Electric and Gas 

Efficiency Plan. November 2. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/energyefficiency/statewide-electric-and-gas-three-year-plan.pdf.

SWEEP (Southwest Energy Efficiency Project). 2007. H. Geller, S. Baldwin, P. Case, K. Emerson, 

T. Langer, and S. Wright. Utah Energy Efficiency Strategy: Policy Options. Boulder: Southwest 

Energy Efficiency Project.

———. 2014a. Ellen Zuckerman, Senior Associate, personal communication. June 9.

———. 2014b. Howard Geller, Executive Director, personal communication. August 14.

Turner, C., and M. Frankel. 2008. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings. 

Final Report. Vancouver, WA: New Buildings Institute.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2014. Kyle Lawson, Program Analyst, personal 

communication. June 13.

U.S. Congress. 2012. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Accessed 

June 2014. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ141/pdf/PLAW112publ141.pdf. 

UT PSC (Utah Public Service Commission). 2014. Jamie Dalton, Commission Utility Economist, 

personal communication. May 29.

Virgin Islands Energy Office. 2014. Karl Knight, Director, personal communication. June 10.

VT PSD (Vermont Public Service Department). 2014. Asa Hopkins, Director of Energy Policy 

and Planning, personal communication. June 9.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

108

WA UTC (Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission). 2014. Juliana Williams, 

Regulatory Analyst, Conservation and Energy Planning, personal communication. June 9. 

WI PSC (Wisconsin Public Service Commission). 2014. Jolene Sheil, Director, Focus on Energy 

and Joe Fontaine, Program and Policy Analyst, personal communication. May 21.

WV PSC (West Virginia Public Service Commission). 2014. Susan Small, Communications 

Director, personal communication. May 29.

York, D., and M. Kushler. 2002. State Scorecard on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency 

Programs: An Update. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

———. 2005. ACEEE's 3rd National Scorecard on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency 

Programs: A National Review and Update of State-Level Activity. Washington, DC: ACEEE.

———. 2011. The Old Model Isn’t Working: Creating the Energy Utility for the 21st Century.

Washington, DC: ACEEE. http://aceee.org/white-paper/the-old-model-isnt-working.

York, D., P. Witte, S. Nowak, and M. Kushler. 2012. Three Decades and Counting: A Historical 

Review and Current Assessment of Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Activity in the States. 

Washington, DC: ACEEE. http://aceee.org/research-report/u123. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

109

Appendix A. Electric Efficiency Program Budgets Per Capita

State

2013 

budget

($million)

$ per 

capita State

2013 

budget

($million)

$ per 

capita

Massachusetts 507.7 75.86 Utah 35.3 12.16

Rhode Island 77.5 73.70 Indiana 76.8 11.69

Vermont 42.8 68.30 New Mexico 23.1 11.08

New Jersey 395.1 44.40 Wyoming 6.4 10.96

Oregon 171.3 43.58 Oklahoma 38.7 10.05

Washington 293.7 42.13 Kentucky 44.0 10.00

Maryland 205.9 34.73 Tennessee 55.7 8.57

Iowa 106.7 34.53 Missouri 48.2 7.98

California 1,188.8 31.01 North Carolina 74.9 7.61

New York 593.9 30.22 Nebraska 13.8 7.36

Minnesota 155.5 28.69 Texas 181.4 6.86

Connecticut 102.4 28.48 South Dakota 5.1 6.04

Maine 34.2 25.75 West Virginia 9.0 4.87

Idaho 38.8 24.05 South Carolina 22.1 4.62

Hawaii 33.5 23.85 Georgia 40.1 4.01

Arkansas 65.9 22.27 Delaware 2.4 2.59

Illinois 283.8 22.03 Mississippi 7.5 2.50

Arizona 143.2 21.61 Alabama 10.8 2.23

District of Columbia 14.0 21.59 Louisiana 3.7 0.79

New Hampshire 27.4 20.70 Kansas 0.7 0.26

Pennsylvania 237.6 18.60 Virginia 0.8 0.10

Ohio 212.8 18.39 Alaska 0.0 0.00

Montana 18.4 18.12 Guam 0.0 0.00

Nevada 50.5 18.10 North Dakota 0.0 0.00

Colorado 89.4 16.97 Puerto Rico 0.0 0.00

Michigan 165.5 16.72 Virgin Islands 0.0 0.00

Wisconsin 79.9 13.92 U.S. total $6,294.6

Florida 258.1 13.20 Median $43.38 $13.56
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

110

Appendix B. 2012 and 2013 Savings Data Disaggregated

State

2012 

electric 

program 

savings 

(MWh)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales

2012 

natural gas 

program 

savings 

(MMTherms)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales*

2013 

electric 

program 

savings 

(MWh)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales

2013 

natural gas 

program 

savings 

(MMTherms)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales*

Alabama 5,6045 0.06% — — — — — —

Alaska 1,517 0.02% — — — — — —

Arizona 1,244,555 1.66% 3.30 0.49% 1,317,329 1.74% — —

Arkansas 142,187 0.30% 3.34 0.48% 227,531 0.49% 5.19 0.75%

California 2,130,000 0.82% 24.50 0.33% 1,701,601 0.66% 31.00 0.41%

Colorado 419,237 0.78% 4.80 0.28% 472,000 0.88% 6.10 0.36%

Connecticut 322,102 1.09% 3.70 0.43% 285,817 0.97% 4.80 0.56%

Delaware 8,450 0.07% 0.17 0.09% 8,809 0.08% 0.10 0.05%

District of Columbia 24,054 0.21% 0.05 0.02% 52,303 0.47% 0.50 0.18%

Florida 587,083 0.27% — — — — — —

Georgia 241,261 0.18% — — 288,140 0.22% — —

Guam — — — — — — — —

Hawaii 120,070 1.25% — — 159,056 1.67% — —

Idaho 188,245 0.80% — — — — — —

Illinois 1,455,652 1.02% 18.30 0.33% 1,318,916 0.99% 29.30 0.52%

Indiana 615,018 0.59% — — — — 6.30 0.34%

Iowa 481,271 1.05% 9.09 0.89% 491,543 1.06% 7.92 0.78%

Kansas 8,907 0.02% — — — — — —

Kentucky 401,864 0.45% 2.03 0.27% 437,276 0.52% 2.96 0.39%

Louisiana 20,572.422 0.02% — — — — — -—

Maine 136,985 1.19% 0.02 0.02% 92,313 0.78% 0.14 0.15%

Maryland 539,640 0.87% 1.30 0.09% 641,322 0.97% 1.00 0.07%

Massachusetts 980,113 1.80% 22.63 1.17% 1,116,442 2.05% 24.67 1.28%

Michigan 1,198,644 1.15% 43.80 1.02% 1,284,863 1.51% 44.00 1.02%

Minnesota 662,687.1 0.98% 25.83 1.31% 699,998 1.04% 26.82 1.36%

Mississippi 36,810 0.08% — — — — — —

Missouri 100,644 0.12% — — 406,897 0.49% — —

Montana 91,474 0.66% — — — — — —

Nebraska 86,527 0.29% — — 53,850 0.20% — —

Nevada 188,757 0.54% — — 171,369 0.81% 0.96 0.14%

New Hampshire 57,938 0.53% 1.95 1.31% 58,774 0.56% 1.39 0.93%

New Jersey 414,794 0.55% — — 418,693 0.56% 8.82 0.24%

New Mexico 126,195 0.54% 0.62 0.11% 126,069 0.54% 0.68 0.12%

New York 1,338,060 0.94% 18.83 0.29% 1,617,667 1.13% 25.70 0.40%

North Carolina 533,404 0.42% — — 718,739 0.55% — —
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

111

State

2012 

electric 

program 

savings 

(MWh)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales

2012 

natural gas 

program 

savings 

(MMTherms)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales*

2013 

electric 

program 

savings 

(MWh)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales

2013 

natural gas 

program 

savings 

(MMTherms)

Savings 

as % of 

retail 

sales*

North Dakota 10,330 0.07% — — — — — —

Ohio 1,323,498 0.87% — — — — — —

Oklahoma 99,198 0.17% 1.50 0.17% 156,847 0.27% 2.90 0.33%

Oregon 510,993 1.10% 5.59 0.77% 676,046 1.43% 5.30 0.73%

Pennsylvania 1,533,976 1.06% — — 1,410,305 0.97% — —

Puerto Rico — — — — — — — —

Rhode Island 119,666 1.55% 2.30 0.86% 161,831 2.09% 3.30 1.24%

South Carolina 273,758 0.35% 0.07 0.02% 298,215 0.38% 0.08 0.02%

South Dakota 29,475 0.25% 0.20 0.10% 21,435 0.18% 0.43 0.21%

Tennessee 302,493 0.31% 0.00 0.00% 273,267 0.28% 0.00 0.00%

Texas 686,554 0.19% 0.00 0.00% 693,968 0.19% 0.00 0.00%

Utah 219,612 0.74% 4.10 0.42% 264,375 0.87% 6.37 0.65%

Vermont 117,649 2.14% 0.75 1.37% 99,074 1.78% 0.80 1.47%

Virgin Islands — — — — — — — —

Virginia 29,923 0.03% — — — — — —

Washington 856,137 0.92% 5.94 0.44% 990,143 1.35% 7.02 0.51%

West Virginia 54,105 0.18% 0.59 0.13% 69,241 0.22% 0.70 0.15%

Wisconsin 460,784 0.67% 16.50 0.85% 619,418 0.90% 17.50 0.90%

Wyoming 23,605 0.14% — — — — — —

Savings are net savings. We applied a 0.9 net-to-gross ratio where only gross savings were available. *Natural gas sales are 2012 commercial and 

retail sales only from EIA (2014b).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

112

Appendix C. Summary of Large Customer Self-Direct Programs by State

State Availability Description

Arizona

Offered by Arizona Public 

Service Company (APS), 

Tucson Electric Power 

Company, and Salt River 

Project

APS: Large customers using at least 40 million kWh per calendar year can elect to self-direct energy efficiency 

funds. Customers must notify APS each year if they wish to participate, after which 85% of the customer's 

demand-side management contribution will be reserved for future energy efficiency projects. Projects must be 

completed within two years. Self-direction funds are paid once per year once the project is completed and 

verified by APS. 

Colorado Offered by Black Hills and 

Xcel Energy

Xcel: The self-direct program is available to commercial and industrial (C&I) electric customers who have an 

aggregated peak load of at least 2 MW in any single month and an aggregated annual energy consumption of 

at least 10 GWh and are not allowed to participate in other conservation products offered by the company. 

Rebates are paid based on actual savings from a project, up to $525 per customer kW or $0.10 per kWh; 

rebates are given for either peak demand or energy savings but not both and are limited to 50% of the 

incremental cost of the project. Xcel uses raw monitoring results and engineering calculations to demonstrate 

actual energy and demand savings based on monitoring results.

Black Hills: To participate in the C&I self-direct program, customers must have an aggregated peak load 

greater than 1 MW in any single month and aggregated annual energy usage of 5,000 MWh. Rebates and 

savings are calculated on a case-by-case basis; rebate values are calculated as either 50% of the incremental 

cost of the project or $0.30 per kWh savings, whichever is lower. 

Connecticut

Statewide pilot through 

C&LM's Business and 

Energy Sustainability 

Program

The program is available to any C&I customer within the companies' service territories with peak demand over 

500kW and willing to sign and commit to following a memorandum of understanding (MoU). The intent of the 

MoU is to be highly customized and customer specific. Self-directed solutions offer electric and natural gas 

incentives and analytical services for C&I customers to improve their facilities in order to make them more 

energy efficient. In 2014, the companies will consider piloting and testing promising concepts, technologies,

and services for eventual inclusion in the programs. The utilities can provide evaluations and 

recommendations upon request, with the customer being responsible for implementing the improvements.

Typically, MoUs include participation by upper management; the establishment of specific, aggressive savings 

targets; and measurement and verification (M&V) strategies to document the savings throughout the target 

facilities. Enrollment was slated to begin in summer 2014.

Idaho Customers of Idaho Power

Idaho Power offers its largest customers an option to self-direct the 4% energy efficiency rider that appears on 

all customers’ bills. Customers have three years to complete projects and have 100% of funds available to 

fund up to 100% of project costs. Self-direct projects are subject to the same criteria as projects in other 

efficiency programs. 

Two large customers within the state were granted permission to opt out of programs, representing 0.04% of 

load.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

113

State Availability Description

Illinois

Statewide for natural gas 

customers based on NAICS 

code; pilot program for 

electric customers

The self-direct provisions, in Section 8-104(m) of the Illinois Public Utilities Act, are applicable for gas 

customers that have a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code number of 22111 or any 

number beginning with the digits 31, 32, or 33 and (i) annual usage in the aggregate of 4 million therms or 

more within the service territory of the affected gas utility or with aggregate usage of 8 million therms or more 

in the state and that are complying with the provisions of item (l) of this subsection (m); or (ii) using natural gas 

as feedstock and meeting the usage requirements described in item (i) of this subsection (m), to the extent 

that such annual feedstock usage is greater than 60% of the customer's total annual usage of natural gas. 

Participants’ energy-efficient funds are set aside for their own use, and participants are subject to the 

oversight of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Currently, self-directing 

customers make up about 18% of total regulated retail gas sales. 

There is an additional program being piloted by electric utilities under their Section 8-103 programs that would 

create similar opportunities for large electric customers. This program is not yet in effect and details are still 

being developed, but its structured EM&V protocols are likely to result in more certain energy savings.

Massachusetts Statewide

A self-direct option is available to the five largest customers in every service territory. Participant activities 

must meet statewide cost-effective criteria and are subject to EM&V standard practices. Mass Save® program 

administrators are responsible for program evaluation.

Michigan Statewide

Self-direct is available to customers based on both aggregate peak demand and peak demand at individual 

sites. From 2011–13, the customer must have had an annual peak demand in the preceding year of at least 1 

MW at each site or 5 MW in the aggregate at all sites. In 2014 or any year thereafter, the customer must have 

had an annual peak demand in the preceding year of at least 1 MW in the aggregate at all sites to be covered 

by the self-directed plan. The customer may recover costs for implementation, review, and evaluation. A 

mechanism must be established to cover the costs of the low-income energy optimization program. Selfdirected plans must be multiyear, must meet or exceed energy optimization performance standards based on 

annual usage, and are to be incorporated into the relevant provider's energy optimization plans. Once 

implemented, that customer is exempt from energy optimization charges and is not eligible to participate in 

the relevant provider's energy optimization programs. These programs are self-certified, but subject to 

Michigan Public Service Commission review. The customer is responsible for self-evaluation, which is approved 

in the program plan. The information is reported to the utility provider and also subject to commission review.

The number of customers electing to self-direct their energy efficiency programs has dropped from 77 

customers in 2009 to 32 in 2012.This reflects the flexibility and comprehensive program options being offered 

by the utility provider programs. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

114

State Availability Description

Minnesota Statewide

Minnesota offers a self-direct option, with a full exemption from assigned cost-recovery mechanism (CRM)

fees, to customers with 20 MW average electric demand or 500,000 MCF of gas consumption. Customers 

must also show that they are making "reasonable" efforts to identify or implement energy efficiency and that 

they are subject to competitive pressures that make it helpful for them to be exempted from the CRM fees.

Participating customers must submit new reports every five years to maintain exempt status. The utility is not 

involved in self-direct program administration; the state Department of Commerce functions as the manager of 

self-direct accounts and is the arbiter of whether a company qualifies for self-direct and is satisfying its 

obligations.

Montana Offered by NorthWestern 

Energy

NorthWestern Energy allows customers with demand larger than 1 MW to channel their CRM funds to an 

escrow account that repays them on a quarterly basis for completed self-direct projects. The annual maximum 

contribution is $500,000, and companies have two years to use their funds before they are returned to the 

larger pool of CRM revenues. NorthWestern administers the funds but provides no measurement or 

verification. Self-direct customers file annual reports with the Montana Department of Revenue. The 

department publishes these reports and a public "challenge" process is provided for as the only scrutiny or 

review.

New Jersey Statewide

Eligible customers must have made a minimum contribution of $300,000 toward New Jersey’s Clean Energy 

Program (NJCEP). Participants are eligible for an incentive of up to 90% of the amount paid into the NJCEP. 

Applicants are required to include a plan for measurement and verification of energy savings. To date, about 

12 customers have participated in the program.

New Mexico Statewide in the territories 

of three IOUs

Eligible customers must have electricity consumption of greater than 7,000 MWh per year. Participants can 

receive credit for up to 70% of the annual energy efficiency rider. Monitoring and verification are done 

independently.

Ohio Statewide

Self-direct options are available for large customers in Ohio. Under SB 221, a mercantile customer, which is a 

commercial or industrial customer that consumes more than 700,000 kWh per year, may enter into a special 

arrangement with an electric utility to integrate the customer’s demand-reduction, demand-response, or 

energy efficiency programs with those of the electric utility. If the specified reduction levels are met, the 

customer can request exemption from the CRM. 

One of the state’s utilities, American Electric Power (AEP), has a self-direct program that offers customers an 

incentive for previously implemented energy efficiency measures. The one-time incentive is 75% of what the 

measure would cost under AEP programs and has a maximum limit of $225,000.Projects must have been 

implemented after January 1, 2008, and must produce 100% of the stated energy savings and/or peak 

demand reductions over a five-year period. Customers taking the incentive are still eligible to participate in the 

utility's other energy efficiency programs because they are still paying the CRM fee.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

115

State Availability Description

Oregon

Customers of Portland 

General Electric, PacifiCorp, 

and Emerald People’s Utility 

District (PUD)

In the Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp service territory, customers must have consumption of greater 

than 1 average MW (aMW) or 8,760 MWh. At Emerald PUD the program is open to the two customers in their 

large customer class. In Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, and Emerald PUD service areas, participants 

receive credits equal to the cost of completed and approved energy efficiency projects, which are applied 

against the public purpose charge on the electric utility bills. Emerald PUD customers can also use the credit 

to request reimbursement for "banked" public purpose charges. The Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) 

reviews and approves each project based on engineering analyses. ODOE also reviews actual expenditures 

and verifies installation on a sample of projects. Complex projects may require data collection for subsequent 

review by ODOE. There are currently 22 sites self-directing their energy efficiency funds.

Utah Customers of Rocky 

Mountain Power

Rocky Mountain Power's self-direct program is a project-based rate credit program that offers up to an 80% 

credit of eligible project costs back to customers as a rate credit against the 3.7% CRM charge all customers 

pay. Customers earn a credit of up to 100% of their CRM charge, but do pay a flat $500 per project 

administrative fee for each self-directed project. Customers can choose to engage in self-direct and more 

traditional CRM programs simultaneously, provided the different programs are used to deploy different 

projects.

Vermont Statewide for both electric 

and natural gas customers

Electric: Vermont's Self-Managed Energy Efficiency Program (SMEEP) allows an eligible customer to be exempt 

from the [electric] energy efficiency charge (EEC) provided that the customer commits to spending an annual 

average of no less than $1 million per year over a three-year period on energy efficiency investments. SMEEP 

is open to transmission-class or industrial-class customers that paid an EEC of at least $1.5 million in calendar 

year 2008. Additionally, an eligible customer must demonstrate that it has a comprehensive energy 

management program with annual objectives, or demonstrate that it has achieved certification of ISO standard 

14001. In addition, the Vermont Public Service Board has established an option for eligible Vermont business 

customers to self-administer energy efficiency through the use of an energy savings account (ESA) or the 

customer credit program. The ESA option allows Vermont businesses that pay an EEC in excess of $5,000 

total per year (or an average $5,000 total per year over three years) to use a portion of their EEC to support 

energy efficiency projects in their facilities. 

Natural gas: The SMEEP program has been extended to cover natural gas. Eligible only for transmission and 

industrial electric and natural gas ratepayers, customer efficiency charges for electric usage must be a 

minimum of $1.5 million. To receive the exemption from the natural gas efficiency bill charges, the customer 

must make an additional energy efficiency investment of not less than $55,000. 

For both electric and natural gas self-directing customers, the Department of Public Service and the Public 

Service Board provide the oversight and evaluation for SMEEP and ESA participants, as part of their overall 

EM&V of utility efficiency programs. There is one eligible SMEEP customer, and it participates in both electric 

and natural gas programs. There are two participants in the ESA program (out of more than 100 eligible firms), 

and one participant (which is likely the only eligible firm) in the similar Customer Credit Program. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

116

State Availability Description

Washington

All utilities have the option to 

develop self-direct options 

for industrial and 

commercial customers, but 

of the IOUs, only Puget 

Sound Energy has 

developed a self-direct 

program

Puget Sound Energy's self-direct program is available only to industrial or commercial customers on electric 

rate–specific rate schedules. The self-direct program operates on a four-year cycle comprised of two phases, 

noncompetitive and competitive. During the noncompetitive phase, customers have exclusive access to their 

energy efficiency funds, which are the funds collected over the four-year period. When this phase closes, any 

unused funds are pooled together and competitively bid on by the members of the self-directed program.

Customers receive payment in the form of a check once the project is complete and verified. Participating 

customers do not receive any rate relief when they complete energy efficiency investments. One hundred 

percent of projects are pre- and post-verified by the utility. This includes review and revision of savings 

calculations by the utility to determine incentive levels. The program is included in the third-party evaluation 

cycle like all other utility conservation programs.

Wisconsin Statewide

A self-direct option is open to a customer if it meets the definition of a large energy customer according to 

2005 Wisconsin Act 141. Under the self-direct option, there is a "true-up" at the end of the year and the 

customer receives their contributions back to be used on energy efficiency projects. Evaluation is required 

under Public Service Commission (PSC) Administrative Code 137.PSC would review the evaluation plan. This 

option has been available since 2008, but no customers have participated to date.

Wyoming Customers of Rocky 

Mountain Power

Rocky Mountain Power offers a self-direct option for customers. The self-direct program is a project-based rate 

credit program that offers up to an 80% credit of eligible project costs back to customers as a rate credit 

against the 3.7% CRM charge all customers pay. Customers earn a credit of up to 100% of their CRM charge, 

but do pay a flat $500administrative fee for each self-directed project. Customers can choose to engage in 

self-direct and more traditional CRM programs simultaneously, provided the different programs are used to 

deploy different projects.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

117

Appendix D. Details of States’ Energy Efficiency Resource Standards

State (year enacted)

Policy type

Sector(s) covered

Applicability (% of sales 

affected) Description

Approximate

annual electric 

savings target 

(2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Arizona (2010)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

IOUs, co-ops (~59%)

Electric: Annual savings targets began at 1.25% of 

sales in 2011, ramping up to 2.5% in 2016–20 for 

cumulative annual electricity savings of 22% of 

retail sales, of which 2% may come from peak 

demand reductions.

Natural gas: ~0.6% annual savings (for cumulative 

savings of 6% by 2020). 

2.4% Binding

Docket No. RE-00000C-09-

0427, Decision 71436

Docket No. RE-00000C-09-

0427, Decision 71819

Docket No. RG-00000B-09-

0428, Decision 71855

3

Arkansas (2010)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

IOUs (~53%)

Electric: Annual reduction of 0.75% of total kWh 

sales in 2014 and 0.9% in 2016.

Natural gas: Annual reduction of 0.40% in 2014 

and 0.5% in 2015.

The Public Service Commission has withheld a 

ruling on targets for 2016–17 pending a potential 

study.

0.8% Opt out

Order No. 17, Docket No. 08-

144-U

Order No. 15, Docket No. 08-

137-U

Order No. 1, Docket No. 13-

002-U

1.5

California (2004 and 2009)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

IOUs (~78%)

Electric: ~0.9% annual savings through 2020. 

Demand reduction of 4,541 MW through 2020.

Natural gas: 619 gross MMTh 2012–20.

Utilities must pursue all cost-effective efficiency 

resources.

0.9% Binding

CPUC Decision 04-09-060

CPUC Decision 08-07-047

CPUC Decision 09-09-047

1.5

Colorado (2007)

Tailored targets

Electric and natural gas

IOUs (~57%)

Electric: Black Hills follows PSCo savings targets of 

0.8% of sales in 2011, increasing to 1.35% of sales 

in 2015 and 1.66% of sales in 2019.

Natural gas: Savings targets commensurate with 

spending targets (at least 0.5% of prior year’s 

revenue). 1.5% Binding

Colorado Revised Statutes 40-

3.2-101, et seq.

Docket No. 08A-518E Dec. 

R09-0542

COPUC Docket No. 12A-100E 

Dec. R12-0900 

Docket 10A-554EG

3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

118

State (year enacted)

Policy type

Sector(s) covered

Applicability (% of sales 

affected) Description

Approximate

annual electric 

savings target 

(2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Connecticut (2011 

and2013)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

Electric: Targets based on all cost-effective 

efficiency requirement, equivalent to annual savings 

of about 1.4% through 2015.

Natural gas: Average annual savings targets of ~60 

MMTherms through 2015.

Utilities must pursue all cost-effective efficiency 

resources.

1.4% Binding

Public Act 13-298

Public Act 11-80

Docket 12-11-04

2.5

Hawaii (2004 and 2009)

RPS-EERS

Electric

Statewide goal (100%)

In 2009, transitioned away from a combined RPSEERS to a standalone EERS goal to reduce 

electricity consumption by 4,300 GWh by 2030 

(equal to ~30% of forecast electricity sales, or 1.4% 

annual savings).

1.4% Binding

HRS §269-91, 92, 96

Hawaii Public Utility 

Commission Order, Docket 

2010-0037

2

Illinois (2007)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

utilities with over 100,000 

customers, Illinois 

Department of Commerce 

and Economic Opportunity

(~89%)

Electric: Legislative targets call for 0.2% annual 

savings in 2008, ramping up to 1% in 2012, 2% in 

2015 and thereafter. However, recent utility targets 

approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission are 

significantly lower due to cost cap limitations.

Natural gas: 8.5% cumulative savings by 2020 

(0.2% annual savings in 2011, ramping up to 1.5% 

in 2019).

0.9% Cost cap

S.B. 1918

Public Act 96-0033

§ 220 ILCS 5/8-103

1

Iowa (2009)

Tailored targets

Electric and natural gas

Statewide goal (100%)

Electric: Varies by utility from 1% to 1.5% annually. 

Natural gas: Varies by utility from 0.74% to 1.2% 

annually.

1.3% Binding Senate Bill 2386

Iowa Code § 476 2.5

Maine (2009)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

Efficiency Maine (100%)

Electric and natural gas savings of 20% by 2020, 

with annual savings targets of ~1.6% for electric 

and ~0.3% for natural gas.

Efficiency Maine operates under an all costeffective mandate. 

1.6% Opt out Efficiency Maine Triennial Plan

H.P. 1128 – L.D. 1559 3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

119

State (year enacted)

Policy type

Sector(s) covered

Applicability (% of sales 

affected) Description

Approximate

annual electric 

savings target 

(2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Maryland (2008)

EERS

Electric

Statewide goal (100%)

15% per capita reduction goal by 2015 (10% by 

utilities, 5% achieved independently). 15% 

reduction in per capita peak demand by 2015, 

compared to 2007.The next round of targets is

currently under discussion.

1.6% Binding Md. Public Utility Companies 

Code § 7-211 3

Massachusetts (2009)

EERS

Electric and natural gas 

IOUs, co-ops, munis, Cape 

Light Compact (~80%)

Electric: 1.4% in 2010, 2.0% in 2011; 2.4% in 

2012; 2.5% in 2013 increasing to 2.6% by 2015.

Natural gas: 0.63% in 2010, 0.83% in 2011; 1.15% 

in 2012; 1.08% in 2013 increasing to 1.19% by 

2015.

All cost-effective efficiency requirement.

2.6% Binding D.P.U. Order 09-116–09-128

D.P.U. Order 12-100–12-111 3

Michigan (2008)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

Statewide goal (100%)

Electric: 0.3% annual savings in 2009, ramping up 

to 1% in 2012 and continuing through 2015.

Natural gas: 0.10% annual savings in 2009, 

ramping up to 0.75% in 2012 and continuing 

through 2015.

1.0% Cost cap

M.G.L. Ch. 25, § 21 

Act 295 of 2008 2

Minnesota (2007)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

Statewide goal (100%)

The nominal standard is 1.5% for both electric and 

natural gas utilities, adjustable to a minimum of 1% 

for IOUs. Interim targets of 0.75% were approved for 

gas utilities over 2010–12.Gas utilities were 

approved at the 1% level for the 2013–15 plans.

1.5% Binding Minn. Stat. § 216B.241 3

Nevada (2005, 2009, and

2013)

RPS-EERS

Electric

IOUs (~88%)

20% of retail electricity sales to be met by 

renewables and energy efficiency by 2015, and 

25% by 2025. Energy efficiency may meet a quarter 

of the standard through 2013, but allowances 

phase out by 2025.

0.4% Binding NRS 704.7801 et seq. 0

New Mexico (2008 and

2013)

EERS

Electric

IOUs (68%)

5% reduction from 2005 total retail electricity sales 

by 2014, and 8% reduction by 2020.

1.0% Binding N.M. Stat. § 62-17-1 et seq. 2
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

120

State (year enacted)

Policy type

Sector(s) covered

Applicability (% of sales 

affected) Description

Approximate

annual electric 

savings target 

(2013+) Stringency Reference Score

New York (2008)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

Statewide goal (100%)

Electric: Annual savings of ~1% per year through 

2015.

Natural gas: Annual savings of ~0.5% per year 

through 2015.

EEPS targets apply to utilities and NYSERDA.

1.0% Binding NY PSC Order, Case 07-M-0548 

NY PSC Order, Case 07-M-0748 2.5

North Carolina (2007)

RPS-EERS

Electric

Statewide goal (100%)

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio 

Standard requires renewable generation and/or 

energy savings of 6% by 2015, 10% by 2018, and 

12.5% by 2021 and thereafter. Energy efficiency is 

capped at 25% of target, increasing to 40% in 2021 

and thereafter.

0.4% Opt out N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-133.8

04 NCAC 11 R08-64, et seq. 0

Oregon (2010)

Tailored targets

Electric and natural gas

Energy Trust of Oregon 

(100%)

Electric: Targets are equivalent to 0.8% of 2009 

electric sales in 2010, ramping up to 1.4% in 2013 

and 2014. 

Natural gas: 0.2% of sales in 2010 ramping up to 

0.4% in 2014.

1.4% Binding Energy Trust of Oregon 2009 

Strategic Plan 2.5

Pennsylvania (2004 and

2008)

EERS

Electric

Utilities with over 100,000 

customers (~93%)

3% cumulative savings from 2009–13; ~2.3% 

cumulative savings from 2014–16. Cumulative 

peak demand reduction of 4.5% by 2013 compared 

to 2007. Inclusion of peak demand targets for next 

round has not yet been finalized.

Energy efficiency measures may not exceed an 

established cost cap.

0.8% Cost cap

66 Pa C.S. § 2806.1

PUC Order Docket No. M-2008-

2069887

PUC Implementation Order 

Docket M-2012-2289411

0.5

Rhode Island (2006)

EERS

Electric and natural gas

IOUs, munis (~99%)

Electric: Annual savings of 1.7% in 2012, 2.1% in 

2013, 2.5% in 2014. EERS includes demand 

response targets.

Natural gas: Annual savings of 0.6% in 2012, 0.8% 

in 2013, and 1.0% in 2014.

Utilities must acquire all cost-effective energy 

efficiency.

2.3% Binding R.I.G.L § 39-1-27.7

Docket 4284, 4295 3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

121

State (year enacted)

Policy type

Sector(s) covered

Applicability (% of sales 

affected) Description

Approximate

annual electric 

savings target 

(2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Texas (1999 and 2007)

EERS

Electric

IOUs (~73%)

20% incremental load growth in 2011 (equivalent to 

~0.10% annual savings); 25% in 2012, 30% in 

2013 onward. Peak demand reduction targets of 

0.4% compared to previous year.

Energy efficiency measures may not exceed an 

established cost cap.

0.1% Cost cap, opt 

out

Senate Bill 7

House Bill 3693

Substantive Rule § 25.181

Senate Bill 1125

0

Vermont (2000)

Tailored targets

Electric

Efficiency Vermont (100%)

Expected cumulative savings of ~6.6% from 2012–

14. EERS includes demand response targets.

Efficiency Vermont must set budgets at a level that 

would realize all cost-effective energy efficiency. 

Budgets for the next program cycle have been 

approved, but quality performance indicators 

including MWh targets have not yet been set.

2.0% Binding 30 V.S.A. § 209

VT PSB Docket EEU-2010-06 3

Washington (2006)

EERS

Electric

IOUs, co-ops, munis (~81%)

Biennial and 10-year goals vary by utility. Law 

requires savings targets to be based on the 

Northwest Power Plan, which estimates potential 

annual savings of about 1.5% through 2030 for 

Washington utilities. All cost-effective conservation 

requirement.

1.4% Binding

Ballot Initiative I-937

WAC 480-109

WAC 194-37

2

Wisconsin (2011)

Tailored targets

Electric and natural gas

Focus on Energy (100%)

Electric: 0.66% of annual sales in 2011–2014 and 

0.77% of annual sales in 2015–18.

Natural gas: 0.5% of sales in 2011–2014 and 0.6% 

in 2015–18.

Energy efficiency measures may not exceed an 

established cost cap.

0.7% Cost cap Order, Docket 5-GF-191 1
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

122

Appendix E. State Transit Funding

State

FY 2012 

funding 

($million)

2012 

population 

Per capita 

transit 

expenditure 

($/person)

Alaska 180.0 730,307 $246.44

New York 4,465.9 19,576,125 $228.13

Massachusetts 1,245.4 6,645,303 $187.41

Maryland 1,086.5 5,884,868 $184.63

Connecticut 453.5 3,591,765 $126.25

New Jersey 918.0 8,867,749 $103.52

District of Columbia 484.2 5,000,000 $96.83

Delaware 82.7 917,053 $90.21

Pennsylvania 1,091.9 12,764,475 $85.54

Illinois 814.4 12,868,192 $63.29

Minnesota 309.4 5,379,646 $57.52

Rhode Island 53.1 1,050,304 $50.53

California 1,849.2 37,999,878 $48.66

Virginia 239.2 8,186,628 $29.22

Michigan 240.4 9,882,519 $24.33

Wisconsin 117.9 5,724,554 $20.59

Florida 217.3 19,320,749 $11.25

Vermont 6.8 625,953 $10.93

Indiana 56.0 6,537,782 $8.57

Oregon 32.7 3,899,801 $8.38

Washington 52.8 6,895,318 $7.65

North Carolina 73.6 9,748,364 $7.55

Tennessee 44.5 6,454,914 $6.89

North Dakota 3.2 701,345 $4.49

Wyoming 2.5 576,626 $4.37

Iowa 12.9 3,075,039 $4.19

New Mexico 6.7 2,083,540 $3.20

Colorado 12.4 5,189,458 $2.38

Kansas 6.0 2,885,398 $2.08

Nebraska 2.9 1,855,350 $1.56
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

123

State

FY 2012 

funding 

($million)

2012 

population 

Per capita 

transit 

expenditure 

($/person)

Oklahoma 5.8 3,815,780 $1.51

West Virginia 2.8 1,856,680 $1.50

South Carolina 6.0 4,723,417 $1.27

Arkansas 3.5 2,949,828 $1.18

Texas 30.3 26,060,796 $1.16

Louisiana 5.0 4,602,134 $1.08

South Dakota 0.8 834,047 $0.92

Ohio 7.3 11,553,031 $0.63

Mississippi 1.6 2,986,450 $0.54

Missouri 3.0 6,024,522 $0.50

Maine 0.5 1,328,501 $0.40

Kentucky 1.5 4,379,730 $0.34

Montana 0.3 1,005,494 $0.32

Georgia 2.9 9,915,646 $0.29

Idaho 0.3 1,595,590 $0.20

New Hampshire 0.2 1,321,617 $0.18

Nevada 0.1 2,754,354 $0.04

Alabama 0.0 4,817,528 $0.00

Arizona 0.0 6,551,149 $0.00

Hawaii 0.0 1,390,090 $0.00

Utah 0.0 2,854,871 $0.00

Source: AASHTO 2014.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

124

Appendix F. State Transit Legislation

State Description of transit legislation Source

Arkansas

Passed in 2001, Arkansas Act 949 established the 

Arkansas Public Transit Fund, which directs monies 

from rental vehicle taxes toward public transit 

expenditures. 

ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/acts

/2001/htm/ACT949.pdf

California

California’s Transportation Development Act provides 

two sources of funding for public transit: the Location 

Transportation Fund and the State Transit Assistance 

Fund. Monies are allocated to each county based on 

population, taxable sales, and transit performance and 

are used for the development and maintenance of 

transit infrastructure.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassT

rans/State-TDA.html

Colorado

Colorado adopted the FASTER legislation in 2009, 

which created a State Transit and Rail Fund that 

accumulates $5 million annually. The legislation also 

allocated $10 million per year from the Highway Users 

Tax Fund to the maintenance and creation of transit 

facilities. Colorado subsequently passed SB 48 in 

2013, which allowed for the entire local share of the 

Highway Users Trust Fund (derived from state gas tax 

and registration fees) to be used for public transit and 

bicycle or pedestrian investments.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/

clics2009a/csl.nsf/billcontainers

/636E40D6A83E4DE98725753

7001F8AD6/$FILE/108_enr.pdf

http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS

/CLICS2013A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/

9D4690717C1FF9DC87257AEE

00572392?Open&file=048_enr.

pdf

Florida

House Bill 1271 allows municipalities in Florida with a 

regional transportation system to levy a tax, subject to 

voter approval, that can be used as a funding stream 

for transit development and maintenance.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/s

ections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillI

d=44036

Georgia

The Transportation Investment Act, enacted in 2010, 

allows municipalities to pass a sales tax for the express 

purpose of financing transit development and 

expansion. 

https://gsfic.georgia.gov/transpo

rtation-investment-act

Hawaii

Section HRS 46-16.8 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes 

allows municipalities to add a county surcharge on 

state tax that is then funneled toward mass transit 

projects.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hr

scurrent/Vol02_Ch0046-

0115/HRS0046/HRS_0046-

0016_0008.htm

Illinois

House Bill 289 allocates $2.5 billion for the creation 

and maintenance of mass transit facilities from the 

issuance of state bonds. 

http://legiscan.com/gaits/text/7

0761

Indiana

House Bill 1011 specifies that a county or city council 

may elect to provide revenue to a public transportation 

corporation from the distributive share of county 

adjusted gross income taxes, county option income 

taxes, or county economic development income taxes. 

An additional county economic development income 

tax no higher than 0.3% may also be imposed to pay 

the county's contribution to the funding of the 

metropolitan transit district. Only six counties within the 

state may take advantage of this legislation. 

http://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1

011/id/673339
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

125

State Description of transit legislation Source

Iowa 

The Iowa State Transit Assistance Program devotes 4% 

of the fees for new registration collected on sales of 

motor vehicle and accessory equipment to support 

public transportation.

http://www.iowadot.gov/transit/f

unding.html

Kansas

The Transportation Works for Kansas legislation was 

adopted in 2010 and provides financing for a 

multimodal development program in communities with 

immediate transportation needs.

http://votesmart.org/bill/11412/

30514/transportation-works-forkansas-program%20%28TWorks%20for%20Kansas%20Pro

gram%29

Maine

The Maine Legislature created a dedicated revenue 

stream for multimodal transportation in 2012. Through 

sales tax revenues derived from taxes on vehicle 

rentals, Maine’s Multimodal Transportation Fund must 

be used for the purposes of purchasing, operating, 

maintaining, improving, repairing, constructing, and 

managing the assets of non-road forms of 

transportation. 

http://www.mainelegislature.org/

legis/statutes/23/title23sec421

0-B.html

Massachusetts

Section 35T of Massachusetts general law establishes 

the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority State 

and Local Contribution Fund. This account is funded by 

revenues from a 1% sales tax. 

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/

GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapte

r10/Section35t

Michigan

The Michigan Comprehensive Transportation Fund 

funnels both vehicle registration revenues and autorelated sales tax revenues toward public transportation 

and targeted transit demand management programs. 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(

hlkm5k45i240utf2mb0odtzt))/mi

leg.aspx?page=getObject&object

Name=mcl-247-660b

Minnesota

House File 2700, adopted in 2010, is an omnibus 

bonding and capital improvement bill that provides 

$43.5 million for transit maintenance and construction. 

The bill also prioritized bonding authorization so that 

appropriations for transit construction for fiscal years 

2011 and 2012 would amount to $200 million. 

http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.u

s/leg/LS86/CEH2700.1.pdf

New York

In 2010 New York adopted Assembly Bill 8180, which 

increased certain registration and renewal fees to fund 

public transit. It also created the Metropolitan Transit 

Authority financial assistance fund to support subway, 

bus, and rail. 

http://www.ncsl.org/issuesresearch/transport/major-statetransportation-legislation2010.aspx#N

North Carolina

In 2009 North Carolina passed House Bill 148, which 

called for the establishment of a congestion relief and 

intermodal transportation fund.

http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2

009/bills/house/pdf/h148v2.pdf

Oregon

Oregon has a Lieu of State Payroll Tax Program that 

provides a direct ongoing revenue stream for transit 

districts that can demonstrate equal local matching 

revenues from state agency employers in their service 

areas. 

https://www.oregonlegislature.go

v/citizen_engagement/Reports/2

008PublicTransit.pdf

Pennsylvania

Act 44 of House Bill 1590, passed in 2007, allows 

counties to impose a sales tax on liquor or an excise 

tax on rental vehicles to fund the development of their 

transit systems. 

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU

01/LI/LI/US/HTM/2007/0/0044

..HTM
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

126

State Description of transit legislation Source

Tennessee

Tennessee Senate Bill 1471, passed in 2009, calls for 

the creation of a regional transportation authority in 

major municipalities. It allows these authorities to set 

up dedicated funding streams for mass transit either by 

law or through voter referendum. 

http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/

pub/pc0362.pdf

Virginia

House Bill 2313, adopted in 2013, created the 

Commonwealth Mass Transit Fund, which will receive 

approximately 15% of revenues collected from the 

implementation of a 1.5% sales and use tax for 

transportation expenditures. 

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgibin/legp604.exe?131+ful+CHAP

0766

Washington

In 2012, Washington adopted House Bill 2660, which 

created an account to provide grants to public transit 

agencies to preserve transit service. 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/document

s/billdocs/2011-

12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/H

ouse/2660.SL.pdf

West Virginia

On April 13, 2013, the West Virginia Legislature passed 

Senate Bill No. 103. This bill is known as the West 

Virginia Commuter Rail Access Act. It establishes a 

special fund in the state treasury to pay track access 

fees accrued by commuter rail services operating 

within West Virginia borders. The funds have the ability 

to rollover from year to year and are administered by 

the West Virginia State Rail Authority.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_

Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=SB

103%20SUB1%20ENR.htm&yr=2

013&sesstype=RS&i=103
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

127

Appendix G. Summary of States’ Building Code Stringency

State Building code stringency Score

Alabama

Effective October 1, 2012, the Alabama Energy and Residential Code (AERC) became

mandatory statewide, for the first time in the state’s history. The residential provisions of 

the AERC reference Chapter 11 of the 2009 International Residential Code® (IRC) with 

Alabama amendments, which adopt the insulation and fenestration requirements from 

the 2009 IECC. The commercial provisions of the AERC reference the 2009 IECC with 

Alabama amendments while referencing ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 as an alternative 

compliance path. Local jurisdictions may adopt more stringent codes and several have 

done so, having adopted the 2012 IECC and/or the 2012 IRC. 

3

Alaska

Effective July 2013, Alaska’s residential code is the state-developed Building Energy 

Efficiency Standard (BEES), which is based on the 2012 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 62.2-

20112 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

with Alaska-specific amendments. BEES is mandatory for state-financed residential 

construction projects, which covers roughly 25% of housing starts in the state (those that 

qualify for state financial assistance). Alaska has no statewide commercial building code, 

but all public facilities must comply with the thermal and lighting energy standards 

adopted by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities mandated by 

AS44.42020 (a) (14).

0.5

Arizona

Arizona is a home-rule state, meaning that codes are adopted and enforced on a local 

rather than the state level. For commercial structures, all state-funded buildings 

constructed after February 11, 2005, must achieve LEED Silver certification and meet the 

energy standards of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 as mandated by Executive Order 2005-05. Out of 

the 100 jurisdictions that have adopted codes, 54 have adopted the 2009 IECC or better,

with an additional 10 having adopted the 2006 IECC, which, in total, covers just over 90% 

of Arizona’s population.

2.5

Arkansas

The Arkansas Energy Code for New Building Construction is mandatory statewide for both 

residential and commercial buildings, though municipalities are allowed to adopt codes 

more stringent than the statewide mandatory code. The residential energy code is based 

on the 2003 IECC and includes state-specific amendments. As of January 1, 2013, 

Arkansas commercial energy code references ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 with Chapter 

5 of the 2009 IECC as an alternative compliance path. Newly constructed or remodeled 

public buildings must comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2007.

2.5

California

California first adopted Building Energy Efficiency Standards in 1978 and has regularly 

updated them approximately every three years since. The most recently adopted 2013 

Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective July 1, 2014, are mandatory statewide and 

exceed the 2012 IECC standards for residential buildings and ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2010 

for commercial buildings. California’s voluntary reach standards, which local governments 

are encouraged to adopt as mandatory, are adopted in the California Green Building 

Standards Tier 1 and Tier 2, effective July 1, 2014. 5

Colorado

Colorado is a home-rule state with a voluntary building code for both residential and 

commercial construction. The 2003 IECC is the mandatory minimum for jurisdictions that 

have adopted a code previously. Jurisdictions that have not adopted or enforced codes 

are exempt from the 2003 IECC requirement, although the 2012 IECC is mandatory for all 

factory-built and multifamily structures—commercial and residential—in areas that do not 

adopt or enforce building codes. As of June 2013, 95% of new buildings comply with the 

2009 or 2012 IECC standards and the average Home Energy Rating System (HERS) rating 

for new homes was 59 as of April 2014. 

3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

128

State Building code stringency Score

Connecticut

In 2009, the state of Connecticut adopted the target code, IECC 2009 and ASHRAE 90.1 

2007, pursuant to PA 09-192, with the new code going into effect on October 7, 2011. 

The law also required certain standards that are stricter than the target code. The bill 

requires the incorporation of the 2012 IECC within 18 months of its publication, but it has 

not yet become effective. Connecticut’s Codes and Standards Review committee is 

revising the 2012 IECC code to ensure that it is consistent with state law. Subsequently, it 

will be submitted to the Legislative Regulation Review Committee for approval. The 2012 

IECC is progressing through the regulatory revision adoption process and is expected to be 

approved soon, but no date has been provided. Connecticut’s High Performance Building 

standards also require state-owned new construction or renovation projects to meet 

energy performance standards that are 21% better than the most current Connecticut 

state building energy code.

3

Delaware

Delaware has adopted the 2012 IECC, with amendments, and ASHRAE 90.1-2010. The 

new codes were published May 11, 2014, and will become fully effective after a six-month 

grace period. 

4

District of 

Columbia

The District of Columbia’s energy code is mandatory for all construction projects in the 

District. As of March 28, 2014, all new construction projects must comply with the 2013 

D.C. Energy Conservation Code, which is roughly equivalent to the 2012 IECC and ASHRAE 

90.1-2010. The District also has a Green Construction Code based on the International 

Green Construction Code that applies to all commercial construction projects 10,000 

square feet and larger and all residential projects that are 10,000 square feet and larger 

and four stories or higher.

4.5

Florida

The first printing of the 2010 Florida Building Codes, including the now-separate 2010 

Florida Building Code–Energy Conservation, became effective March 15, 2012. Adopted 

by the Florida Building Commission (FBC) in 2011, the state-developed code references 

the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 as base documents, with significant 

Florida-specific amendments throughout. The pending state-developed 2014 Florida 

Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction is based upon the 2012 IECC and 

ASHRAE 90.1-2010, with significant Florida-specific amendments to maintain per statute 

efficiencies already in the Florida code. The FBC certified in letters to DOE that the new 

code meets or exceeds those standards. This update is now scheduled to become 

effective December 31, 2014, as part of the Florida Building Code, 5th Edition (2014).

4

Georgia

On January 1, 2011, the 2011 Georgia State Minimum Standard Energy Code became 

effective statewide as approved by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs on 

November 3, 2010. The state code is based on the 2009 IECC with state-specific 

strengthening amendments and is mandatory statewide. The commercial codes also 

reference ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The state also adopted the 2011 Georgia State Minimum 

Residential Green Building Standard, based on the 2008 National Green Building 

Standard with 2011 Georgia amendments, as an optional code. It is available for local 

government adoption and enforcement. 

3

Guam

Guam has adopted the International Building Code® (IBC), 2009 edition; however, the 

IECC and the Guam Tropical Energy Code were held in abeyance for further analysis on 

applicability by the Guam Building Code Council. Resubmission is pending for fall 2014.

3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

129

State Building code stringency Score

Hawaii

On February 14, 2012, the Hawaii Building Code Council adopted the IECC 2009 with 

Hawaii amendments as Hawaii's updated building energy code. However, only Kauai 

County has adopted the state code; the remaining counties still follow the 2006 IECC. In 

2014, Hawaii passed Act 164 directing that upon the State Building Code Council’s 

adoption of updated codes, counties will have two years to amend and adopt the code or 

the updated code will become interim county code. The Energy Committee of the Hawaii 

Building Code Council has commenced work on amending the IECC 2015, as lack of 

County Building Division staffing does not permit them to amend codes in a timely 

fashion. The Energy Committee also is initiating development of a Tropical Zone Climate 

Code through the latest action by the IECC.

2

Idaho

Effective January 1, 2015, the 2012 IECC will be mandatory statewide for residential and 

commercial new construction, the latter with reference to ASHRAE 90.1-2010. However, 

the state incorporated amendments to the residential codes that removed all the energy 

efficiency improvements from the 2012 IECC, so the codes are still equivalent to the 2009 

IECC. 

3.5

Illinois

On August 17, 2012, Senate Bill 3724 was signed by Governor Pat Quinn, which amended 

the effective date of the adoption of the 2012 IECC to January 1, 2013. The Illinois Energy 

Conservation Code is mandatory statewide and applies to both residential and 

commercial buildings, the latter with reference to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.

4

Indiana

The Indiana Energy Conservation Code is state-developed and mandatory statewide. For 

residential buildings, the 2011 amendments update the 2005 Indiana Residential Code 

to reference Chapter 11 of the 2009 IRC, with the amendments meeting the stringency of 

Chapter 4 of the 2009 IECC, effective as of April 5, 2012. For commercial buildings 

(commercial and residential buildings with three or more dwelling units), the code 

references ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 as of May 6, 2010. Executive Order 08-14, 

signed by Governor Charlie Daniels on June 28, 2008, requires all new state buildings to 

earn LEED Silver certification.

3

Iowa

The Iowa State Energy code is mandatory statewide for residential and commercial 

buildings, although jurisdictions are free to adopt stricter codes. As of March 2014, 

residential buildings must comply with the 2012 IECC, with amendments, while the 

commercial buildings must also comply with the 2012 IECC, with reference to ASHRAE 

90.1-2010. The Iowa Department of Public Safety has a memorandum of understanding 

with the Iowa State Energy Office to adopt and enforce the building codes.

4

Kansas

Kansas is a home-rule state and thus has no statewide residential building code, though 

realtors and homebuilders are required to fill out an energy efficiency disclosure form and 

provide it to potential buyers. In April 2007, the 2006 IECC became the applicable 

standard for new commercial and industrial structures. Jurisdictions in the state are not 

required to adopt the code. Many jurisdictions have adopted the 2009 or 2012 IECC. 

Based on information obtained in a 2013 survey of local jurisdictions and 2011 U.S. 

Census permit data, it is estimated the almost 60% of residential construction in Kansas 

is covered by the two most recent iterations of the IECC. The Kansas Corporation 

Commission’s Energy Division will continue to survey local jurisdictions—cities and 

counties that, taken together, account for over 90% of the state’s residential construction 

activity—and publish the findings annually.

2.5

Kentucky

As of October 1, 2012, the 2007 Kentucky Residential Code mandates residential 

buildings must comply with the 2009 IECC or IRC with state amendments. The 2007 

Kentucky Building Code (KBC) states that commercial construction must comply with the 

2009 IECC or the 2009 IBC with state amendments. On February 20, 2014, the Board of 

Housing, Buildings and Construction voted to approve adoption of the 2012 IECC and 

2010 90.1 ASHRAE Standard for application with projects constructed under the 2013 

KBC. The amended regulations were filed with the legislature on April 8, 2014.The 

effective date of these documents will be October 1, 2014.

3.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

130

State Building code stringency Score

Louisiana

Residential buildings must meet the 2009 IRC with reference to the 2009 IECC. Effective 

July 20, 2011, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 applies to all private commercial buildings 

built or remodeled as well as state-owned construction. Low-rise multifamily residential 

construction must comply with the 2009 IECC, while multifamily residential construction 

over three stories must comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2007.

3

Maine

The Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (MUBEC) was established legislatively in 

April 2008 through P.L. 699. On June 1, 2010, the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

became mandatory for residential, commercial, and public buildings statewide, though 

enforcement varies by population. In 2011, P.L. 408 changed mandatory compliance 

requirements for MUBEC to municipalities with populations over 4,000. Therefore, towns 

with a population less than 4,000 are not required to enforce the code. Towns with a 

population of 4,000 that had a building code as of August 1, 2008, were required to begin 

enforcing the new code December 1, 2010. Towns with a population of 4,000 that did not 

have a building code as of August 1, 2008, will be required to begin enforcing the new 

codes December 1, 2012. This change meant that only 89 of Maine’s 533 municipalities 

(based on 2010 census data) were required to comply with energy efficiency codes, which 

meant the requirement applied to approximately 60% of the state’s population. Smaller 

municipalities may adopt the uniform code, but are not required to.

2

Maryland

The 2012 Maryland Building Performance Standards are mandatory statewide and 

reference the 2012 ICC codes, including the 2012 IECC, for all new and renovated 

residential and commercial buildings. § 12-503 of the Maryland Code requires the 

Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt the most recent version of 

the IECC 12 months after it is issued and may adopt energy conservation requirements 

that are more stringent than the codes, but may not adopt energy conservation 

requirements that are less stringent. Maryland is a home-rule state, so each of its 57 local 

jurisdictions may modify these codes to suit local conditions. 

4

Massachusetts

In 2013, Massachusetts adopted the 2012 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, with 

an effective date of July 1, 2014. The Massachusetts amendments add a HERS 

compliance path for units that receive a HERS rating of 65 or less, and a compliance path 

for buildings that use the Passive House software (PHPP). Massachusetts has achieved 

broad adoption of the 2009 Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code. It is currently adopted in 

140 towns and cities representing over 50% of the state population. The Massachusetts 

Stretch Energy Code requires HERS ratings for all new residential construction at a level of 

65/70 based on whether the unit is above or below 3,000 square feet. For commercial 

buildings, it requires a prescriptive code similar to the 2012 IECC for new buildings from 

5,000–100,000 square feet, and a 20% improvement over the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

standard for all new buildings over 100,000 square feet and selected high-energy-using 

building types over 40,000 square feet.

4

Michigan

The 2009 Michigan Uniform Energy Code became effective March 9, 2011, and is 

mandatory statewide for residential and commercial buildings. Residential buildings must 

comply with the 2009 IECC, with state-specific amendments. Commercial buildings are 

required to comply with ASHRAE 90.1-2007.

3

Minnesota

Both Minnesota's residential and commercial building codes, the 2007 Minnesota State 

Building Code, are mandatory statewide. The current residential code (Chapter 1,322) is 

based on Chapter 11 of the 2006 IRC with amendments. On August 18, 2014, the 

Minnesota state registrar published the Department of Labor and Industry’s new 

residential code establishing the adoption of the IECC 2012 residential energy code. The 

effective date of the new residential energy code is six months from the date of adoption. 

The commercial code (Chapter 1,323) is based on ASHRAE 90.1-2004 with amendments. 

The 2007 Minnesota State Building Code became effective June 1, 2009.

3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

131

State Building code stringency Score

Mississippi

Mississippi is a home-rule state, although its commercial energy codes were recently 

updated and are now mandatory statewide. Mississippi's residential code is voluntary and 

is based on ASHRAE 90-1975 and the prior 92 MEC. In 2013, the Mississippi legislature 

passed and Governor Phil Bryant signed laws setting the mandatory energy code standard 

for commercial and state-owned buildings as ASHRAE 90.1-2010, which took effect on 

July 1, 2013. Based on a June 2011 energy codes economic analysis conducted by BCAP 

and Southface, as well as additional data collected by the Mississippi Development 

Authority, approximately 60% (1.75 million out of a total 2.9 million residents) of the 

state’s population reside in cities or counties with building codes equivalent to the 2003 

IBC or higher, and the average code standard for these local jurisdictions is 2006 ICC.

2

Missouri

Missouri is a home-rule state and thus has no mandatory statewide codes. As of July 1, 

2012, state-owned commercial buildings must comply with the 2012 IECC. Executive 

Order 09-18, issued in 2009, requires “all new state construction, buildings being 

constructed for lease by the state, and significant renovations and replacement of energyusing equipment shall be at least as stringent as the most recent energy efficiency 

standards of the IECC.” Missouri surveyed local jurisdictions/municipalities to compile a 

database of building code adoption in the state’s 114 counties and 990+ cities, which 

was completed in June 2012. It found that numerous large jurisdictions have adopted the 

2009 IECC or equivalent codes, such as St. Louis, while Kansas City has adopted the 

2012 IECC. Approximately 30% of the state’s population is covered by the 2009 IECC or 

equivalent codes.

2

Montana

Montana's residential and commercial building codes, codified in Administrative Rules of 

Montana Title 24, Chapter 301.160, are mandatory statewide. Effective April 2014, 

Montana's residential code requires compliance with the 2012 IECC, with amendments. 

The commercial building code requires compliance with the 2012 IECC.

4

Nebraska

Nebraska is a home-rule state, but its residential and commercial energy codes, referred 

to as the Nebraska Energy Code (NEC), are mandatory statewide. Residential buildings are 

required to comply with the 2009 IECC. Commercial buildings must also comply with the 

2009 IECC with reference to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Local jurisdictions can exceed the NEC, 

although none have officially done so. Nonetheless, 100% of new homes fall under the 

2009 IECC, as the NEC is the minimum standard. 

3

Nevada

Nevada Revised Statute 701.220 requires the director of the Governor’s Office of Energy 

to adopt the most recent version of the IECC. On March 27, 2014, the director adopted 

the 2012 IECC for residential and commercial codes, which will become effective on July 

1, 2015. The 2012 IECC will be effective for commercial and residential buildings 

statewide. The Commercial Code ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 becomes effective on July 

1, 2015. Jurisdictions may adopt codes that are more stringent than the state mandate, 

though none have yet done so.

4

New 

Hampshire

Effective April 1, 2010, the New Hampshire State Building Code for residential and 

commercial buildings is based on the 2009 IECC, with state-specific amendments. The 

commercial code is also based on the 2009 IECC with references to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

Both codes are mandatory statewide, though jurisdictions may adopt codes that are more 

stringent.

3

New Jersey

The 2009 New Jersey Uniform Construction Code for residential and commercial buildings 

is mandatory statewide. The residential codes are based on the 2009 IECC with statespecific amendments. The commercial codes are based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 with statespecific amendments.

3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

132

State Building code stringency Score

New Mexico

New Mexico is a home-rule state, though its energy codes are mandatory statewide. The 

Construction Industries Division (CID) of the Regulations and Licensing Department covers 

all areas of the state that are not covered by cities, towns, or county building officials. The 

2009 New Mexico Energy Conservation Code (NMECC) is based on the 2009 IECC with 

state-specific amendments for both residential and commercial building codes. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1-2007 is an acceptable compliance path through Chapter 5 of the 2009 

IECC. A local jurisdiction can adopt a code that exceeds the state minimum. The city of 

Santa Fe and town of Taos have adopted green building codes that are more stringent 

than the 2009 IECC and require LEED Silver at a minimum. Builders can also use the New 

Mexico 2009 Energy Conservation Code Residential Applications Manual to comply when 

building a passive solar or high mass home.

3

New York

The 2010 Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York (ECCCNYS 2010) took 

effect on December 28, 2010, and is mandatory statewide for both residential and 

commercial buildings. The ECCCNYS 2010 is based on the 2009 IECC with state-specific 

amendments and also permits commercial construction to demonstrate compliance using 

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2007 (Standard 90.1). In addition, several 

municipalities in New York state, including New York City, have adopted more stringent 

requirements as part of local code, such as ENERGYSTAR, minimum HERS scores, 

benchmarking, and early adoption of the 2012 IECC. As of May 23, 2014, the state has 

moved into the rulemaking process for adoption of the 2012 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-

2010 for commercial buildings, with a projected effective date of October–December of 

2014.

3.5

North Carolina

The 2012 North Carolina Energy Conservation Code is mandatory statewide for both 

residential and commercial buildings. The residential and commercial codes are based on 

the 2009 IECC, both with substantial strengthening amendments, while the commercial 

code also references ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 

3.5

North Dakota

North Dakota is a home-rule state and has no statewide mandatory energy codes. The 

voluntary energy code is under the purview of the North Dakota State Building Code and 

the state Building Code Advisory Committee has the authority to make recommendations 

that could include energy standards in future editions of the State Building Code. Chapters 

11 and 13 of the 2009 IRC and IBC are contingent upon adoption by local jurisdictions. As 

of January 1, 2011, in Chapter 11 of the IRC, jurisdictions have the choice of adopting the 

IRC requirements or the 2009 IECC requirements. In Chapter 13 of the IBC, jurisdictions 

must meet the 2009 IECC requirements.

1

Ohio

Both Ohio's residential and commercial energy codes are mandatory statewide. Effective 

January 1, 2013, the residential code references the 2009 IECC. Residential home 

builders are also allowed to meet the requirements of Sections 1101–1103 of Chapter 11 

of the Residential Code of Ohio (based on Chapter 11 of the 2009 IRC) or by meeting the 

state code's new Prescriptive Energy Requirements (Section 1104). In March 2011, the 

commercial code was amended to reference the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and 

became effective November 1, 2011.

3

Oklahoma

Oklahoma has mandatory statewide building codes for residential and commercial 

buildings. In June 2009, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a bill (SB 1182) creating the 

Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission (OUBCC) that reviewed and recommended 

building codes for residential and commercial construction for adoption. Beginning in 

October 2010, OUBCC held several meetings discussing code change proposals. On 

March 31, 2011, OUBCC formally recommended a residential code based on the 2009 

IRC with Oklahoma amendments. The statute became effective July 15, 2011. In January

2012, OUBCC submitted recommendations for approval by the Oklahoma legislature to 

adopt several of the 2009 ICC code editions, including the 2009 IBC. The recommended 

code was approved by the Oklahoma Legislature and the governor, effective November 1, 

2012.

3
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

133

State Building code stringency Score

Oregon

The 2011 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) and the 2010 Oregon Energy 

Efficiency Specialty Code (OEESC), for commercial new construction, are mandatory 

statewide. The ORSC provisions are more stringent than the 2009 IECC, as evaluated by 

the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab. The OEESC commercial provisions are 

equivalent to or stronger than ASHRAE 90.1-2010. The 2010 Oregon Reach Code, the 

state’s stretch code, is available for use in any jurisdiction.

3.5

Pennsylvania

Both Pennsylvania's residential and commercial energy codes are mandatory statewide. 

The residential buildings must comply with the 2009 IECC or 2009 IRC, Chapter 11. 

Residential buildings can also comply with Pennsylvania’s Alternative Residential Energy 

Provisions (2009). Commercial buildings must also comply with the 2009 IECC, with 

reference to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Legislation requires the Pennsylvania Department of 

Labor and Industry to promulgate regulations adopting "a new triennial BOCA National 

Building Code, or its successor building code," and/or "a new triennial ICC International 

One and Two Family Dwelling Code" by December 31 of the year in which they are issued. 

3

Puerto Rico

The 2011 Puerto Rico Building Code is a compilation of amendments, fully compatible 

with all the 2009 international codes published by ICC, including the IBC, the IRC, the 

International Mechanical Code, the International Plumbing Code, the International Fire 

Code, the International Fuel Gas Code, IECC, the International Existing Building Code, and 

the International Private Sewage Disposal Code. On March 1, 2011, all Sections were 

available for adoption except for Division VIII (IECC) and energy requirements of Division II 

(IRC), which were adopted progressively in accordance to the Building Occupancy Group. A 

grandfather clause covered some projects until March 1, 2012, but after that, all new 

projects submitted to the Permits Office should conform to all the requirements of the 

code, except for those divisions stated above. As of March 1, 2014, only groups M, U 

(which shall comply after March 1, 2015), B, R-3, and R-4 (which shall comply after March 

1, 2016) were still exempted to comply with the IECC, and one- and two-dwelling units 

with the energy requirements of the IRC (which shall comply after March 1, 2016).

3

Rhode Island

Effective October 1, 2013, Rhode Island requires compliance with the 2012 IECC for both 

residential and commercial buildings, with state-specific amendments. The code is 

mandatory statewide. Rhode Island amendments include the continuation of the 2009 

insulation table for residential building envelopes, and the stipulation that every new 

residential building must undergo performance testing, but does not need to achieve 

specific performance target levels in order to receive a certificate of occupancy. In 2013, 

Rhode Island mandated that all state buildings adhere to the International Green 

Construction Code. While there is no current stretch code, as part of Rhode Island’s 

Energy Efficiency Procurement Plan, a Building Codes and Standards Initiative has been 

approved by the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, and a stated feature is the 

development of a stretch code targeting “15% more energy than buildings constructed 

according to the prevailing path.” This effort is being pursued in conjunction with the 

Rhode Island Building Code Commission and the Rhode Island Builders Association.

4

South Carolina

The 2013 South Carolina Energy Standard became effective in January 2013. The 

residential provisions reference the 2009 IECC. The commercial provisions reference the 

2009 IECC as well, including that code’s reference to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 as an 

alternative compliance path. Local jurisdictions may adopt more stringent energy codes. 

3

South Dakota

South Dakota has no mandatory statewide energy codes for residential or commercial 

construction. Codes are adopted by jurisdictions voluntarily. As of July 2011, state law 

established the 2009 IECC as a voluntary residential standard. Local jurisdictions also 

have authority to adopt various residential building and energy codes, including IRC and 

IECC. For commercial construction, ASHRAE 90.1 or IECC compliance is required by 

reference in the 2012 IBC, which is the mandatory statewide commercial building 

standard under state law unless local jurisdictions have either opted out of it or 

specifically adopted another code.

1
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

134

State Building code stringency Score

Tennessee

Tennessee is a home-rule state, which gives jurisdictions the power to adopt and enforce 

their own codes. On June 2, 2011, the Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office announced 

that it would begin the implementation and enforcement of adopted energy codes 

beginning July 1, 2011. These include ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 for all state buildings 

and the 2006 IECC for all other residential and commercial construction. 

2

Texas

Texas's building codes are mandatory for both residential and commercial construction. 

Effective January 1, 2012, the Texas Building Energy Performance Standards require

single-family homes to comply with the 2009 IRC. For all other residential, commercial, 

and industrial buildings, the 2009 IECC became effective April 1, 2011. State-owned 

buildings must meet ASHRAE 90.1-2010. For all buildings, jurisdictions can choose to 

adopt more stringent standards. More than 50 jurisdictions, representing approximately 

5.3 million people, have adopted codes more stringent than the minimum state 

requirements.

3

U.S. Virgin 

Islands

In accordance with Title 29, Chapter 5 of the Virgin Islands Code, the IECC and any 

subsequent revisions to it are adopted and incorporated by reference as a part of the 

Virgin Islands Building Code and are applicable to every public, commercial, and 

residential building or structure in the Virgin Islands. Currently, the Virgin Islands Building 

Code requires compliance with the 2009 IECC.

3

Utah

Utah’s Uniform Building Code for residential and commercial building energy codes is 

mandatory statewide. Residential construction must comply with the 2006 IECC, with 

references to provisions in the 2009 and 2012 IECC. Commercial construction must 

comply with the 2009 IECC, with reference to ASHRAE 90.1-2007.

3

Vermont

Vermont’s 2011 Residential Building Energy Standards (RBES) and Commercial Building 

Energy Standards (CBES) are mandatory statewide. Effective October 1, 2011, the RBES 

references the 2009 IECC with several strengthening amendments from the 2012 IECC. 

Effective January 3, 2012, the CBES references the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 

90.1-2007 with several strengthening amendments from the 2012 IECC. The state is 

required by statute to update its codes every three years. The Vermont Department of 

Public Service (DPS) is in the process of updating the current residential and commercial 

energy codes to the 2015 IECC or better and anticipates adoption by December 2014 

with an effective date of March 2015. As specific amendments are still under discussion, 

savings from energy efficiency stipulations are still unclear. Act 89 of 2013 gives the 

Vermont DPS the authority to develop stretch codes and municipalities have the option of 

adopting them. 

4

Virginia

Virginia’s Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) is mandatory statewide for residential 

and commercial buildings. As of July 14, 2014, the USBC was updated to reference the 

2012 IECC and 2012 IRC. Residential buildings must comply with the 2012 IRC; however,

a few technical amendments were made to the residential energy code requirements and

no significant improvements were adopted, rendering the residential code equivalent to 

the 2009 IECC. Commercial buildings must comply with the 2012 IECC, with reference to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 

3.5

Washington

The 2012 Washington State Energy Code is a state-developed code that is mandatory 

statewide. As of July 1, 2013, the 2012 versions of the residential and commercial codes 

require compliance with the 2012 IECC, with the residential standard designed to 

generate an additional savings of 4%. However, equipment tradeoffs render the codes 

equivalent to the 2012 IECC. 

4
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

135

State Building code stringency Score

West Virginia

West Virginia's residential and commercial building codes are mandatory statewide; 

however, adoption by jurisdictions is voluntary. The 2013 West Virginia Legislature passed 

and Governor Earl Tomblin signed into law a bill updating the state’s building energy code 

to follow the 2009 IECC for residential buildings and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for commercial 

buildings. The West Virginia Fire Commission, which promulgates the state’s building 

energy code, set the effective date for the new commercial code as September 1, 2013, 

while the new residential code became effective November 30, 2013.

3

Wisconsin

Both Wisconsin's residential and commercial building energy codes are mandatory 

statewide. The state-developed residential code, referred to as Wisconsin Administrative 

Chapter SPS 322, Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC), is mandatory for one- and twofamily dwellings and incorporates the 2006 IECC with state amendments. Local

governments cannot modify the UDC, but all local governments are allowed to choose 

whether to enforce the UDC. The state-developed commercial code, referred to as SPS 

363 of the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code, is based on the 2009 IECC. It can be 

modified by local governments when the modification is more stringent and the local 

government has enforcement authority granted by the state. SPS is in reference to 

administrative rules issued and administered by the Wisconsin Department of Safety and

Professional Services. 

2.5

Wyoming

Wyoming's residential and commercial building codes are voluntary. Known as the ICBO 

Uniform Building Code, they are based on the 1989 MEC and may be adopted and 

enforced by local jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have adopted codes that are more 

stringent than the voluntary standard: The eight most-populated cities and counties in 

Wyoming have an energy code that meets or exceeds the IECC 2006 or equivalent. Teton 

County and Jackson are moving to the IECC 2012 in the fall of 2014; Cheyenne adopted 

the IECC 2009; Casper, Rock Springs, and Gillette adopted a modified IECC 2006.

1
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

136

Appendix H. Summary of Building Code Compliance Efforts

State Compliance efforts Score

Alabama

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

In 2010, BCAP and the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) developed 

the Alabama gap analysis and an Implementation Action Kit. Alabama was also

chosen as one of four states to receive energy code compliance evaluation and 

implementation assistance through Pacific Northwest National Laboratories 

(PNNL). PNNL developed an Alabama Energy Code Compliance Evaluation and 

Implementation Guide, published in September 2012.

Training/outreach

The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs has been actively 

providing energy code training for many years. Recent efforts include specific 

training on the new Alabama Energy and Residential Code (AERC) targeted 

toward all building industry professionals as well as building and code officials 

and inspectors. Planned efforts include working with the AERC Board to engage 

at the municipal and county levels to increase code understanding, awareness, 

and compliance. The AERC Board is also developing a speakers bureau to 

provide outreach and education to code officials statewide through local chapters 

of the Code Officials Association of Alabama and other industry-specific boards 

and organizations.

Total 0.5

Alaska

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

BCAP chose Alaska to assist with the development of its gap analysis and a 

strategic plan, which were completed in late 2012.

Training/outreach

The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation actively has classes for contractors, 

building officials, and others to train them to be in compliance with the Alaska 

Building Energy Efficiency Standard. However, training budgets have been 

severely limited in recent years.

Total 0.5

Arizona

Utility involvement

Four of Arizona's utilities are actively involved in code-related efforts. Up to onethird credit of savings from building energy codes can be claimed by utilities to 

count toward annual savings goals. Utilities must demonstrate and evaluate the 

savings that they claim.

Training/outreach

The Governor’s Office of Energy Policy works with utilities, specifically Arizona 

Public Service and Salt River Project, on education related to energy efficiency 

codes. The utilities are allowed, per the state’s energy efficiency standards, to 

count the training toward their energy efficiency requirements. Arizona Building 

Officials also sponsors workshops/trainings on codes throughout the year.

Total 0.5

Arkansas

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan BCAP conducted a gap analysis in 2010.

Training/outreach

The Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) has grant with the U.S. Green Building Council 

(USGBC) Arkansas chapter to conduct commercial code classes around the state 

and a grant with the Arkansas Homebuilders Association to conduct residential 

code classes around the state. AEO will utilize Pulaski Technical College’s 

Building Sciences Center of Excellence to conduct residential code training for 

builders, contractors, code officials and other building professionals in 

coordination with SEEA.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

137

State Compliance efforts Score

Total 0.5

California

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in collaboration with the Energy 

Commission, adopted the state’s Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, 

presenting a single roadmap to achieve maximum energy savings across all 

major groups and sectors in California. This comprehensive strategic plan for 

2009 to 2020 represents the state’s first integrated framework of goals and 

strategies for saving energy; covers government, utility, and private sector 

actions; and holds energy efficiency to its role as the highest-priority resource in 

meeting California’s energy needs. The strategic plan established the Big Bold 

Energy Efficiency Strategies (BBEES), which calls for all newly constructed 

residential buildings to be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and all newly 

constructed commercial buildings by 2030. The Codes and Standards Action 

Plan and Zero Net Energy Action Plan add detail to the strategic plan. In addition, 

the CPUC and IOUs conduct EM&V studies to investigate ways to improve

compliance with the standards. The IOU Compliance Enhancement Program 

developed a best practices report based on a gap analysis of seven building 

departments. The 2013–14 EM&V Roadmap includes a process evaluation of 

the compliance-improvement activities conducted by the IOUs and the Bay Area 

Regional Energy Network (BayREN).

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The CPUC completed evaluations of building energy code compliance for the 

2006–08 program cycle in 2010, which can be found on the CALMAC website. 

Evaluations of the 2010–12 program cycle are currently underway and will be 

published in 2014. The 2013–14 EM&V Roadmap includes priorities for codes

and standards research, including evaluation of compliance for multifamily 

buildings and updates for residential and potentially nonresidential compliance. 

Utility involvement

California is a national leader in collaboration with the PUC and IOUs in 

implementation of the standards and improvement of compliance. The utilities’

new construction programs, in close coordination with California’s solar electric 

incentives programs, provide incentives to achieve California’s reach standards, 

pulling builders and other industry professionals through the learning curve 

necessary to sustain ongoing advancement of mandatory standards toward ZNE. 

The CPUC and IOUs also provide technical support to many local governments 

who adopt stretch standards as mandatory in their jurisdictions. Through the 

Energy Code Ace program and other compliance-improvement initiatives, the 

IOUs also conduct in conjunction with the Energy Commission an ongoing 

program of development of compliance tools, including collaboration on building 

performance standards compliance software, form streamlining, and compliance 

training to a variety of stakeholders, including builders, building departments, 

trades people, engineers, and architects. The CPUC also approved BayREN to 

conduct initiatives to improve compliance with the standards in the nine counties 

in the San Francisco Bay Area region.

Stakeholder advisory group

The Energy Commission and other collaborators actively work to improve 

compliance through two major stakeholder advisory groups, the Western HVAC 

Performance Alliance Compliance Committee and the Compliance Improvement 

Advisory Group. These groups on an ongoing basis do gap analysis and develop 

white papers regarding compliance issues, and undertake initiatives to address 

recommended improvements. The Energy Commission also works closely with 

the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) to address contractor failure to pull 

permits for alterations to existing buildings and willful noncompliance. CSLB 

conducts stings and sweeps in conjunction with the multiagency Joint 

Enforcement Strike Force.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

138

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

The Energy Commission, IOUs, and other stakeholders conduct ongoing training 

and outreach throughout the state. The Energy Commission maintains a

telephone hotline where building departments and building professionals can get 

answers to questions regarding how the standards requirements apply to 

individual construction projects. The commission also provides the Blueprint

newsletter to keep building departments and the industry informed. The 

commission also provides training videos through the Online Learning Center that 

building officials, contractors, and others can use to learn about California’s 

energy standards as well as to earn continuing education credits. In collaboration 

with the Energy Commission and the CPUC, the California Association of Building 

Energy Consultants conducts an ongoing training and certification program for 

energy consultants to demonstrate proficiency with the standards. The 2013 

standards also established a training and certification program for professionals 

who provide accepting testing for ensuring quality installation of nonresidential 

HVAC and lighting equipment and controls.

Total 2

Colorado

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The state completed the Colorado Strategic Compliance Plan in November 2011 

with the Colorado Energy Code Compliance Collaborative (ECCC). The plan looks 

at state and local policies to improve codes throughout the state; reach out to 

consumers as well as realtors, appraisers, and lenders; and train the relevant 

parties. This plan incorporates the long-term goals of a gap analysis and the 

specific near-term goals of a strategic compliance plan.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

Colorado completed an evaluation of energy code compliance in the state in 

2013. It found a rate of over 90% compliance for residential construction, noting 

that more work could be done with respect to HVAC systems. It also found that 

compliance with commercial codes is lagging behind residential. This compliance 

study was prepared in conjunction with the ECCC, and is available on the 

Colorado Energy Office (CEO) website.

Utility involvement

In conjunction with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Xcel Energy 

(the state’s largest utility) has supported code compliance though the Building 

Energy Code Support Pilot. The pilot program was designed to work with local 

communities to adopt 2009 IECC standards or better and achieve compliance 

with them. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The Colorado Energy Code Compliance Collaborative is heavily involved in 

building code compliance. The collaborative’s mission is to facilitate compliance 

with local energy codes and to coordinate energy code actions and policies 

throughout the state. The collaborative was originally started and supported with 

funding from BCAP. Now, it is self-supporting and meets on a quarterly basis. 

Training/outreach

The state actively provides training for appraisers and realtors, two of the most 

crucial parties in the promotion of building efficiency. CEO initiated the Appraisal 

Institute’s Green Valuation Professional Program. CEO will continue to offer 

education as part of the MoU signed with the Appraisal Institute–Colorado 

Chapter and the Colorado Coalition of Appraisers. CEO has also partnered with 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EPA, and other third 

parties to provide education on energy efficiency in the home-buying process to 

real estate brokers throughout the state. In the next fiscal year, the Colorado 

Department of Local Affairs and CEO will provide code training to government 

officials, building department personnel, contractors and developers, and 

architects. The training will explain how to adopt, implement, and comply with 

codes. 

Total 2
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

139

State Compliance efforts Score

Connecticut

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

A proposal to conduct third-party plan review and site studies has been approved 

by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) in its 2013–

2015 C&LM draft decision. The Department of Construction Services and a 

committee that engages the Office of Construction Services, DEEP, the utility 

representatives, the Institute for Sustainable Energy (ISE), and Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), is charged with the development and oversight of 

this effort. This process, once adopted, will be repeated annually through 2017 to 

determine additional training needs of local code officials, licensed inspectors, 

building designers, and the trades, as well as the annual compliance rate for that 

year. 

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

In 2014, the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board approved two new code 

compliance studies: (1) The R51 or residential study will assess progress toward 

the ARRA fund recipient requirement that Connecticut achieve a 90% energy 

code compliance rate by 2017, and (2) the C&I evaluation will assess the energy 

code compliance rate, as well as describe baseline equipment in C&I new 

construction for specified end-use measures to support program planning and

estimating program savings and for current and near-term evaluation of the 

program. 

Utility involvement

Electric utilities provide building energy code compliance training and materials 

regularly across the state. Utilities conducted four training sessions in 2013 and 

seven training sessions in 2014. Utilities also conducted two 48-hour training 

courses for contractors on commercial auditing of energy efficiency projects, 

which included a review of building energy code compliance requirements.

Stakeholder advisory group

A committee that includes the Office of Construction Services, DEEP, the utility 

representatives, ISE, and NEEP meets regularly to review progress on the gap 

analysis and the strategic compliance plan. The state of Connecticut is 

cooperating with NEEP to adopt and implement the 2009 IECC. NEEP has 

developed a set of resources and model policy to assist with implementation. 

NEEP is an active member of BCAP/OCEAN.

Training/outreach

In April and May of 2014, DEEP sponsored the Building Operator Certification 1 

and 2 level training course. The purpose was to educate facility managers on the 

efficient operation of buildings, and the format included lectures, small group 

exercises, and facility tours. The state also continues to offer career development 

to encourage partnerships with regional, state, and local architects, building 

officials, designers, engineers, and trade professionals. ISE at Eastern 

Connecticut State also developed a training course for contractors working on the 

state’s Small Business Energy Advantage program. The course is designed to 

assist small business owners in reducing their energy consumption, improving 

their energy efficiency, and providing technical and financial support to achieve 

sustainability and energy goals. ISE is also involved with training for state of 

Connecticut employees to become green professionals through the USGBC Urban 

Green Council New York Chapter GPRO Operations and Maintenance Plus 

Program. This program aims to educate building operators and other personnel 

on the benefits of sustainability in building construction and operation. Building 

code compliance is covered, along with energy-saving operation and 

maintenance practices and efficient HVAC equipment, lighting, materials, water 

systems, and building automation. Lastly, DPUC Docket 06-10-02 charged ISE 

with completing facility manager training for schools, including code compliance 

issues, energy efficiency, and connecting to financing programs and initiatives. In 

2012–13, the state extended that training to include college and university

facilities staff.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

140

State Compliance efforts Score

Total 2

Delaware

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

In 2011, the Delaware Gap Analysis and the Delaware Strategic Compliance Plan 

were published and provided an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of 

Delaware’s energy code adoption, implementation, and enforcement.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

A residential building code baseline study was conducted in 2012. With regard to 

actual building practices, the evaluation team found that Delaware residential 

builders, on average, currently build above minimum prescriptive 2009 IECC 

requirements by 6.6%; i.e., the average or typical home consumes about 6.6% 

less energy compared to the energy consumption of a home built to minimum 

code standards.

Stakeholder advisory group The Delaware Energy Code Coalition is an active stakeholder group.

Training/outreach

The Delaware Division of Energy and Climate is working with NEEP and BCAP to 

bring any available training to contractors and code officials. Delaware held 2012 

IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2010 standards training for code officials and builders in 

summer 2013. Additional 2012 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2010 training will be 

held throughout 2014.

Total 2

District of Columbia

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The District Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) established 

the Green Building Division in late winter of 2013 to specifically focus on the 

strategic assessment and implementation of the 2013 D.C. Energy Code, 2013 

Green Code, the Green Building Act, and other related regulations in the city. The 

division is currently in the process of developing a robust implementation 

program.

 

Training/outreach

DCRA educates contractors and code officials on how to comply with the building 

codes. In fiscal year 2013, DCRA conducted extensive mandatory trainings on the 

commercial and residential 2012 IECC for all DCRA staff and third-party plan 

reviewers and inspectors. DCRA and other District agencies have also conducted 

dozens of trainings on the 2013 DC Green Construction Code and Energy 

Conservation Code for contractors, architects, engineers, developers, and other 

stakeholders in the building community.

Total 0.5

Florida

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) completed a baseline compliance study in 

2012 that was submitted to the Florida Department of Business and Professional 

Regulation (DBPR). The report presents data on energy code enforcement and 

compliance rates and makes recommendations for targeting areas to improve 

compliance. FESC has also published reports on the historical performance of 

Florida’s building energy codes to determine more effective stringency and 

compliance strategies in the future. 

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The FSEC completed a baseline compliance study in 2012 that was submitted to 

the DBPR. The report presents data on energy code enforcement and compliance 

rates and makes recommendations for targeting areas known to improve 

compliance. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The Energy Technical Advisory Committee to the Florida Building Commission 

holds regular meetings on a number of building-related issues, including building 

energy codes. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

141

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

A multifaceted Florida Energy Code compliance methods, tools, and field 

verification training program was established that included the development of 

two instructor-led and two web-based courses, instructor training and course 

development support, and training of building officials and contractors 

throughout the state. On-site training has been performed by Building a Safer 

Florida and energy code webinars by the Codes and Standards Office of DBPR. 

Total 2

Georgia

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) and the Georgia 

Department of Community Affairs have, in partnership with the Home Builders 

Association of Georgia, developed a program for builders to rent duct blasters 

and blower doors for compliance, which was a result of a previously completed 

gap analysis. GEFA has also in the past funded a study for evaluation and best 

practices for compliance.

Training/outreach GEFA has funded Southface over the years to provide training in code 

compliance.

Total 0.5

Guam 

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

Guam’s Strategic Energy Plan, published in July 2013, contains 

recommendations for building energy code compliance. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The Guam Building Code Council seeks input from stakeholders when proposing 

changes to its building codes. 

Training/outreach

The Guam Energy Office (GEO) has a grant from the U.S. Department of the 

Interior of $150,000 for the training of officials and stakeholders once the Guam 

Tropical Energy Code has passed, but no training activity has been conducted yet. 

The Guam Building Code Council plans to partner with GEO and the Department 

of Public Works for future training. GEO has also provided grant money to Guam 

Community College for public outreach and for curriculum development. 

Total 1

Hawaii

Stakeholder advisory group

The Hawaii Building Code Council (HBCC) was created by the state legislature in 

2007 to promulgate updated codes in accord with national three-year code 

cycles, and regularly convenes stakeholders to discuss relevant issues. 

Training/outreach

The Hawaii State Energy Office (SEO), working with various counties, has 

provided a number of training workshops. Through its website, SEO also provides 

building code information and training materials provided at the workshops. The 

Hawaii Building Code Council and Department of Business, Economic 

Development and Tourism lobbied actively for the passage of Senate Bill 2581, 

which would provide HBCC with a full-time administrator and assistant 

administrator. These individuals would assume most of the logistical details of 

adopting updated codes, including educating affected parties about code details. 

SB 2581 passed the 2014 State Legislature and is currently on the governor's 

desk. In addition, SEO is finalizing an $80,000 contract with an energy code

consultant to include training. 

Total 0.5

Idaho

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

In June 2011, the Idaho Energy Code Collaborative published a plan for 90% 

compliance with the 2009 IECC by 2017, tasked by PNNL.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

142

State Compliance efforts Score

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

Starting in June of 2010, the Idaho Division of Building Safety (DBS), through an 

agreement with the Idaho Office of Energy Resources (OER), developed and 

implemented the Idaho Energy Code Compliance Database for tracking 

compliance. The database has been fully operational since June of 2012. NEEA, 

with additional support from Idaho Power and Avista Utilities, completed a study 

of residential energy code compliance in Idaho with positive results: Using three 

different methodologies, estimated compliance rates were 90%, 83%, and 109%. 

The 109% result from energy modeling shows that many homes go beyond the 

minimum requirements. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The Idaho Energy Code Collaborative discusses code compliance, but that is not 

the main focus.

Training/outreach

NEEA provides funding for training; DBS does not budget specifically for training, 

but energy-related codes requirements are integrated into training materials. The 

OER and DBS work in cooperation with stakeholders of the Idaho Energy Code 

Collaborative to provide energy code training for builders, contractors, and 

building officials in all geographic regions of Idaho. Direct assistance for energy 

code compliance is available throughout Idaho. Energy code trainings are also 

available through DBS, the Idaho Association of Building Officials, and other 

members of the Idaho Energy Code Collaborative.

Total 2

Illinois

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The state Energy Office (Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic 

Opportunity) worked with BCAP to complete a gap analysis.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The state Energy Office received a federal grant to conduct a compliance study to 

test DOE’s recommended methods for measuring building codes compliance 

rates. The study found a compliance rate of 86% for residential buildings based 

on the buildings sampled, but the rate was adjusted to 79% to reflect the lack of 

cooperation from a couple of jurisdictions. The compliance rate for commercial 

buildings was over 90%, but a full statistically valid sample was not completed. 

Evaluation of codes compliance and energy savings attributable to the training 

and technical assistance programs has now been built into the annual EM&V of 

the state’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio.

Utility involvement

Illinois’s utilities are involved in the Illinois Code Collaborative, providing training, 

technical assistance, and rebates for third-party inspectors. See below for more 

information. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The state Energy Office sponsored a codes claimed savings advisory group 

(facilitated by the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance) to determine if the utilities 

and State Energy Office could do more to improve energy codes compliance and 

to document and claim the additional energy savings. This effort has grown into 

an Illinois Codes Collaborative with a governance board composed of 

representatives of the Illinois utilities and the state Energy Office. The Illinois 

Commerce Commission has approved this statewide effort as a component of 

the utilities’ and the state Energy Office’s three-year Energy Efficiency Portfolio 

Plan with a three-year budget of approximately $8 million. In addition to 

expanded training and technical assistance, the collaborative will include rebates 

for third-party inspectors to verify code compliance and leasing of equipment 

(such as blower doors and duct blasters).
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

143

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

The Illinois Energy Office spends approximately $450,000 annually on its 

Building Codes Education and Technical Assistance program, providing training 

on the most current IECC-based commercial and residential codes to 

approximately 1,200 building professionals each year. These programs also 

include blower door training, HVAC right-sizing training, and a code interpretation 

hotline. In a new effort, the Illinois Energy Office conducted a pilot program to 

train third-party inspectors and provide rebates to builders that use them in 

jurisdictions that have agreed to accept the third-party inspectors for 

enforcement purposes. Utilities will be paying these rebates in the future.

Total 2

Indiana

Training/outreach

The Division of Fire and Building Safety of the Indiana Department of Homeland 

Security has conducted several classes for state and local code enforcement 

officials with respect to the use of COMcheckTM and some basic energy 

conservation code information.

Total 0.5

Iowa

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

In 2012 the state worked with PNNL to produce the Iowa Compliance 

Implementation and Evaluation Guide. The guide is designed to assist the state 

and local code jurisdictions in achieving statewide compliance with the 2009 

IECC for the residential and commercial sectors.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The DOE Residential Energy Code Pilot Study for Iowa was completed in June of 

2011. The study has not been updated but the state electrical inspectors use the 

DOE inspection forms for energy inspections, and data can be updated from this 

source.

Utility involvement

Alliant Energy, Cedar Falls Utilities, and MidAmerican Energy have for the past 

two years sponsored daylong training events targeting residential contractors, 

architects, real estate professionals, and appraisers. Each year the training 

happens in eight different locations around the state. The utilities cannot count 

education toward their energy efficiency impacts at this time.

Stakeholder advisory group

The Building Code Advisory Council is a governor-appointed group that decides 

when and how the state building codes are adopted and if amendments are 

required. An Energy Codes Workgroup was invited to discuss the 2012 IECC and 

suggest amendments to allow advancement to this code. The workgroup had 30

participants from all aspects of the construction of commercial and residential 

buildings.

Training/outreach

The state energy engineer hosts a number of seminars each year for code 

officials, architects, engineers, and contractors. Group requests for educational 

seminars are never turned down and have been done for groups ranging from the 

American Institute of Architects to the International Association of Electrical 

Inspectors. The state Building Code Bureau has teamed up with the state IOUs, 

the Iowa Association of Building Officials, and the Iowa Association for Energy 

Efficiency to provide training throughout the state. 

Total 2

Kansas

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) annual survey of local jurisdictions 

provides an initial baseline for assessing adoption and compliance. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

144

State Compliance efforts Score

Stakeholder advisory group

In 2013, KCC established the Kansas Codes Collaborative, a stakeholder group 

involving utilities, local codes officials, and others. The new collaborative builds

on the work of the previous Energy Efficiency Building Codes Working Group, with 

more emphasis on development and implementation of the plan to assess code 

compliance in local jurisdictions. 

Training/outreach KCC partners with Johnson County Contractor Licensing program to offer 

subsidized energy codes training for local contractors and codes officials.

Total 1.5

Kentucky

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

Kentucky partnered with BCAP to complete a gap analysis and strategic 

compliance plan in 2011.

Stakeholder advisory group

The Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction (DHBC) has a mandated 

obligation to host meetings with the Board of Housing, Buildings and 

Construction. This multi-stakeholder group represents a diverse cross-section of 

industry and advocacy groups. This group regularly provides feedback to the 

agency on code activities. Furthermore, the Department for Energy Development 

and Independence (DEDI), along with its sister agency the Department of

Housing, Buildings and Construction, has frequently held meetings with utilities 

and other stakeholders in an effort to discuss means of improving 

communications and coordination of activities, messaging, and compliance 

relative to energy code compliance. 

Training/outreach

DEDI has offered an aggressive training program to builders in recent years, 

including training on Manual J for HVAC installers, energy codes for builders, and 

a statewide network of training sessions for the commercial building design 

community. All building inspectors receive ongoing in-service training and are 

certified. 

Total 1

Louisiana

Training/outreach

State Energy Office staff attend regular code council meetings to provide support 

to code officials. Presently, there are no new training classes scheduled due to 

pending legislation, but further classes are expected in the very near future.

Total 0.5

Maine

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

In 2013, the Governor’s Energy Office surveyed all code enforcement officers in 

the 88 municipalities required to adopt MUBEC. For the 2012 calendar year, 

99.7% of homes and commercial buildings constructed were in compliance 

(excluding buildings still under construction or awaiting final 

inspection).Compliance was determined by the number of building permits 

issued versus occupancy permits, or inspections performed by a third-party 

inspector. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The Maine Department of Public Safety Bureau of Building Codes and Standards 

has an advisory board (Building Codes and Standards Board), comprised of 

stakeholders, to provide input on building energy efficiency. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

145

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

There is advanced energy code training available; the cost is subsidized for code 

officials. This advanced training is a collaborative effort between the Department

of Economic and Community Development, the State Fire Marshal, and the 

Energy Office. The state Department of Economic and Community Development 

offers training at the basic certification level (free to those applying for initial 

certification), as well as advanced energy code training. Once certified, code 

enforcement officers need to obtain training annually to keep their certification 

current. The Maine Building Officials and Inspectors Association, as well as 

several regional organizations, seek out training opportunities for their members, 

and partially support the cost of these opportunities.

Total 1.5

Maryland

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

Maryland is a home-rule state, but has an ongoing statewide effort to determine 

the rate of code compliance in various counties. To date, compliance studies 

have been completed in two of the state's largest counties—Howard and 

Montgomery—and studies in other counties are ongoing and will be completed on 

a rolling basis. 

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The Maryland Energy Association (MEA) completed a gap analysis and 

compliance plan, “Reaching 90% Compliance: Maryland Building Code 

Compliance Roadmap,” in February 2012.

Stakeholder advisory group

MEA established a Codes Compliance Work Group (CCWG) in 2012. CCWG was 

put together last year and met three times to give input and direction to MEA’s 

efforts in increasing compliance with the code. The group is composed of MEA, 

the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), local code 

officials, architects, builder’s trade groups, and builders. There are about 20 

members.

Training/outreach

DHCD, Codes Administration, held training through 2012 and into 2013 on the 

IECC—Significant Changes and Fundamentals Seminar. MEA is actively providing 

on-site trainings with 10 training sessions scheduled for 2014. MEA also 

provides an Energy Code Coaching service that is available by email or telephone.

Total 2

Massachusetts

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

In the past two years, Massachusetts’s utilities have completed a 2011–12 study 

of commercial building energy code compliance and a two-part residential 

building energy code compliance study. The first part of the residential study,

jointly funded by the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) and utilities,

sampled homes built to the 2006 IECC and homes built to ENERGY STAR (over a 

third of new construction), and the second part assessed compliance to the 

2009 IECC. The residential studies show code compliance rates of over 90% for 

HERS rated (stretch code and ENERGY STAR homes), and over 80% in IECC 2006 

homes. The IECC 2009 home compliance rate and the commercial compliance 

rate are unknown. Enforcement is performed by local building code officials. In 

the 140 towns and cities that have elected to adopt the state’s stretch energy 

code, enforcement of the building energy code is greatly assisted by the 

integrated role of HERS raters in performing building envelope testing and 

documenting code compliance levels of energy performance. Code compliance in 

these communities is estimated at close to 100% for residential buildings, and 

energy savings are clearly documented by the performance-based HERS rating 

approach, which ties into ratepayer-funded new construction incentives.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

146

State Compliance efforts Score

Utility involvement

A framework of savings attribution for utilities is being developed. Current utilitysponsored trainings and compliance support are being implemented on a pilot 

basis with a view to a broader program in coming years.

Training/outreach

The Green Communities Act requires the Board of Building Regulations and 

Standards and DOER to develop specific energy efficiency training and 

certification for all local code officials. No training has been conducted to date in 

2013–14 as Massachusetts awaits code cycle updates to the 2012 

IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2010.In the current 2012 IECC adoption cycle, the state is 

shifting from state energy office–sponsored training to energy utility–sponsored 

code training and compliance support activities under the broader Mass Save 

energy efficiency programs. Trainings are expected to begin in summer 2014.

Total 1.5

Michigan

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

Partnering with BCAP, the state completed a gap analysis and strategic 

compliance plan, both in 2011. 

Training/outreach

The state energy office recently dedicated some U.S. DOE State Energy Program

funding for training to be conducted through Michigan State University (MSU). In 

the past year, MSU provided five separate training sessions for approximately 

200 participants. Otherwise, a number of code official organizations provide 

regular training throughout the state. The Bureau of Construction Codes also 

provides code training.

Total 0.5

Minnesota

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

In September 2013, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry submitted 

a code compliance study to the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The study 

estimated the weighted average of residential building compliance with 

provisions of the 2009 IECC at about 76.8% and commercial building compliance 

at 91.8%. 

Utility involvement

The Department of Commerce is currently involved in a stakeholder process with 

utilities in Minnesota to identify where utilities can support code compliance and 

claim energy savings as a result of this support. 

Training/outreach Training is provided in the spring and fall by the Department of Labor and 

Industry.

Total 1.5

Mississippi

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

In June 2011, BCAP and Southface produced an economic analysis for building 

energy code adoption in Mississippi. This study estimated baseline compliance 

based on DOE data for building energy code compliance in jurisdictions across 

the state. Based on recent estimates, a large percentage of the state’s 

population reside in jurisdictions that have adopted a residential building code. 

Based on the June 2011 energy codes economic analysis conducted by BCAP 

and Southface, as well as additional data collected by the Mississippi 

Development Authority, approximately 60% (1.75 million out of a total 2.9 million 

residents) of the state’s population reside in cities or counties with building 

codes equivalent to 2003 IBC or higher, and the average code standard for these 

local jurisdictions is 2006 ICC.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

147

State Compliance efforts Score

Stakeholder advisory group

An advisory group, the Mississippi Building Energy Codes Collaborative, is 

currently being formed to meet on a quarterly basis for the implementation of 

both code training and enforcement. The collaborative will be comprised of local 

and state code enforcement officials, builders, contractors, architects, engineers, 

energy managers, facility managers, and state government officials. 

Training/outreach

The Mississippi Development Authority Energy and Natural Resources Division 

has sponsored eight energy code training workshops across the state between 

August 2013 and May 2014 in order to educate architects, engineers, and code 

officials about the state’s mandatory commercial energy code. Additionally, 

training sessions are planned to be offered at the Building Officials Association of 

Mississippi’s annual conference in June 2014, which will specifically work to 

inform the state’s building code officials. 

Total 1.5

Missouri

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan In 2011, Missouri completed a gap analysis with assistance from BCAP.

Stakeholder advisory group

In 2013, the Division of Energy created a compliance working group to assist in 

development of a plan to evaluate compliance with the ARRA Section 410 

provisions related to building energy codes. However, additional work in 

assessing code compliance has been delayed due to staffing resources. The 

workgroup will work with local code officials and interested stakeholders to 

conduct self-evaluations of code compliance, identify training needs, conduct 

training, and perform a second- or third-party assessment of compliance 

following U.S. DOE’s compliance planning methodology.

Total 0.5

Montana

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently hosting a 

stakeholder group whose purpose is to develop a strategic compliance plan to be 

finalized in August 2014. The plan will include a gap analysis to help identify 

recommendations for improvement. 

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

In 2012, NEEA commissioned a study conducted by Cadmus to determine energy 

code compliance in Montana. Although the study is interesting, the results are 

questionable due to sample size, lack of return visits, and items analyzed. It has 

not been updated in the past two years.

Utility involvement

Although no utility commission guidelines have been established, utility providers 

in Montana support energy code compliance activities through the sponsorship of 

training events, testifying at adoption hearings, and supporting agencies such as 

NEEA in their outreach efforts. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The Montana Energy Code Collaborative is coordinated by NEEA and the National 

Center of Appropriate Technology. In 2013, DEQ initiated another stakeholder 

group to specifically address the need for a strategic plan and develop a longterm work plan to implement the strategic plan. This DEQ-sponsored group meets 

approximately every two months.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

148

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

DEQ conducts on-site energy code meetings twice a year with most code officials. 

DEQ provides Residential and Commercial Energy Code summary booklets to all 

building department offices. In conjunction with the Montana Department of 

Labor and Industry, Residential Energy Code Summary booklets and energy 

component labels are delivered to all new houses in Montana. DEQ conducts onsite trainings with building code departments and contractors utilizing a blower 

door and infrared camera. DEQ also provides a two-credit-hour energy code 

training session to real estate professionals and estimates that 40% of Montana 

real estate sales staff have attended a training session. With the adoption of the 

2012 code, training has stepped up dramatically, with offerings of conference 

workshops, webinars, and multiple training opportunities across the state. 

Additionally, the state is in the process of developing a marketing campaign 

directed at home purchasers to educate them on energy code compliance.

Total 2

Nebraska

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

Nebraska has completed a gap analysis produced by BCAP. Nebraska has also 

completed a strategic compliance plan produced by BCAP.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

Nebraska has completed two studies and a third study will be completed in June 

2014. The Energy Office completed an evaluation of recently built homes for 

energy code compliance in 2012. One hundred homes in 18 counties (only 44 

homes were needed for a statistically valid sample) were evaluated by a RESNET 

Certified Home Energy Rater. In aggregate, the state average of energy code 

compliance was 64.7%. The highest compliance score was 83.67%, the lowest 

was 42.55%. Regional compliance rates were also calculated. A summary of the 

compliance code evaluation can be found here. By using a larger sample, the 

agency was able to evaluate homes in smaller code jurisdictions, which was 

essential in designing specific training to address code jurisdiction staff 

deficiencies. The Energy Office also assisted in a code compliance study 

conducted by the Institute for Market Transformation. The study of 42 Nebraska 

homes in the three metropolitan counties (where 75% of new residential 

construction occurs) was completed in June 2013. The study also provides an 

assessment of the effectiveness of the localized, customized, one-on-one training 

being provided to codes staff members by an Energy Office contractor (retired 

codes official). This study estimated that the training provided had increased 

compliance by about 9%, for a statewide average of 75% compliance. A third 

study, which encompasses assessing energy building code compliance for 

commercial buildings, has been completed and the draft report is being written. 

The draft final report findings indicate the statewide average rate of compliance 

for commercial buildings is 83.2%.

Utility involvement

The state’s three largest publicly owned electric utilities—Lincoln Electric System, 

Nebraska Public Power District, and Omaha Public Power District—have a long 

history of providing very strong support (financial and in-kind) for building energy 

code upgrades, training, and code compliance activities. In the most recent 

example, Omaha Public Power District provided $10,000 in support of the Great 

Plains Energy Codes Conference. In the past, all of the utilities have provided 

financing, conference facilities, and other types of support.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

149

State Compliance efforts Score

Stakeholder advisory group

Nebraska formed a Codes Compliance Collaborative in March 2013 with the 

assistance of BCAP/OCEAN and the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. There are 

approximately 35 active participants (code officials, homebuilders, state and 

local policymakers, utility representatives, architects and designers, HVAC 

professionals, home energy raters, educators, a lender, suppliers, advocacy 

groups, and a representative from a general contractors’ organization) who are 

working on the structure of the collaborative, tasks and missions, and funding.

The collaborative meets at least quarterly and continues to work at the 

committee level on issues of relevance, such as training and funding sources.

Training/outreach

The state actively recruits codes officials, builders, designers, and other 

professionals for workshop opportunities. At least four distinct types of 

training/information opportunities for codes officials and others have been 

provided since the 2013 submission: ASHRAE, REScheckTM, and COMcheck for 

2009 and 2012, and right-sizing HVAC systems, all of which were first-time 

offerings. The Energy Office is continuing to provide customized, localized, oneon-one technical assistance to local code jurisdictions. This effort, begun in 

2012, utilizes the findings of the code compliance evaluation of 100 homes to 

identify deficiencies in each code jurisdiction. A specific training course is 

developed by a highly respected, retired code official who then works one-on-one 

with local code staff to strengthen the identified areas of weakness. To date, 

nearly all of the state’s 29 code jurisdictions have received the customized 

training and additional sessions were provided in the metropolitan counties for 

intensive plan review compliance.

Total 2

Nevada

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

A gap analysis study was completed in 2011, which looks into the current state 

of code implementation and offers suggestions to increase compliance. A 

strategic compliance plan was also completed in 2011, detailing feasible actions 

the state should take in order to meet 90% compliance with the 2009 IECC by 

2017. The state provided support to local jurisdictions under ARRA funding to 

pilot its Building Energy Codes Program, developed compliance tools to learn how 

local jurisdictions will/can use the tools, and the time and expense it will cost the 

local jurisdictions.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

A survey on energy code compliance rates was conducted in 2010 and revised. 

The Governor’s Office of Energy (GOE) is a supporting partner of a grant proposal 

recently submitted to DOE to establish baseline energy code compliance rates 

and to increase public education and outreach.

Utility involvement

NV Energy (Nevada’s largest IOU and the major provider in the state) has been 

very supportive by hosting GOE-sponsored training sessions on energy codes, 

including providing lunch for attendees and providing any necessary equipment 

to make the training effective.

Stakeholder advisory group

GOE partnered with BCAP to develop the Nevada Code Collaborative, which first 

met in April 2012, and has also named seven Code Ambassadors. SWEEP 

continues to facilitate the collaborative.

Training/outreach

Several training sessions have been offered on the residential and commercial 

provisions of the 2009 IECC. The Code Collaborative has formed a training 

subcommittee to determine current and future training needs. GOE continues to 

work with PNNL and contractors to provide training on the Nevada Compliance 

Implementation and Evaluation Guide to building code officials and the building 

industry.

Total 2
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

150

State Compliance efforts Score

New Hampshire

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

In collaboration with BCAP, the Office of Energy and Planning published a gap 

analysis in 2011. The New Hampshire Energy Code Compliance Roadmap was 

completed in 2012 as part of the NH Energy Code Compliance project, initiated 

by ARRA.

Utility involvement

The Public Utilities Commission allows the utilities to provide trainings using 

some of the funds derived from the Systems Benefit Charge. The state’s largest 

utility is actively involved in supporting energy code compliance through trainings 

on behalf of all major utilities. 

Stakeholder advisory group

The NH Building Energy Code Compliance Collaborative was established as part 

of the NH Energy Code Challenge, which is a stakeholder group of diverse 

professionals and individuals from a broad range of industries.

Total 1

New Jersey

Total 0

New Mexico

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

New Mexico completed a gap analysis and a strategic compliance plan in 2011 

in partnership with BCAP.

Stakeholder advisory group The Construction Industries Division convenes technical advisory groups 

whenever they have an implementation problem to resolve.

Training/outreach

Code officials receive training through the Construction Industries Division on a 

regular basis. New Mexico is preparing for the review of the 2012 and 2015 

IECCs and, based on the adoption of the most appropriate code, support of 

training programs and outreach will be initiated.

Total 1

New York

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

In 2011, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

(NYSERDA) completed a baseline compliance assessment of new residential and 

commercial buildings in response to New York state’s goal of reaching 90% 

compliance with the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State2010 (ECCCNYS) by 2017, a condition of receiving federal funds through ARRA. 

The baseline study examined residential new construction permitted under the 

ECCCNYS-2007 and commercial new construction permitted under Standard 

90.1-2004 and -2007 and, in general, followed the DOE protocol for measuring 

compliance. The study also established rates of compliance by U/A Alternative 

method using REScheck and COMcheck software. The study found residential 

new construction compliance rates of 73% and 61% (DOE protocol and 

REScheck, respectively) and commercial new construction compliance rates of 

85% and 36% (DOE protocol and COMcheck, respectively). The study can be 

found here.

Utility involvement

In October 2011, the New York State Public Service Commission issued an order 

that includes over $16 million in funding for Advanced Energy Codes and 

Standards as part of NYSERDA's Technology and Marketing Development 

Program operating plan for 2012–16. Long Island Power Authority has developed 

HERS infrastructure to promote codes and provides financial support for towns 

that adopt ENERGY STAR specifications as the local code.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

151

State Compliance efforts Score

Stakeholder advisory group

NYSERDA staff and contractors conduct regular meetings with the code 

enforcement, design, and construction communities. Formal quarterly meetings 

are held with the New York Department of State, the agency responsible for all 

code promulgation and enforcement in New York state, to maintain a dialog on 

ECCCNYS.

Training/outreach

Made possible by funding through the System Benefits Charge, NYSERDA expects 

to launch new training and direct municipal support services in early 2014.These

will focus on the ECCCNYS commercial (2013) and residential (2014) provisions, 

which will run through the end of 2016. NYSERDA will also make updates to its 

energy code website and is in the process of working with ICC to produce a code 

commentary specific to New York’s upcoming code changes This will be delivered 

to every municipal code office in the state and made available for purchase 

through ICC’s website.

Total 2

North Carolina

Training/outreach

The Engineering Division of the NC Department of Insurance regularly conducts 

code training through various state associations and has energy conservation 

code training modules available on its website.

Total 0.5

North Dakota

Training/outreach The state will be working with the Home Builders Association and the Building 

Officials Association to provide training to contractors in the next year.

Total 0.5

Ohio

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

BCAP completed an Ohio gap analysis report in 2010. The Ohio Development 

Services Agency (DSA) has contracted BCAP to update that report, and to create 

a strategic compliance plan. 

Utility involvement

American Electric Power Ohio and Columbia Gas of Ohio provide funding for 

training as part of the Ohio Energy Codes Ambassador Program. Utility support is 

voluntary: The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio does not require utility 

investment in code compliance efforts. 

Training/outreach

Ohio DSA has facilitated the development of an Ohio Energy Codes Ambassador 

Program, which has trained eight code officials from various regions of the state 

on Ohio’s most recently adopted codes. Four of these officials have passed at 

least one energy certification exam to earn the title of ICC Energy Code 

Ambassador. Code Ambassadors will provide support, mentoring, and/or 

customized assistance to their peers in nearby jurisdictions. Funding for this 

program is provided by American Electric Power Ohio and Columbia Gas of Ohio. 

Total 1

Oklahoma

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

BCAP worked with Oklahoma stakeholders in 2012 to develop its Gap Analysis 

and Strategic Compliance Plan.

Training/outreach The Construction Industries Board documents continuous education, training, 

and outreach for Oklahoma code officials, contractors, and tradespeople. 

Total 0.5

Oregon
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

152

State Compliance efforts Score

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The NEEA compliance study (see below) is being used to identify areas where the 

Building Codes Division (BCD) can improve training to building officials and 

inspectors statewide. NEEA, the Oregon Home Builders Association, and the 

Oregon Department of Energy are working on outreach to other stakeholders with 

additional training. 

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

NEEA recently completed its 2013 compliance study for the region. It includes 

recommendations to improve compliance, which Oregon is incorporating into 

training and process improvements. Design is underway for commercial 

compliance studies in the NEEA region. NEEA’s study measured compliance on 

two scales and returned results of 91% and 96%. The previous NEEA study on 

compliance in Oregon was conducted in 2008. 

Utility involvement

The Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) allows energy savings from code 

compliance to be included in utility integrated resource plan energy efficiency 

savings. The major IOU programs (gas and electric) are operated by the Energy 

Trust of Oregon, and IOUs also support NEEA. PUC and governing board provide 

oversight to verify that programs support code compliance and work toward 

advancing codes.

Stakeholder advisory group

NEEA operates a regional code collaborative, with regularly scheduled meetings 

and cooperative deliverables, to help align/compare codes in the region. The 

Oregon Department of Energy also works closely with the Pacific Coast 

Collaborative on codes and standards opportunities.

Training/outreach

NEEA has partnered with the Oregon Home Builders Association for outreach to 

homebuilders and has created a separate partnership with the Oregon 

Department of Energy for outreach to builders, designers, industry, and other 

stakeholders. All building officials are required to be certified by the state and 

complete 16 hours of continuing education every three years. In addition, NEEA 

has developed and is presenting a modified version of the Building Codes 

Division energy code training.

Total 2

Pennsylvania

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) funded the 

Pennsylvania gap analysis conducted by BCAP. Over 90% of Pennsylvania's 

2,562 municipalities have elected to administer and enforce the Uniform 

Construction Code locally using their own employees or via certified third-party 

agencies.

Stakeholder advisory group

PA DEP is working with various parties, including BCAP, to build a codes 

collaborative of stakeholders to determine best practices for codes compliance in 

Pennsylvania. 

Training/outreach

Code officials receive training in anticipation of passing the exams required to 

obtain initial certification. To augment current training opportunities, PA DEP has 

provided funding with Department of Energy State Energy Program funds through 

the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors and Pennsylvania 

Codes Construction Academy to train contractors and code officials through 

2015.

Total 1

Puerto Rico 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

153

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

Regularly, the Permits Office provides training and outreach programs for 

contractors and other professionals of the construction industry. The first edition 

of the new Puerto Rico Building Code was started in 2009, when the Permits 

Office formally established a Construction Codes Committee, composed of 

representatives from the construction industry, architects, engineers, and 

regulatory government agencies, to review and implement a transition from the 

existing 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) to the family of the International 

Codes® of ICC (I-Codes®).Several seminars were offered with the help of ICC to 

familiarize all stakeholders with the 2009 I-Codes. Three days were used for 

technical hearings, where proposed amendments were evaluated in order to 

produce a building code for Puerto Rico that took into consideration its unique 

geographical, climatological, social, and economic characteristics. These series 

of amendments to the I-Codes, together with the original 2009 code, composed 

the 2011 Puerto Rico Building Code. 

Total 0.5

Rhode Island

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The baseline code compliance studies noted below included a comprehensive 

survey of all stakeholders in the building and code industry, with an emphasis on 

code officials. This survey offered a host of recommendations for strategic 

planning and subsequent improvement in code compliance and better building. 

These findings were integrated into the strategic planning for the Code 

Compliance Enhancement Initiative—only one piece of Rhode Island’s long-term 

plan on the advancement of codes.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The state of Rhode Island and National Grid jointly funded residential and 

commercial code compliance baseline studies in 2012. The residential baseline 

study found that on average a Rhode Island newly constructed home achieved 

56% compliance with the prevailing energy code compliance checklist. On the 

commercial side, the average building was found to be either 70% compliant with 

the prevailing energy code or using 30% more energy than fully code-compliant 

buildings. The Rhode Island Building Commission is working with National Grid 

and NEEP on the Code Compliance Enhancement Initiative, which has created 

software and web-based compliance tools in order to continually measure code 

compliance.

Utility involvement

The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is very supportive of utility 

involvement in supporting building energy code compliance, highlighted by its 

December 2012 approval of National Grid’s 2013 Code Compliance 

Enhancement Initiative. This Initiative uses ratepayer funds through the Systems 

Benefit Charge to fund trainings and workshops and conduct technical 

assistance circuit riding. PUC also approved an evolving structure that will award 

energy savings, both gas and electric, to National Grid for its activities in the 

building code compliance arena. 

Stakeholder advisory group

Since 2011, the RI Code Commission, NEEP, and National Grid have been 

working collaboratively on code advocacy, stretch code, and code compliance 

strategies. This collaborative approach led to the formalization of the Code 

Compliance Enhancement Initiative and will continue to monitor and oversee the 

implementation of the initiative across the state in the coming years.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

154

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

In the past, the state engaged in training programs for code compliance primarily 

through the Code Commission’s code trainings, National Grid’s Residential New 

Construction program, and other, association-based trainings such as the Rhode 

Island Builders Association. The Code Compliance Enhancement Initiative is a 

significant complement to that protocol, as the crux of the initiative is 

comprehensive training and technical assistance circuit rider outreach to all 

building code stakeholders: builders, code officials, architects, engineers, and so 

on. The main difference between the two is the depth and breadth that the Code 

Compliance Enhancement Initiative will bring to Rhode Island.

Total 2

South Carolina

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

South Carolina has completed a gap analysis, analyzing the current code 

implementation efforts in the state and making recommendations for achieving 

90% compliance with the model energy code. The state also participates in 

BCAP’s Compliance Planning Assistance Program and in November 2011

completed a compliance plan providing a five-year roadmap for energy code 

implementation in the state.

Training/outreach

The South Carolina Energy Office (SCEO) continues to sponsor training for code 

compliance. During the past year, SCEO supported training on proper duct 

installation and repair through the South Carolina Association of Heating and Air 

Conditioning Contractors (SCAHACC), as well as training in code compliance at 

the SC Homebuilders Association annual meeting. In addition, we collaborated 

with SCAHACC, the SC Homebuilders Association, and the SC Sustainability 

Institute to develop and offer duct and envelope tightness verifier training. Based 

on materials developed by Southface, the South Carolina program includes the 

option of in-person or online training, followed by mandatory field practice and 

testing for successful certification.

Total 0.5

South Dakota

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

South Dakota completed a gap analysis in collaboration with BCAP. It was

published in January 2011. 

Total 0.5

Tennessee

Training/outreach The Tennessee Fire and Code Academy is hosting courses both in person and 

online. In summer 2013 the academy will begin teaching courses on 2012 IECC. 

Total 0.5

Texas

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

The South-Central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource (SPEER) 

collaborated with the Texas State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) to conduct a 

baseline study. The study did not attempt to measure compliance rates, nor was 

it released to the public. The main goal was to determine a starting point for 

Texas to evaluate compliance, to determine what could be documented, and to 

identify next steps. 

Stakeholder advisory group The Texas Energy Code Compliance Collaborative is run by SPEER in 

collaboration with SECO. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

155

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

SPEER has developed a statewide Energy Code Ambassador Program. These 

professionals have advanced training in the energy codes and provide peer-topeer assistance to code officials and builders in their local areas. The program is 

being expanded in 2014. SECO also provides several training programs around 

the state and has established an online training center, the Texas Energy Code 

Training Center: http://www.txenergycodetraining.org. 

Total 1

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Training/outreach

The Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) Division of Building 

Permits has hired and trained inspectors assigned exclusively to energy code 

compliance in each district. The Virgin Islands Energy Office and DPNR have

conducted IECC code compliance training for inspectors, architects, engineers, 

and contractors. The most recent training courses were held in June 2013. Oneon-one instruction on COMcheck and REScheck software is provided by phone, 

email, and in person by DPNR staff. 

Total 0.5

Utah

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

Utah participated in a compliance pilot study in 2011 using a methodology 

developed by PNNL. It showed compliance above 85% for residential and 80% for 

commercial buildings (both new and renovated).

Utility involvement

The Office of Energy Development provides energy code training in collaboration 

with Rocky Mountain Power and Questar Gas. There is no specific utility 

commission guidance regarding utility code support.

Training/outreach

The Office of Energy Development has signed a MoU with the Salt Lake County 

Planning and Development Services to provide training to contractors and code

officials.

Total 1.5

Vermont

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

A gap analysis and energy code compliance plan was completed for Vermont and 

is available on its website.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The Department of Public Service (DPS) measured compliance with RBES and 

CBES in recent market assessments, which were completed in February 2013 

and December 2012, respectively. The technical compliance rate for residential 

was 74% and for commercial, 88%. 

Utility involvement

Efficiency Vermont (EVT), the state’s energy efficiency utility, is very active in 

supporting building energy codes. It maintains an Energy Code Assistance Center 

with a toll-free number to provide assistance with the codes. It also provides

assistance in filling out the certificates. After the state updated the codes, EVT

held numerous trainings for builders, architects, and realtors on the new 

requirements.

Stakeholder advisory group

The state is currently working with NEEP to form a building code collaborative, 

which will be in place by the time the new energy codes become effective, toward 

the end of 2014 or early 2015. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

156

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

EVT provides trainings to builders, town officials (including zoning administrators 

and code officials), architects, design and construction professionals, and market 

partners (real estate professionals, mortgage lenders, appraisers, attorneys) on 

the energy code requirements to increase compliance. The outreach to realtors 

has been particularly successful in making sure energy code compliance 

certificates are in place, as they will require this when representing a buyer of a 

building before a transaction is completed. EVT, in partnership with DPS, has 

conducted several meetings for town officials, including zoning administrators 

and code officials, to discuss the energy code and the new requirements to 

obtain code compliance certificates prior to issuing certificates of occupancy.

Total 2

Virginia

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) completed a 

compliance assessment and submitted results to DOE/PNNL in 2012.

Training/outreach

The Division of Building and Fire Regulations within DHCD provides 

comprehensive training for both residential and commercial energy codes and 

has recently approved a voluntary certification program for code officials.

Additionally, new 2012 code update training is currently underway for both 

commercial and residential energy requirements. At least four more on-site 

training sessions are scheduled for July and August 2014. After live on-site 

training is completed, the training will be placed on the agency’s Knowledge 

Center and available at no cost to code officials and contractors throughout the 

state of Virginia. There is no cost to access the free online training.

Total 1.5

Washington

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan

Washington state has developed a strategic plan for buildings, which was 

updated in 2014. This plan includes recommendations for sustaining and 

expanding training opportunities, and evaluation of code compliance.

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

A residential code compliance study was completed by NEEA in 2013. This report

describes the compliance of residential new construction in Washington State 

with respect to the revised state energy code, the 2009 Washington State Energy 

Code. The study team assessed compliance using two different approaches: (1) 

PNNL Checklist Method and, (2) Significant Item Method. The Checklist Method 

analyzed how well the studied homes complied with each of the 61 codeidentified process and efficiency requirements, while the Significant Item Method 

analyzed compliance based on measures that were considered to have only the 

most significant impact on energy use. The completed study of residential energy 

code compliance in Washington demonstrates compliance rates at 96% and 97%

for the Checklist and Significant Items Methods, respectively. In addition, the 

study team assessed the energy impacts of code compliance by using a building 

simulation model to compare the relative energy use of "as-built" homes to the 

energy use of homes built to meet the prescriptive code. A commercial code 

compliance study was completed in 2008 by NEEA and was based on the code 

enforced in 2001, which was based on ASHRAE 90.1-1999. At the time, 

compliance was measured at 94%. A new study is in the design phase.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

157

State Compliance efforts Score

Utility involvement

The region’s electric utilities provide significant funding for energy code training 

through the regional market transformation efforts at NEEA. Through NEEA and 

individual energy conservation incentives provided by the utility, they provide 

additional funding for projects that move beyond minimum code. This includes 

single-family, multifamily, and commercial building incentives. This is rate-based 

work approved by the utility commission. Washington has a mandatory 

conservation standard that requires the state’s electric utilities to pursue “all 

cost-effective conservation.” This requires utilities to support cost-effective new 

construction beyond code as well as existing building retrofit activities. The 

Energy Independence Act specifically recognizes that utilities may take credit on 

energy savings attributed to codes, third-party programs, and utility hookup 

standards. 

Stakeholder advisory group

Washington state works collaboratively with other northwestern states in the 

development and implementation of energy codes. The Northwest Energy Code 

Group organized through NEEA brings state energy office staff, code enforcement 

trainers, and utility staff together to identify code enforcement issues, share 

training strategies, and develop new code language. This group has contributed 

to the national code development and enforcement success. Resources 

developed by these states are available through the energycodes.gov website. 

The NW Energy Code Group and participating members have developed many 

code change proposals that have been adopted into the model codes, including 

IECC and ASHRAE 90.1, 189.1, and 62.2.

Training/outreach

Washington state and Northwest regional collaborators have provided code 

training for more than 25 years. Code trainings are taken to the participants as 

requested by the states’ building departments, utilities, and builder 

organizations. For the 2009–12 code cycle, the Washington State University 

(WSU) Extension Energy program provided 215 trainings for a total of 5,164 

students. This includes classroom training on all aspects of the code. It also 

includes field training with emphasis on completing air-leakage testing 

certification required by the Washington code. WSU also provides a detailed 

website with numerous training aids, a builders’ field guide, and supplemental 

information to assist in code compliance. See http://www.energy.wsu.edu. The 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Council (NEEC) provides training for the commercial 

sections of the state energy code. For the 2009–12 code cycle, NEEC provided 

training to approximately 2,500 participants. NEEC also provides a detailed 

website with numerous training aids, compliance forms, and supplemental 

information to assist in code compliance.

Total 2

West Virginia

Gap analysis/strategic 

compliance plan Compliance study completed through BCAP.

Stakeholder advisory group

An informal partnership of stakeholders in West Virginia’s built community 

worked together to effect the adoption of the 2009 IECC, as evidenced by a 

slightly later effective date for the code. Parties agreed to a later implementation 

date so that the WV Division of Energy (WVDOE) could provide training on the new 

code to as many home builders as possible. This partnership was formalized at 

the Next Steps meeting on May 16, 2013, at the offices of WVDOE. 

Representatives of the home builders, code officials, architects, and, importantly, 

realtors met to determine the next steps for continuing education (CE), including 

CE credits for each industry, on the codes. Appraisers have since joined the 

effort.
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

158

State Compliance efforts Score

Training/outreach

In 2014, WVDOE sponsored commercial as well as residential energy code 

training. In 2013, WVDOE sponsored residential energy code training to prepare 

the building community for the transition from the 2003 IECC to the 2009 IECC. 

Regional training provided an overview of the earlier code, followed up with a 

session on the newer code, and concluded with training focused on new HVAC 

requirements. In 2014, these trainings continued and included an added feature: 

a focus on the National Green Building Standard with instruction on building 15%

more stringently than the 2009 IECC. On the commercial side, WVDOE expanded 

its ASHRAE training from three workshops in 2013 to four in 2014. In both years, 

the workshops covered the current code, ASHRAE 90.1-2007. In 2014, additional 

components included the need for energy-efficient designs and upgrades, how to 

measure efficiency, how to compare it with other buildings, how to use energy 

modeling to improve prediction accuracy, the value of commissioning/retro 

commissioning/dynamic commissioning, ASHRAE certifications, financing, and 

rebates and incentives. Attendees received professional development 

attendance certificates and those eligible received American Institute of 

Architects and WV state bar credit. Another series of workshops sponsored by 

WVDOE included Energy Efficiency in Commercial and Government Buildings,

with a focus on energy basics, overview of energy systems in buildings, 

maintenance and troubleshooting, operational considerations, identifying 

recommendations, and estimating savings. Industrial Energy Efficiency Best 

Practices workshops included traditional WVDOE-supported topics such as 

process improvements and added components on energy efficiency measures for 

industrial facilities and an introduction to energy management.

Total 1

Wisconsin

Baseline and updated 

compliance studies

Wisconsin received funding from DOE to implement a pilot study of compliance in 

commercial buildings. The study found that new commercial buildings were 

typically over 90% in compliance with the current commercial building code (at 

that time, the 2006 IECC with state amendments as addressed under SPS 363).

Training/outreach

All licensed Uniform Dwelling Code and Wisconsin commercial building inspectors 

are required to obtain CE credits in order to renew their license. Each late 

winter/early spring, the four inspector associations put on trainings, but it is not 

mandatory. The Department of Safety and Professional Services offers various 

training courses throughout the year, which are also not mandatory. Some 

courses are available online, while others are addressed by organizations such 

as Wisconsin Focus on Energy, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin

Builders Association, and others.

Total 1.5

Wyoming

Stakeholder advisory group Wyoming Conference of Building Officials

Training/outreach The Wyoming State Energy Office has ongoing seminars available.

Total 0.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

159

Appendix I. Summary of Revenue Streams, Incentives, and Financing for CHP

State

Revenue 

streams Incentives and grants Financing

Alaska —

Renewable Energy Grant Program is 

intended to provide assistance to utilities, 

independent power producers, local 

governments, and tribal governments for 

feasibility studies, reconnaissance studies, 

energy resource monitoring, and work 

related to the design and construction of 

eligible facilities. CHP is an eligible 

technology 

—

Arizona

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

Energy Equipment Property Tax Exemption 

and Renewable Energy Business Tax 

Incentives offer tax exemptions to renewable 

energy and energy efficiency technologies.

CHP is an eligible technology. 

—

California

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

and feed-in 

tariff

Self-Generation Incentive Program pays 

customers who produce electricity with 

advanced technologies, including CHP. 

—

Colorado

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

Connecticut —

Combined Heat and Power Pilot Grant 

Program provides a property tax exemption 

for renewable energy systems, such as CHP, 

and hydropower facilities that generate 

electricity for private residential use. 

Combined Heat and Power Pilot Loan 

Program helps finance the cost of CHP 

equipment for energy-generating 

projects in development that have not 

yet started construction. 

District of 

Columbia

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

Cogeneration Personal Property Tax Credit is 

a personal property tax exemption for 

cogeneration systems within the district. 

—

Florida

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

Solar and CHP Sales Tax Exemption applies 

to solar energy equipment and hardware as 

well as machinery and equipment used at a 

fixed location for producing electrical or 

steam energy resulting from burning boiler 

fuels other than residual oil. 

—

Idaho — —

Renewable Energy Project Bond Program

allows independent (non-utility) 

developers of renewable energy projects 

in the state, including 

CHP/cogeneration, to request financing. 
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

160

State

Revenue 

streams Incentives and grants Financing

Maine

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

Maryland

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

BGE Smart Energy Savers Program offers 

CHP design, installation, and production 

incentives to all customer classes. Delmarva 

Power Combined Heat and Power Program

and Pepco Combined Heat and Power 

Program offer net system capacity payments 

and production incentives for CHP. 

—

Massachusetts —

MassSave Utility Energy Efficiency Program 

offers production incentives based on a 

three-tier system considering energy 

efficiency. 

CHP systems that receive incentives 

through the MassSave program are also 

eligible for a $500,000 interest-free 

loan.

Minnesota

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

New Hampshire

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

New Jersey —

Clean Energy Solutions Large Scale CHP–

Fuel Cells Program offers grants for the 

installation of CHP or fuel-cell systems to 

commercial, industrial, and institutional 

entities (including nonprofits and public 

entities). Cogeneration Tax Exemption 

provides a sales and use tax exemption on 

natural gas purchases for customers using 

the gas to fuel on-site energy generation. 

Clean Energy Solutions Energy Efficiency 

Revolving Loan Fund offers loans to 

commercial, institutional, and industrial 

entities to finance energy efficiency 

improvements, including CHP project 

costs. 

New Mexico

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

New York

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

CHP Acceleration Program provides 

incentives for installing prequalified and preengineered CHP systems by approved CHP 

system vendors. 

—

North Carolina —

Renewable Energy Tax Credit offers a tax 

credit equal to 35% of the cost of eligible 

renewable energy, including CHP, that is 

constructed, purchased, or leased by a 

taxpayer and located in North Carolina. 

—

North Dakota

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

161

State

Revenue 

streams Incentives and grants Financing

Ohio —

Energy Conversion and Thermal Efficiency 

Sales Tax Exemption provides a sales and 

use tax exemption for personal property 

used in energy conversion, solid waste 

energy conversion, or thermal efficiency 

improvement facilities. 

— 

Oklahoma

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

Oregon —

Energy Incentives Program offered by the 

Oregon Department of Energy provides a tax 

credit to competitively selected CHP 

projects.

Pennsylvania

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

Rhode Island —

National Grid Electric's CHP Program offers 

three tiers of performance rebates based on 

the energy efficiency of CHP units. 

—

Utah —

Utah Alternative Energy Development 

Incentive is a post-performance tax credit for 

75% of new state tax revenues (including, 

state, corporate, sales, and withholding 

taxes) over the life of the project or 20 years, 

whichever is less. Includes CHP. 

—

Vermont

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

Investment Tax Credit applies to installations 

of renewable energy equipment, including 

CHP, on business properties. 

—

Washington

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

West Virginia

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —

Wisconsin

At least 

wholesale 

net metering

— —
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

162

Appendix J. Expanded Table of State R&D Programs

State Major R&D programs Score

California

The California Energy Commission’s Energy Research and Development program 

includes the Electric Program Investment Charge Program and Natural Gas Research 

and Development Program. The Energy Commission’s energy efficiency R&D focuses on 

technologies, tools, and strategies to maximize the efficiency of existing buildings and 

new construction, such as zero net energy buildings, and process improvements for the 

industrial, agriculture, and water sectors. The University of California at Davis houses 

the Center for Water-Energy Efficiency (CWEE) and the Energy Efficiency Center (EEC). 

CWEE focuses on technologies and policies that increase water efficiency. The EEC’s 

mission is to accelerate the development and commercialization of energy efficiency 

technologies. It received initial funding from the California Clean Energy Fund. UC–

Berkeley’s Center for the Built Environment focuses on energy efficiency solutions for 

the built environment while meeting the comfort and environmental needs of the 

occupants. The Center for Energy Science and Technology Advanced Research at UCLA 

includes energy efficiency as one of its four major research areas. The Smart Grid 

Energy Research Center also performs research into the development of the next 

generation of the electric utility grid, with one of their criteria being improving its 

efficiency.

1.5

Colorado

The Engines and Energy Conversion Lab at Colorado State University contributes to 

energy efficiency in its research on smart-grid technology and engine efficiency, 

primarily in advanced ignition systems and after-treatment systems. The Institute for 

the Built Environment (IBE) at Colorado State University engages faculty and industry 

partners in healthy and sustainable building issues, including energy-efficient 

construction, integration of clean energy technologies, and sustainable built 

environments. The Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute at the University of 

Colorado in Boulder is a joint institute with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) to research and develop ways to produce energy at a lower cost, with higher 

efficiency, and with reduced emissions. The Research in Delivery, Usage, and Control of 

Energy research group at the Colorado School of Mines includes energy efficiency 

projects such as the Cyber-Enabled Efficiency Energy Management of Structure, 

sponsored by the National Science Foundation, which concerns the sensing and control 

of energy flow in buildings, as enabled by cyber infrastructure. The Center for 

Renewable Energy Economic Development (CREED) is a catalyst for economic 

development in Colorado through clean energy and energy efficiency innovation and 

entrepreneurship. CREED is a product of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) and partners with state government agencies such as the Governor’s Energy 

Office and the Office of Economic Development and International Trade and industry 

groups such as the Colorado Cleantech Industry Association. NREL also partners with 

state universities as part of the Colorado Energy Research Collaboratory, a research 

consortium that works with industry and public agencies to create and speed the 

commercialization of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency.

1.5

Connecticut

The University of Connecticut’s Center for Clean Energy Engineering focuses on 

advanced energy conversion technologies, fuels and fuel processing, energy storage, 

power management and smart grid, and conservation of natural resources with a focus 

on water. The center employs a portfolio of multidisciplinary faculty through the 

Sustainable Energy Initiative. The University of Connecticut's Fraunhofer Center for 

Energy Innovation (CEI) conducts research in energy production, storage, and 

distribution. The center focuses on developing advanced technologies related to energy 

storage, fuel cells, power management, and distribution. The Connecticut Center for 

Advanced Technology focuses on initiatives in several areas of energy efficiency, 

including advanced manufacturing technologies and strategies for improving efficiency.

1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

163

State Major R&D programs Score

Florida

The University of Central Florida’s Florida Solar Energy Center's building science 

program includes energy efficiency research relating to buildings, schools, and green 

standards. The center has a staff of 150 and receives $3 million in operating funds 

annually from the university and $8–12 million in external grants. The Energy and 

Sustainability Center at Florida State University focuses on energy efficiency projects,

including the center’s Off-Grid Zero Emission Building project, which created an energyefficient mold for alternative energy technologies in both residential and commercial 

buildings, and research focused on both PEM fuel cells and water electrolysis. The 

center has a staff of seven and receives funding from the university. The University of 

Florida’s Florida Institute for Sustainable Energy performs efficiency research that 

focuses on fuel cells, building construction, and lighting. The institute has a faculty of 

over 150 spread among 22 energy research centers, and its funding over the past 

several years has totaled $70 million. The Clean Energy Research Center at the 

University of South Florida specializes in the development of environmentally clean 

energy sources and systems that meet the needs of power and energy producers and 

the transportation sector. The Florida Energy Systems Consortium develops innovative 

energy systems that lead to alternative energy strategies, improved energy efficiencies, 

and enhanced economic development.

1.5

Minnesota

To help achieve the State Energy Conservation Goal on a sustained basis, the Next 

Generation Energy Act of 2007 created a Conservation Applied Research and 

Development (CARD) Grant Program funded through utility assessments. With $3.6 

million in annual funds, the CARD program is designed to identify new technologies or 

strategies to maximize energy savings, improve the effectiveness of energy 

conservation programs, and document the carbon dioxide reductions from energy 

conservation projects. To date, the CARD grant program has funded over 80 R&D 

projects representing over $21 million in grant funds and leveraging nearly $6 million 

in additional matching funds. The Center for Diesel Research at the University of 

Minnesota focuses on the energy efficiency and environmental impacts of internal 

combustion engines. The Center for Energy and Environment’s Innovation Exchange is 

a hub for researching, synthesizing, and pioneering energy efficiency solutions.

1.5

Nebraska

The Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research is a collaboration between the 

University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the Nebraska Public Power District. It was

established in 2006 to conduct research on renewable energy sources, energy 

efficiency, and energy conservation and to expand economic opportunities in Nebraska. 

To date, $8 million has been contributed to the initiative. The Energy Savings Potential

program is a collaboration between the University of Nebraska at Omaha and the 

Omaha Public Power District. Past research has studied low-income, neighborhood 

energy action efforts; real-time energy monitoring; and commercial customer energy 

efficiency program adoption. The University of Nebraska Utility Corporation is a 

partnership between Lincoln Electric System and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln to 

develop new projects for identifying, financing, implementing, and tracking demandside management and energy efficiency projects at the university.

1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

164

State Major R&D programs Score

New York

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) supports a 

broad range of technology research, development, and commercialization activities. 

NYSERDA makes strategic investments in scientific research and market analysis and 

develops and tests new products and technologies that have the potential to improve 

energy efficiency and expand energy options in New York’s buildings, industrial, 

transportation, power, and environmental sectors. The Center for Sustainable and 

Renewable Energy at the State University of New York (SUNY) is a clearinghouse for all 

64 SUNY campuses’ research and development in the areas of energy efficiency and 

sustainability, including the New York “Green Campus” Energy Efficiency Initiative. The 

Building Energy and Environmental Systems Laboratory at Syracuse University is a 

research lab associated with the Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and 

Energy Systems, the New York Strategically Targeted Academic Research Center for 

Environmental Quality Systems, and the New York Indoor Environmental Quality Center. 

The laboratory advances technologies related to a number of environmental issues, 

including energy efficiency in buildings. It was established in November 1999 with 

funds from EPA, the New York State Assembly, the IOU National Grid, Syracuse 

University, and private donations. The Institute for Urban Systems at City University of 

New York identifies innovative solutions to the problems of aging capital stock, 

advances environmental sustainability, and works to increase urban economic 

competitiveness in the management of transportation, energy, water, buildings, and 

other infrastructure systems. The Energy and Environmental Technology Application 

Center at Albany State University is also at the forefront of energy-related issues such 

as smart-grid energy efficiency, thermoelectric, power electronics, sensors and 

superconductors, and advanced photovoltaics.

1.5

North Carolina

The North Carolina Solar Center has a focus on energy efficiency to assist commercial 

and industrial clients in saving energy. This team operates multiple programs focusing 

on CHP technology in the Southeast, and also operates the Database of State 

Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. The Center for Energy Research and 

Technology at North Carolina A&T State University conducts research on reducing 

energy and water consumption and promoting sustainable energy design practices. The 

center promotes and develops strategies for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, 

energy independence, and net-zero energy and sustainable design practices. The 

Appalachian State University Energy Center is an applied research and public service 

program through which the university makes its resources, faculty, and professional 

staff available to address economic, business, government, and social issues and 

problems related to renewable energy policy, technology, and development.

1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

165

State Major R&D programs Score

Oregon

The Oregon Built Environment and Sustainable Technologies Center (BEST) is an 

independent, nonprofit organization established by the Oregon legislature to help 

Oregon businesses compete globally by transforming and commercializing university 

research into new technologies, services, products, and companies. BEST shares 

research facilities for the study of energy-efficient and green buildings as well as 

providing energy efficiency research grants. The University of Oregon Energy Studies in 

Buildings Laboratory conducts research on buildings and transportation to develop

strategies for maximum energy efficiency in new materials, components, assemblies, 

and whole buildings. It has a staff of six and has received funding from numerous 

private and public sources totaling $16 million over the past 20 years. The Baker 

Lighting Lab at the University of Oregon provides support and opportunities for the 

exploration of lighting design, including studying daylighting and the control of these 

systems. Portland State University’s Renewable Energy Research Lab conducts 

research on sustainable urban development, which covers smart-grid development and 

net-zero energy use. The lab is a joint project of the university and Portland General 

Electric that was established in 2010 with $50,000 in funding from the utility. The 

Energy Trust of Oregon is an independent nonprofit organization dedicated to helping 

utility customers benefit from saving energy and generating renewable energy. In the 

area of energy efficiency, the trust runs programs to field-test emerging technologies. 

The Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium is a national University 

Transportation Center and a partnership between Portland State University, the 

University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and the Oregon Institute of Technology. 

The group supports innovation through advanced technology, integration of land use 

and transportation, and healthy communities, and has also teamed up with Portlandbased Green Lite Motors to bring a 100-mile-per-gallon vehicle closer to market. 

1.5

Pennsylvania

The Energy Research Center at Lehigh University emphasizes research dealing with 

energy conversion, power generation, and environmental control. The center’s research 

is supported by contracts and grants from government and industry. The center also 

operates the Energy Liaison Program, which provides consultation and problem-solving 

assistance to participating companies for up to $20,000 a year. The Indoor 

Environment Center at the Penn State Institutes of Energy and the Environment 

conducts research, knowledge transfer, and outreach activities to support the 

development of indoor environments that are safer and more thermally, visually, and 

acoustically comfortable, and that minimize the use of energy and other resources. The 

Consortium for Building Energy Innovation (CBEI) is located at the Navy Yard in 

Philadelphia. CBEI is comprised of 14 organizations, including major research 

universities, global industrial firms, and national laboratories from across the United 

States who collaborate to develop and demonstrate solutions for 50% energy reduction 

in existing buildings by 2030. CBEI is a research and demonstration center that works 

in close partnership with DOE's Building Technologies Office. 

1.5

Wisconsin

The Energy Center of Wisconsin conducts technology and field research, energy 

efficiency program evaluation, and market research; offers education programs; and 

develops and implements programs. The center has a staff of 44 and an annual budget 

of approximately $2 million from state, customer, private, and other sources. Wisconsin 

Focus on Energy operates an emerging technology program that promotes emerging 

industrial energy efficiency technologies. The program deploys and commercializes 

technologies that have the potential for large, cost-effective energy savings and that 

have multiple installations in Wisconsin, and it can provide technology evaluations, 

development plans, and funding for businesses that have developed new technologies.

The Solar Energy Lab at the University of Wisconsin emphasizes the application of 

engineering concepts to energy problems, including solar heating, photovoltaics, 

dessicant and absorption cooling, and HVAC and air quality.

1.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

166

State Major R&D programs Score

Arizona

The Sustainable Energy Solutions Group of Northern Arizona State provides research, 

development, and demonstration of new as well as improved energy technologies and 

systems, including those focused on efficiency. The group is funded by the Arizona 

Technology Research and Initiative Fund as well as an average of $400,000 per year in 

external funding. Arizona State University’s Light Works Center is focused in part on 

energy efficiency, including research into solid-state lighting as a way to reduce energy 

costs as well as the interaction of human behavior and energy-efficient technologies.

1

Georgia

Funded in part by the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, the Southface Energy 

Institute, with a staff of almost 50, conducts research and training on energy-efficient 

housing and communities. The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority collaborates 

with the institute on its weatherization training and technical assistance. At the Georgia 

Institute of Technology, the Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems focuses on 

engineering water and power infrastructures, and the institute’s current efficiencybased research is focused around its Sustainable Infrastructure for Energy and Water 

Systems Project funded by the National Science Foundation. This project has secondary 

teams from Arizona State University and the University of Georgia.

1

Illinois

The University of Illinois at Chicago’s Energy Resources Center focuses on energy 

conservation and production technologies and assists both private and public 

institutions at the local and state levels by identifying opportunities for improved 

efficiency and reduced utility bills. The center receives funding from the university, a 

variety of public and private clients, and sponsorships from the Amoco Foundation, 

Commonwealth Edison, the Electric Power Research Institute, People’s Energy 

Corporation, and Nicor Incorporated. The Illinois Sustainable Technology Center at the 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne promotes sustainability through resource 

conservation, pollution prevention, and research efforts, including energy efficiency.

1

Iowa

The Iowa Energy Center strives to advance efficiency and renewable energy within the 

state through research and development while providing a model for the state to 

decrease its dependence on imported fuels. It receives its funding from an annual 

assessment on the gross intrastate revenues of all natural gas and electric utilities in 

Iowa. The state also partners with private companies for research and development of 

energy-efficient technologies through the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA). 

Through IEDA, Iowa supports $2 million in research activities in small and mediumsized companies as well as technology transfer and commercialization efforts.

1

Kansas

Studio 804, Incorporated is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation that works in partnership 

with the University of Kansas’s School of Architecture, Design, and Planning and is 

committed to the continued research and development of sustainable, affordable, and 

inventive building solutions. For the last 16 years, Studio 804 has pioneered new 

technologies and advanced construction techniques, including five LEED Platinum 

projects, one of which is the Sustainable Prototype in Greensburg, Kansas. Established 

in the 1970s at Wichita State University, the Center for Energy Studies researches 

efficient and innovative solutions for the electric power industry. It is one of 13

university members of the Power Systems Engineering Research Center, an 

organization including the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, the 

Electric Power Research Institute, industry, and utilities.

1
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

167

State Major R&D programs Score

Maryland

The University of Maryland Energy Research Center (UMERC) is dedicated to the 

development of energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable technologies and 

practices and leads one of the U.S. DOE Energy Frontier Research Centers focused on 

energy storage. UMERC also educates the public on matters of energy efficiency and 

sustainability, and focuses specifically on HVAC, CHP, lighting and building efficiency, 

and waste heat recovery. UMERC and its affiliated faculty receive funding from the 

University of Maryland, U.S. DOE, and a variety of other sources based on research 

topic. The Maryland Clean Energy Technology Incubator@bwtech supports 

entrepreneurs and early-stage energy efficiency and conservation businesses seeking 

to transition from research and development into demonstration and ultimately 

commercialization.

1

Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Partnership (MAEEP) supports demonstration of 

energy efficiency technology and tools to the industrial, commercial, and institutional 

sectors. The MAEEP program leverages resources from DOE, the University of 

Massachusetts, and Massachusetts electric utilities NSTAR, MECO and WMECO in 

partnership. The Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst focuses on renewable energy resources, energy efficiency in 

buildings, industrial energy efficiency, and environmental technologies with unique 

abilities to service energy and environmental problems. The center has 43 faculty and 

staff and is funded in part through DOE grants. Massachusetts is also leveraging $4.5

million in grants to pilot programs to demonstrate energy-efficient technologies in the 

building sector.

1

Michigan

The Michigan NextEnergy Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization focused on 

energy efficiency and battery storage that leases laboratory facilities, business 

incubator space, and other facilities to members of the state's alternative energy 

industry. As part of a “renaissance zone,” businesses within the NextEnergy Center may 

be eligible for tax benefits in addition to the numerous tax credits the state offers 

alternative energy businesses. The state has also partnered with NextEnergy to test 

and demonstrate advanced lighting technology. The Clean Energy Research Center at 

Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, conducts research to help deliver energy 

efficiency solutions, create new clean energy jobs, and develop natural resource, 

environmental, and economic technologies. The center was created in March 2011, 

funded by an initial grant from the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and 

Economic Growth and the Energy Systems Group.

1

Tennessee

The University of Tennessee has a strong partnership with Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, which collaborates with other state stakeholders and industry members, 

including the Electric Power Research Institute. The University of Tennessee Research 

Foundation also promotes the commercialization and deployment of advanced 

technologies, some of which are related to energy efficiency. State universities also 

partner with other federal agencies. CURENT at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

is jointly supported by the National Science Foundation and DOE. CURENT's research 

focuses on improvement in the transmission grid, better accommodation of renewable 

energy sources, full utilization of energy storage, and accommodation of responsive 

load.

1
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

168

State Major R&D programs Score

Texas

Texas A&M’s Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) includes the Energy Systems 

Laboratory (ESL), which is focused on energy-related research, energy efficiency, and 

emissions reduction. ESL directs its efforts toward innovative energy technologies and 

systems and commercializing affordable results for industry, and also plays an 

important role in the implementation of state energy standards. TEES researchers are 

also developing web-based tools to test the energy efficiency of new homes before 

construction. The University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Energy and Environmental 

Resources focuses on the efficient and economical use of energy and on ensuring a 

cleaner environment by developing, in cooperation with industry, processes and 

technologies that minimize waste and conserve natural resources.

1

Virginia

The Tobacco Commission in Virginia has allocated $42 million to help fund research 

and development centers in Southside and Southwest Virginia since 2007.The 

Riverstone Energy Center focuses on modeling and simulation to support the energy 

technology commercialization process. The R&D Center for Advanced Manufacturing 

and Energy Efficiency supports projects in advanced manufacturing and energy 

efficiency. The state also offers grants to encourage collaboration between private 

investors and Virginia’s educational institutions in conducting R&D activities in the 

tobacco regions of the Commonwealth.

1

Alabama

The University of Alabama’s Center for Advanced Vehicle Technologies assists in the 

research and development of numerous transportation systems and vehicles, and has 

a faculty and staff of 30. Its efficiency research is primarily focused on improving 

powertrains as well as energy storage and fuel cells.

0.5

Alaska

The Cold Climate Housing Research Center, which represents 1,200 building industry 

organizations in Alaska and has a staff of 26, conducts applied RD&D on sustainable, 

energy-efficient, and healthy buildings. The center’s Research and Testing Facility first 

opened in 2006 after receiving $5.2 million in public and private funding.

0.5

District of Columbia

The Green Building Fund Grant Program provides funding to research projects related 

to green buildings, including efficiency-related measures such as urban heat islands 

and zero-energy homes.

0.5

Hawaii

The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii focuses on the 

development of technologies in the energy field. The institute's work covers a wide 

range of research areas such as renewable energy, energy storage, energy-efficient 

buildings, fuel cells, grid systems, and transportation.

0.5

Idaho

The Center for Advanced Energy Studies is a partnership between Idaho National 

Laboratory and the state of Idaho through its three public research universities: Boise 

State University, Idaho State University, and the University of Idaho. The center 

performs research on energy efficiency as well as a variety of other issues, and receives 

funding from the state of Idaho, U.S. DOE, and a variety of private and public 

customers.

0.5

Kentucky

The Conn Center for Renewable Energy Research at the University of Louisville 

conducts research that increases homegrown energy sources to meet the national 

need while reducing energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil. The center 

has over 60 faculty members at universities across the state, and has steadily been 

increasing its annual research expenditures from $900,000 in 2007 to $2.1 million in 

2011, with the goal of reaching $5 million by 2016.

0.5

Maine

The Maine Technology Institute (MTI) invests in research and development. MTI defines 

its areas of focus as clusters, one of which is energy and the environment and explicitly 

includes energy efficiency technologies.

0.5
2014 STATE SCORECARD ©ACEEE

169

State Major R&D programs Score

Mississippi

Under Mississippi's Smart Business Act, a corporation collaborating with a state 

university for research and development purposes, including energy-related research, is 

eligible for a 25% rebate of the total research costs. The Energy Institute at Mississippi 

State University works to develop new technologies to promote energy efficiency 

through CHP concepts and energy audits, as well as developing technology to generate 

renewable transportation and heating fuel from biomass.

0.5

Nevada

The Center for Energy Research at the University of Nevada–Las Vegas engages in both 

energy efficiency and renewable energy research. Conventional power generation 

systems, energy conservation devices and systems, and environmental control issues 

for energy systems are of interest.

0.5

New Jersey

The New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology administers the Edison 

Innovation Clean Energy Fund through an MoU with the New Jersey Board of Public 

Utilities. The Clean Energy Fund provides grants of $100,000 to $500,000 to New 

Jersey companies for demonstration projects and developmental and ancillary activities 

necessary to commercialize renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

0.5

Ohio

The Center for Energy, Sustainability, and the Environment at Ohio State University 

conducts research in efficient energy infrastructure systems (e.g., power grid and 

transportation networks), as well as "systems of energy systems" (e.g., smart microgrids 

and markets).

0.5

Puerto Rico

The Puerto Rico Energy Center works to advance Puerto Rico's energy efficiency and 

clean energy use through research, technology transfer, education, and demonstration.

The center is operated by the University of Turabo with active participation by faculty 

members and researchers from different disciplines and universities.

0.5

Rhode Island

The University of Rhode Island Outreach Center established its Sustainable Energy 

Program to develop and implement locally based solutions to global energy challenges 

by partnering with local, state, regional, and national decision makers, energy 

providers, nonprofits, and the business community while training and engaging 

students. Within this group, there is a focus on energy efficiency and technology 

assessment research. 

0.5

Utah

Utah State University has partnered with WAVE, Incorporated, to develop an electric bus 

charged by wireless energy transfer between the roadway and the vehicle. The 

university also operates the Utah House, an energy and water efficiency demonstration 

facility.

0.5

Vermont

The University of Vermont Smart Grid Research Center conducts research on the 

technological, human behavior, and public policy implications of smart-grid technology, 

including its use to increase energy efficiency.

0.5

Washington

The Northwest Building Energy Technology Hub is a statewide proof-of-concept center 

and regional test bed for building energy technology development and commercial 

acceleration. The state of Washington provided $5 million in state capital funds for the 

program.

0.5

West Virginia

The Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) at West Virginia University works to achieve energy 

independence and to transition to more sustainable energy forms. Research projects 

focus on carbon capture and geologic storage, high-efficiency engines and vehicle 

technologies, fuel production, clean power generation and distribution, utilization of 

coal for clean fuels and chemicals, biomass conversion and utilization, and sustainable 

use of water in energy production. AEI currently has 15 staff in their sustainable energy 

program, which houses the initiative’s energy efficiency research.

0.5