## 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 14 th 

### Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20045

Phone: (202) 507

- 4000 • Twitter: @ACEEEDC

Facebook.com/myACEEE • www.aceee.org2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### i 

## Contents

About the Authors

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. iii

Acknowledgments

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. iv

Executive Su mmary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ v

Key Findings

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... v

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... vii

Strategies for Impro ving 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

................................ ................................ .......................... 642014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 Standard s

................................ ... 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

................................ ............................... 1622014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### iii 

## About the Authors

Annie Gilleo joined ACEEE in 2013. She is the lead author for t he 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 l ead

- by

- example and transportation policies. He contributes to both the
State and Cit y 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 level s , 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, particu larly those pertaining to combined heat and power (CHP) systems and industrial energy efficiency programs. Anna is currently a visiting fellow at ACEEE, having

return ed 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 S tate C lean E nergy R esource P roject 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 Proje ct.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 f oremost, 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 Effici ency as a Resource); Josh Craft (Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships); Julia Friedman (Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance); Howard Geller, Christine Brin ker, 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); Jan ine 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 Brick field, 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### v 

## Executive Summary

Conversations a bout 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

— e nergy efficiency. Energy efficiency improvements help businesses, governments, and consumers meet their needs by using less energy

. Efficiency sav es money, driv es investment across all sectors of the econ omy, creates jobs, and reduc es the environmental imp acts 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 efficienc y originated in states. The 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard reflects th ese 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 t he progress of state energy efficiency policies and programs . It encourag es 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 suppl y of the energy resources on which they depend

.



## K EY 

## F INDINGS



### 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 st ate’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 an d 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 utility2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### vi programs. The state’s budgets for electric efficiency programs increased 30% betwe en 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. T he state is once again realizing consistent levels of e lectricity 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 electric ity 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 rep orted at 276 million therms (MMTherms) , a 19% increase over the 2011 savings report ed 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, Massachuse tts, 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.

C alifornia 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 Ohio2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### vii made a similar decision to effectively eliminate EERS requirements , resulting in a fall of
seven spots.



## R ESULTS



### The 2014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard assesse s 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 p olicies

 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 Ener gy 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 Ore gon all rank third).

Figure ES1

. 2014 State Scorecard r ankings2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



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

Rank State Utility & public
benefits programs & policies (20 pts.) Trans

portation 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 0.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 ensurin g 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.) Trans

portation 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



## S TRATEGIES FOR 

## I MPROVING 

## E NERGY 

## E FFICIENCY


### Put in place and adequately fund a n 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 p rogram 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 administrator s 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. M andatory building energy codes are one way to ensure a minimu m 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 i n 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 ener gy 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 eq ual footing , requir ing them to develop a specific methodology for2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 tha t CHP does not displace traditional energy efficiency measures.

Example : Massachusetts

Expand state

- led efforts and make them visible. E fforts may include putting in place sustainable funding sources for energy efficiency incentive programs

, leading by example by incorporating energy efficiency in to 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 energy

efficient technologies.

Examples : New York, Maryland, Alaska2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 supp ly. 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. Efficienc y 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 gr owth and environmental benefits.

The State Scorecard builds on previous research by the American Council for an Energy

Efficient 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 th e 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 ei ght 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 high lights 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 pro grams 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 2 

## Chapter 1

. Methodology and Results

Author: Annie Gilleo



## S CORING 

### 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 programs 1 

### and policies, transportation policies, building energy codes, policies encou raging 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 li kely 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, Elliot t , 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 3 T able 1. Scoring by policy area and c ategories

Poli cy category and s ubcategory Maximum

s core % of total

p oints

Utility and public benefits programs and p olicies 20 40%

Budgets for electricity efficiency p rograms 5 10%

Budg ets for natural gas efficiency p rograms 2 4 %

Annual savings from e lectricity efficiency p rograms 5 10%

Annual savings from natural gas efficiency p rograms 2 4 %

Large customer opt

- out programs * (

– 1) NA

Energy efficiency resource s tandards (EERS s ) 3 6%

Performance incentives and fixed cost r ecovery 3 6%

Transportation p olicies 9 18%

Greenhouse gas (GHG) tailpipe em issions s tandards 1.5 3 %

Electric vehicle (EV) registrations 0.5 1%

Integration of transportation and land use p lanning 1 2 %

Freight plans and energy efficiency targets 1 2%

Targets to reduce vehicle miles t raveled 1 2 %

Change in vehicle miles traveled 1 2%

Transit f unding 1 2%

Transit l egislation 0.5 1 %

Complete streets p olicies 0.5 1%

High

- efficiency vehicle consumer i ncentives 0.5 1%

Building energy c odes 7 14%

Level of code s tringency 5 10%

Code enforcement and c ompliance 2 4%

Combined heat and p ower 5 10%

Interconnection s tandard 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 s upport 0.5 1%

State government i nitiatives 7 14%

Financial i ncentives 2.5 5%

Energy disclosure p olicies 1 2%

Lead

- by

- example e fforts in state facilities and f leets 2 4%

Research and d evelopment 1.5 3%

Appliance and equipment efficiency s tandards 2 4%

Maximum t otal s core 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 se nt 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

2 014

.

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 potentia l of en ergy 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 ener gy 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. W e

cont inued 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 avail able, we did rely on 2012 savings data, but for most states the data lag was significantly decreased. W e 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 stat es 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 po rtion 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 saving s 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 compl etely 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 reflect2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 5 this negati ve trend, we subtract ed 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 ti me this year. States with a significant number of EV registrations per 100,000 people were awarded 0.5 point s

. 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 transp ortation
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 elig ible 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 effort s 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

sta keholder 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 m ade 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 use d to score states. We did not include

t erritories in our overall rankings, howeve r.



## S TATE 

## D ATA 

## C OLLECTION AND 

## R EVIEW 

### 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 commissio n 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 asked2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 6 each state energy office to review informa tion 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 utilit y 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 2 014 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard prior to publication.



## D ATA 

## L IMITATIONS



### 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 efficien cy 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, s uch 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 (Mac kres 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 fr amework 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

sco re. 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, w ith the exception of utility policies, we have not scored energy efficiency policy areas on reported savings or spending data attributable

to a particular policy acti on. I nstead

, we have developed best practice metrics for scor ing 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 ener gy 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 r e lied on best practice metrics. To the extent2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 ca n be found in each chapter.



## 2014 S TATE 

## E

NERGY 

## E FFICIENCY 

## S CORECARD 

## R ESULTS



### The results of the State Scorecard are presented in f igure 1 and more fully described in t able
2. We then highlight some key changes in state rankings, discuss which states are maki ng 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 map2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 8 Table 2. Summary of state s cores in the 2014 State Scorecard

Rank State Utility & public
benefits programs & policies (20 pts.) Trans

portation 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 0.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 stat es 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 easil y 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.

Massa chusetts and California continued to score high er 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 th is year, with Rhode Island m oving 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 categori es . In general, territories scored near the bottom, largely
because their publicly owned utilities do not offer energy efficiency programs. Tho ugh 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 t able 3.

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

Territory Utility & public
benefits programs & policies (20 pts.) Trans

portation 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 in vestments 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 sav ings targets of 2.5

– 2.6% through 2015 and natural gas targets of 1.08

– 1.19% per2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 bu ildings 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 hav ing the potential to ach ieve the top rank

. C ontinu ous 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 occ upied the top 5 spots, and 14 have appeared somewhere in the top 10 . California and Oregon are the only state s 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 ti er 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, no ne 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 wa vered i n 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 th e rankings, although not high e nough to put i t 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 11 Table 4 . Leading s tates in the State
Scorecard , by years at the t op

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 poli cy 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 s tates 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 non etheless did not earn additional points . This does not reflect stagnation in effort or outcome . Rather, we raised the
bar and award ed 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 12 Table 5 . Number of states gaining or losing points compared to 2013, by p olicy

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 gov ernment initiatives 9 18% 21 41% 21 41%

Appliance standards 0 0% 51 100% 0 0%

Total s core 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 w hile several
others hover ed near the 2% mark

, demonstrating the significant savings available when programs are well funded and well directed. Savings from ele ctric 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 an d 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 t o make progress. Rather, this overall loss in point s reflects the fact that we once again increased the saving s levels required per point
earned for utility energy efficiency program savings. The increased stringency is an accurate
reflection of the direct ion 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
multi year plans suggest that more states will receive full points in the future as the ir 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 sav ings, 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 13 Most

- Improved States

Sixteen states rose in the rankings th is 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 y ear relative to last) as well as rank (reflecting its efforts relative to other states) compared to those results i n 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 increase s in score.

Table 6 . Changes from 2013 for most

- improved s tates

Change

in s core Change

in r ank 2014

r anking

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.

A rkansas 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 S outheast 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 remain ed about the same, el ectricity 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

- to

date commercial buildi ng 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 adopti on of more

- stringent building energy codes. Nevada also scored additional points for its building codes and compliance measures. Rhode Island continue s to reap the2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 14 benefits of its EERS policies, and this year both Rhode Island and Massachusetts reported net electricity savings of over 2% of sales . D elaware also passed a significant energy efficiency bill in early July, laying the groundwork for customer

- funded energy efficiency

programs.

States Losing Ground
Twenty

- t hree states lost points this year due to a number of factors including c hanges 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 scor e and changes in rank. Of the 23 states that lost points , 18 fell in the rankings. The rankings of f ive 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’ diff ering 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 p olicy rollbacks are clearly reflected in t heir scores, as shown in t able 7

.

Table 7

. Changes from 2013 for states losing g round

State Change

in s core Change

in r ank 2014

r anking

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 Energiz ing 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 g overnor, who indicated that he would cal l 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 l ost points as a result of
methodol ogy changes , and points were also removed from the state’s CHP score since its2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 requirem ents 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,
lea d ing to a slightly lower score in that category. The state is currently undergoing a large

scale reorganization of its utility policies and programs, so movement in either direction is possible in coming years.



## S TRATEGIES FOR 

## I MPROVING 

## E NERGY 

## E FFICIENCY


### 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 publ ic 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 large

scale, productive investment in energy efficiency technology and services. EERS targets should be established through rigorou s, 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, Rho de 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 the ir level of implementation allows , howe ver, 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, Mississippi2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 advanc ed vehicle technologies into the market and ensure continuing progress on federal fuel economy standards. Codif ying 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 technol ogy 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 state s to develop a specif ic 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 la ndscape 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 publ ic 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.

Exa mples : New York, Maryland, Alaska2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 17 

## Chapter 2

. Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policies

Authors: Annie Gilleo and Seth Nowak



## I NTRODUCTION 

### 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 benefi ts funds. Driven by regulation from state utility commissions, u tilities and independent statewide program administrators in some states have been delivering energy efficiency programs for decades, offering various efficiency services for residential,

comm ercial, 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
th e 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 p rogram 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 sales 7



###  Incremental natural gas program savings as a p ercentage of residential and
commercial sales

 States’ enabling policies

, such as EERS s

 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 18 efforts. 8 

### In the 1980s and 1990s, such pr ograms 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 ben efits 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 administrator s of such programs on a national basis.

Despite the enactment of public benefits programs in many states, restructuring resulted in a precipitous decline in fun ding 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 t he 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 plac ing 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 billi on. 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 f igure 2).

8 By “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 ut ility 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 developm ent.

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 recove r, 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 19 Fi gure 2 . Annual electric and natural gas energy efficiency program spending or b udgets

. *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. I n 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, successfu l 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 Southea st 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

E nvironmental P rotection A gency (EPA) Clean Power P lan rules for carbon emissions in existing power plants (EPA 2014 a ) . 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 20 Savings from Electri c 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 savin gs. 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 efficie ncy 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 commi ssion 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 comprehensi ve 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 us e.

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 a lready 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 opportunit ies 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 force s 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 tha t 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 includ ing large customer energy

e fficiency 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 o f 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 21 Energy Efficiency Resource Standards

E nab ling policies such as EERS s 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

- e ffective 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 wi th 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 pus h 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

engag ement 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

s avings targets (Downs and Cui 2014).2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 22 Financial Incentives Affecting Utility Investment in Efficiency: Earning a Return and Addressing

Lost Revenues Under traditional regulatory structur es, 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 effec t 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 electric ity 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
al lows 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 like ly 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 the se revenues either through a lost

- revenue adjus tment mechanism (LRAM) or other ratemaking approach.

ACEEE considers decoupling to be the preferred approach for address ing the throughput incentive, and LRAM s 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 incentiv es with energy efficiency, as seen in t able 21.



## M ETHODOLOGY AND 

## R ESULTS 

### 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 program s 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 budgets2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 23 and savings data ). We also score d states on a variety of enabling policie s. 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 efficienc y 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

s core (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 82014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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

s core (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 w ere not available for efficiency program savings, states were scored on 2012 savings.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 25 Our data sources include d 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 prog ram 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 t able 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 pol icy 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. El sewhere, 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 fro m 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 us ed 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 long

standing energy ef ficiency 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 contr ast, 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 inc entive. 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 26 includi ng 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 sec tion 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 ut ilities, 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 Prog ram, 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 fund s 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 p revious 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 effic iency groups, and other state sources. 18 

### As 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 com plete 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 o f 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 util ity 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 27 the sources above to state utility commissions for review. Tables 10 and 12 below report electricity and natural gas efficien cy 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 t otal 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 spe nding 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 w ill 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 rev enues earned the maximum of 5 points. For every 0.4% less than 4%, a state’s score decreased by 0.5 point s . Table 9 lists the scoring bins for each level of spending and t able 1 0 shows state

by

- state results and scores for this category.

Table 9. Scoring o f 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 28 Table 1 0 . 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 Island 1 77.5 8.55% 5 District of Columbia 14.0 1.06% 1

Massachusetts 2 507.7 6.42% 5 Hawaii 33.5 1.06% 1

Vermont 3 42.8 5.32% 5 Indiana 22 76.8 0.86% 1
Washington 4 293.7 4.60% 5 Oklahoma 23 38.7 0.84% 1
Oregon 5 171.3 4.32% 5 Tennessee 24 55.7 0.81% 1
New Jersey 395.1 3.88% 4.5 Kentucky 25 44.0 0.70% 0.5

Connecticut 6 102.4 3.28% 4 Missouri 48.2 0.65% 0.5

California 7 1188.8 3.18% 3.5 North Carolina 26 74.9 0.63% 0.5
Maryland 8 205.9 2.85% 3.5 Texas 181.4 0.56% 0.5

Iowa 9 106.7 2.83% 3.5 Nebraska 27 13.8 0.53% 0.5

New York 593.9 2.65% 3 Wyoming 6.4 0.50% 0.5

Illinois 10 283.8 2.51% 3 South Dakota 28 5.1 0.48% 0.5

Maine 11 34.2 2.43% 3 West Virginia 29 9.0 0.37% 0

Minnesota 12 155.5 2.42% 3 Georgia 30 40.1 0.32% 0
New Hampshire 13 27.4 2.24% 2.5 South Carolina 22.1 0.31% 0

Idaho 14 38.8 2.12% 2.5 Delaware 31 2.4 0.19% 0

Arizona 15 143.2 1.86% 2 Mississippi 7.5 0.17% 0

Arkansas 16 65.9 1.81% 2 Alabama 10.8 0.14% 0

Colorado 17 89.4 1.69% 2 Louisiana 3.7 0.05% 0
Pennsylvania 237.6 1.66% 2 Kansas 0.7 0.02% 0

Nevada 18 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

Montana 19 18.4 1.53% 1.5 Guam 32 0.0 0.00% 0
Michigan 20 165.5 1.43% 1.5 North Dakota 0.0 0.00% 0

Utah 35.3 1.42% 1.5 Puerto Rico 33 0.0 0.00% 0

Florida 258.1 1.13% 1 Virgin Islands 34 0.0 0.00% 0

Wisconsin 79.9 1.09% 1 U.S. t otal 6294.6

- New Mexico 21 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. 1 RI PUC 2014

. 2 MA DOER 2014

. 3 VT PSD 2014

. 4 Includes share of budget

- based allocation of Bonneville Power Administration( BPA ) incentive dollars across states

. 5 Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and2014 ; includes share of budget from BPA incentive dollars

. 6 CT DEEP 2014

. 7 CPUC 2014

. 8 MD PSC 2014

. 9 IUB 2014

. 10 ICC 2014

. 11 Efficiency Maine 2014

. 1 2 MN COMM 2014

. 13 NH PUC
2014

. 1 4 Includes share of budget from BPA incentive dollars

. 15 SWEEP 2014 a

. 16 AR PSC 2014

. 17 CO DORA 2014

. 18 NV PUCN 2014 ; includes share of budget from

BPA incentive dollars

. 19 Includes share of budget f rom BPA incentive dollars

. 20 MI PSC 2014

. 21 NM PRC 2014

. 22 IURC 2014

. 23 OCC 2014

. 24 TVA 2014

. 25 KY PSC
2014

. 26 PSNCUC 2014

. 27 NPPD 2014 ; OPPD 2014 ; Lincoln Electric System 2014

. 28 SD PUC 2014

. 29 WV PSC 2014

. 30 GA PSC 2014

. 31 DNREC 2014

. 32 Guam Energy Office 2014

. 33 Puerto Rico Office of the Governor 2014

. 34 Virgin Islands Energy Office 2014

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 normalize d spending by
the number of residential natural gas customers in each state, as reported by EIA (2014b). 21


### Table 1 1 shows scoring bins for natural gas program spending.

Table 1 1 . Scoring of natural gas utility and public benefits budgets

Budget r ange 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 1 2 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 na tural 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 30 Table 12. 2013 natural gas efficiency program budg ets by state

State 2013 budget ($million) $ per

residential

customer Score

(2 pts.) State 2013 budget ($million) $ per

residential

customer Score

(2 pts.)

Massachusetts 1 173.5 $119.99 2 New Mexico 4.0 $7.04 0.5

Rhode Island 2 19.5 $83.28 2 Nevada 5.4 $6.88 0.5

New Jersey 196.4 $66.83 2 Missouri 18 9.1 $6.56 0.5

Iowa 3 50.6 $59.71 2 Arizona 19 6.3 $5.44 0.5

Ohio 50.3 $58.78 2 Delaware 20 0.8 $5.22 0.5

New Hampshire 4 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

Connecticut 5 24.1 $47.38 1.5 North Carolina 2 1 2.1 $1.82 0

Maine 6 0.8 $40.42 1.5 North Dakota 0.1 $1.06 0

Oregon 7 27.3 $39.37 1.5 Texas 3.1 $0.72 0

Utah 8 31.0 $36.87 1.5 South Carolina 0.4 $0.60 0

Minnesota 9 44.1 $30.66 1 Montana 0.1 $0.23 0

Florida 18.2 $27.14 1 Alabama 0.0 $0.00 0

Illinois 10 98.9 $26.25 1 Alaska 0.0 $0.00 0

Michigan 11 83.8 $26.19 1 Georgia 0.0 $0.00 0

California 260.4 $25.72 1 Guam *

— $0.00 0

Arkansas 12 12.9 $23.46 1 Idaho 0.0 $0.00 0

District of Columbia 13 2.9 $22.36 1 Kansas 0.0 $0.00 0

Washington 17.3 $15.85 0.5 Louisiana 0.0 $0.00 0

Maryland 14 15.0 $13.76 0.5 Mississippi 0.0 $0.00 0

Indiana 15 23.3 $13.33 0.5 Nebraska 0.0 $0.00 0

Oklahoma 16 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

. t otal 1

, 449.4

—

South Dakota 1 7 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. 1 MA DOER 2014

. 2 RI PUC 2014

. 3 IUB 2014

. 4 NH PUC 2014

. 5 CT DEEP 2014

. 6 Efficiency Maine 2014

. 7 Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and OR DOE 2014

. 8 SWEEP 2014b

. 9 MN COMM 2014

. 10 ICC 2014

. 11 MI PSC 2014

. 12 AR PSC 2013

. 13 DDOE 2014b

. 14 MD
PSC 2014

. 15 IURC 2014

. 16 OCC 2014

. 1 7 SD PUC 2014

. 18 MO PSC 2014

. 19 SWEEP 2014a

. 2 0 DNREC 2014

. 2 1 PSNCUC 2014

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 31 Scoring on Annual Savings in 2013 from Electric Efficiency Programs We scored states on net annual incremental electricity savings 22 

### 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 commi ssions 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 reporte d 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 thes e 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 saving s ) reported as gross 27 

### are marked by a dagger ( ƚ ) in t able 1 4 . In Arizona, a measurement and verification study con cluded that net savings are equal to

22 Net incremental electricity savings are new savings achieved from measures implemented in the reporting

year.

23 Data 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 sav ings 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 (to tal 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

pr ograms and their savings.

24 See 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 i n calculating net efficiency program savings, including Massachusetts (MAGEEPA 2010), Maryland (Itron 2011) , New York (NY DPS 2010),

Vermont (Efficiency Vermont 2012) , and Michigan.

27 Savings were determined to be gross based on Kushler , Nowak, and Witte ( 2012) and on responses to our survey of public utility commissions.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 32 gross savin gs within the state (SWEEP 2014 a ). In such cases, we have not applied a conversion factor, and consider reported savings to be net.

We have reported 2013 statewide energy efficiency s avings 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 ar e presented in Appendix B.

This year, to reflect the goals of some of the top

- performing states, we once again adjusted our scoring . S tates that achieved savings equivalent to at least 2 % of electricity sales earned 5 points, with scores decreasing by 0.5 point s for every 0. 20 % decrease. 28



### Table 13 lists the scoring bins for each level of savings and t able 14 shows state

- by

- state results and scores. Across the nation, reported savings from utility and public benefits electricity program s in 2013 totaled 24 m illion 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
substitute d 2012 electricity savings.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 Island 1 161,831 2.09% 5 New Mexico 24 126,069 0.54% 1

Massachusetts 2 1,116,442 2.05% 5 Kentucky 25 437,276 0.52% 1

Vermont 3 99,074 1.78% 4 Missouri 26 406,897 0.49% 1

Arizona 4 1,317,329 1.74% 4 Arkansas 27 227,531 0.49% 1

Hawaii 5 159,056 ƚ 1.67% 4 District of Columbia 28 52,303 0.47% 1

Michigan 6 1,284,863 1.51% 3.5 South Carolina 29 298,215 0. 3 8 % 0.5

Oregon 7 676,046 1.43% 3.5 Tennessee 30 273,267 ƚ 0.28% 0.5

Washington 8 990,143 ƚ 1.35% 3 Oklahoma 3 1 156,847 0.27% 0.5

California * 3,223,733 1.25% 3 Florida * 587,083 0.27% 0.5

New York 9 1,617,667 1.13% 2.5 West Virginia 3 2 69,241 0.22% 0.5

Iowa 10 491,543 1.06% 2.5 Georgia 3 3 288,140 ƚ 0.22% 0.5

Minnesota 11 699,998 ƚ 1.04% 2.5 Nebraska 3 4 53,850 0.20% 0.5

Illinois 12 1,318,916 0.99% 2 Texas 3 5 693,968 0.19% 0

Maryland 13 641,322 0.97% 2 South Dakota 3 6 21,435 0.18% 0

Pennsylvania 14 1,410,305 ƚ 0.97% 2 Wyoming * 23,605 0.14% 0

Connecticut 15 285,817 0.97% 2 Delaware 3 7 8,809 ƚ 0.08% 0

Wisconsin 16 619,418 0.90% 2 Mississippi * 36,810 0.08% 0

Ohio * 1,323,498 0.89% 2 North Dakota * 10,330 0.07% 0

Colorado 17 472,000 0.88% 2 Alabama * 56,045 0.06% 0

Utah 18 264,375 0.87% 2 Virginia * 29,923 0.03% 0

Nevada 19 171,369 0.81% 2 Alaska * 1,517 0.02% 0

Idaho * 188,245 0.78% 1.5 Louisiana 3 8 * 20,572 0.02% 0

Maine 20 92,313 0.78% 1.5 Kansas * 8,907 0.02% 0

Montana * 91,474 0.65% 1.5 Guam 3 9 0 0.00% 0

Indiana * 615,018 0.59% 1 Puerto Rico 40 0 0.00% 0

New Jersey 21 418,693 ƚ 0.56% 1 Virgin Islands 4 1 0 0.00% 0

New Hampshire 22 58,774 0.56% 1 U.S. t otal 24,392,186 0.67%

North Carolina 23 718,739 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. 1 RI PUC 2014

. 2 M A DOER 2014

. 3 VT PSD 2014

. 4 SWEEP 2014a

. 5 HI PUC 2014

. 6 MI PSC 2014

. 7 Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and OR DOE 2014

. 8 WA UTC 2014

. 9 NY
DPS 2014 and NYSERDA 2014 ; also includes savings from Long Island Power Authority ( LIPA)

. 10 IUB 2014 ; includes IOU savings only

. 11 MN COMM 2014

. 12 ICC 2014

. 13 MD PSC 2014

. 14 PA PUC 2014

. 15 CT DEEP 2014

. 16 WI PSC 2014

. 17 SWEEP 2014b and CO DORA 2014

. 18 UT PSC 2014

. 19 NV PUCN 2014

. 20 Efficiency
Maine 2014

. 21 NJ BPU 2014

. 22 NH PUC 2014

. 23 PSNCUC 2014

. 24 NM PRC 2014

. 25 KY PSC 2014

. 26 MO PSC 2014

. 27 AR PSC 2014

. 28 DDOE 2014a

. 29 SC ORS 2014. 30
TVA 2014

. 3 1 OCC 2014

. 3 2 WV PSC 2014

. 3 3 GA PSC 2014

. 3 4 NPPD 2014, OPPD 2014, and Lincoln Electric System 2014

. 3 5 Frontier Associates 2014

. 3 6 SD PUC 2014

. 3 7 DNREC 2014

. 3 8 2012 data from Entergy New Orleans 2013

. 3 9 Guam Energy Office 2014

. 40 Puerto Rico Office of the Governor 2014

. 4 1 Virgin Islands Energy Office
2014

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 34 Scoring on Annual Savings in 2013 from Natural Gas Efficiency Programs Increasingly, utilities are beginning to incorporate natural gas programs in their portfolio s 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 prog rams 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 commiss ions. Table 15 lists scoring criteria for natural gas program savings.

Table 15. Scoring method ology 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

S tates 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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.)

Vermont 1 0.80 1.47% 2 Nevada 27 0.96 0.14% 0

Minnesota 2 26.82 ƚ 1.36% 2 New Mexico 28 0.68 0.12% 0

Massachusetts 3 24.67 1.28% 2 Maryland 29 1.00 0.07% 0

Rhode Island 4 3.30 1.24% 2 Delaware 30 0.10 0.05% 0

Michigan 5 44.00 1.02% 2 South Carolina 31 0.08 0.02% 0

New Hampshire 6 1.39 0.93% 1.5 Alabama 0.00 0.00% 0

Wisconsin 7 17.50 0.90% 1.5 Alaska 0.00 0.00% 0

Iowa 8 7.92 ƚ 0.78% 1.5 Florida 0.00 0.00% 0

Hawaii

— 0.00% 1.5 * * Georgia 0.00 0.00% 0

Arkansas 9 5.19 0.75% 1 Guam 0.00 0.00% 0

Oregon 10 5.30 0.73% 1 Idaho 0.00 0.00% 0

Utah 11 6.37 0.65% 1 Kansas 0.00 0.00% 0

Connecticut 12 4.80 0.56% 1 Louisiana 0.00 0.00% 0

Illinois 13 29.30 0.52% 1 Mississippi 0.00 0.00% 0

Washington 14 7.02 ƚ 0.51% 1 Missouri 0.00 0.00% 0

Arizona 15 3.30 0.49% 0.5 Montana 0.00 0.00% 0

California 16 31.00 0.41% 0.5 Nebraska 0.00 0.00% 0

New York 17 25.70 0.40% 0.5 North Carolina 0.00 0.00% 0

Kentucky 18 2.96 0.39% 0.5 North Dakota 0.00 0.00% 0

Colorado 19 6.10 0.36% 0.5 Ohio 0.00 0.00% 0

Indiana 20 6.30 0.34% 0.5 Pennsylvania 0.00 0.00% 0

Oklahoma 21 2.90 0.33% 0.5 Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00% 0

New Jersey 22 8.82 ƚ 0.24% 0 Tennessee 0.00 0.00% 0

South Dakota 23 0.43 0.21% 0 Texas 0.00 0.00% 0

District of Columbia 24 0.50 0.18% 0 Virgin Islands 0.00 0.00% 0

Maine 25 0.14 0.15% 0 Virginia 0.00 0.00% 0

West Virginia 26 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 attrib uted 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. 1 VT PSD 2014 2 MN COMM 2014

. 3 MA DOER 2014

. 4 RI PUC 2014

. 5 MI PSC 2014

. 6 NH PUC 2014

. 7 WI PSC 2014

. 8 IUB 2014 ; includes IOU savings only

. 9 AR PSC 2014

. 10 Energy Trust of Oregon 2014 and OR DOE
2014

. 11 UT PSC 2014

. 12 CT DEEP 2014

. 13 ICC 2014

. 14 WA UTC 2014

. 15 SWEEP 2014a

. 16 CPUC 2014

. 17 NY DPS 2014

. 18 KY PSC 2014

. 19 CO DORA 2014

. 20 IURC 2014

. 21 OCC
2014

. 22 NJ BPU 2014

. 23 SD PUC 2014

. 24 DDOE 2014 b

. 25 Efficiency Maine 2014

. 26 WV PSC 2014

. 27 NV PUCN 2014

. 28 NM PRC 2014

. 29 MD PSC 2014

. 30 DNREC 2014

. 31 Piedmont Natural Gas 2014

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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, self

direct programs vary from state to state, with some requiring more stringent measure ment 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 evalua tion and measurement

programs. States with opt

- out programs in place are listed in t able 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 allow s customers that operate a single site with at

least one me ter 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 progra ms 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, federa l 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 ha d a demand of the individual accounts of 5,000 kW or more in the previous 12 months

. 2. The customer operates an i nterstate pipeline pumping station, regardless of size

. 3. The customer has accounts within the service territory of the electric utility that

ha d , 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 (frequent ly directly from transmission) and are thus outside the purview of state government. We did not subtract points in
these cases.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 37 State Description Score

North
Carolina All industrial class electric customers are eligible for opt ing 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 utilit y customer s 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 k W h or greate r 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 thi rd

- 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 e nergy

efficiency programs. Dominion Power customers may qualify for its opt

- out program by having average demands of between 500kW; and 10MW; c ustomers over 10 MW do not participate in the state's energy efficiency programming by law. Once customers opt ou t, 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 cost

recovery 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

c ommission 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 E nergy 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 nu mber of factors. As shown

in t able 18, states we re scored on a sliding scale based on the savings called for by their electricity savings targets. States could also earn an additional 0.5 point s if natural gas was included in the savings goals. Some EERS p olicies also contain cost caps that limit spending, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the EERS policy. We reduced a state’s score by 0.5 point s if its EERS policy includes a cost cap provision. This year, we awarded top points to states with energy sav ings 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 38 Table 18. Scoring methodology for energy savings targets

S avings t arg et or current level of savings m et Score Other c onsiderations 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 estimate d 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 stak eholders on ta rgets. States with a pending EERS policy that had not yet established a clear path toward implementation include Alaska, Utah, 31 

### Delaware, and Virginia. See t able 19 below for scoring results and Appendix D for full policy details.

Since the p ublication 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 polic y 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

Maryland 1 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 eff iciency savings targets. Neither of these goals ha ve been codified into regulatory language by the Public Service Commission, so they remain advisory, not binding.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 York 2 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

Illinois 3 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

1 Refers to portion of target assigned to utilities

. 2 Reflects EE P S target for 2012

– 15 program cycle

. 3 Average 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 plac e 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 b y 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 co uld earn up to 3 points for having adopted financial incentive mechanisms for utilities’ efficiency program s for electric ity and natural gas and for having implemented decoupling to address lost revenues for its electric and natural gas utilities.

States w ith 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 s coring methodology are provided in t able 20.

Table 20.Scoring methodology for utility financial inc entives

Scoring criteria for addressing fixed cost r ecovery 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 electric ity 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 e lectric

or natural gas. 0.5

Scori ng 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 award ed additional points to Vermont, where electric and natural g as 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. Wit h proper legislation now in place,2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 p rograms in Wisconsin and Indiana, we count ed

15 states with decoupling pending or in place for at l east one major electric utility, down from 17 last year. T he number of states with natural gas decoupled (or pending) for at least one major utility has incr eased 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 Yes 3 Yes 3 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 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

Arkansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

Colorado Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

District of Columbia Yes No Yes Yes 2.5

Kentucky Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

Louisiana Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

Michigan No Yes Yes Yes 2.5

Minnesota No Yes Yes Yes 2.5

New Mexico Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

North Carolina Yes 3 Yes Yes No 2.5

Ohio Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

Oklahoma Yes 2 Yes Yes Yes 2.5

South Dakota Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 2.5

Vermont Yes Yes Yes No 2.5

Wisconsin No Yes 3 Yes Yes 2.5

Arizona Yes 2 Yes 3 Yes No 2

Indiana Yes 2 Yes Yes No 22014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 42 Decoupling or LRAM Performance

incentives

State Electric Natural
gas Electric Natural

gas Score

(3 pts.)

Missouri Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes 1 2

Georgia Yes 2 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 Yes 2 No Yes No 1.5

Washington Yes Yes No No 1.5

Illinois No Yes No No 1

Mississippi Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 1 1

Montana Yes 2 Yes 2 No No 1

Nevada Yes 2 Yes 3 No No 1

New Jersey Yes 1 ,2 Yes 2 No No 1

Texas No No Yes No 1

Utah No Yes No No 1

Virginia No Yes No No 1

Wyoming Yes 2 Yes No No 1

Delaware Yes 1 Yes 1 No No 0.5

Kansas Yes 2 No No No 0.5

Tennessee No Yes 2 No No 0.5

West Virginia No No Yes 1 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 decoupli ng and some other mechanism for lost revenue adjustment. * W e award ed points to Hawaii only for electric utility business models, since minimal amounts of natural gas are used in the state.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 43 

## O THER 

## M ETHODOLOGY 

## N OTES 

### 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 chapt er. 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 s tate 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 state wide 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 na tion. 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 re ach 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 comm itment 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 incent ives, 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 efficienc y. 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 utility

sector 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 44 

## Chapter 3

. Transportation Policies

Author: Shruti Vaidyanathan



## I NTRODUCTION 

### 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

- eff icient 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 Z ero

- E mission V ehicle Program As a longtime leader in the vehicle emissions standard

– setting process, California has been instrumental in prodding the federal government to establish a trajector y 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, Ca lifornia passed the Pavley Bill (A ssembly B ill 1493), the first law in the U nited S tates to address GHG emissions from vehicles. The law require s the California Air Resources Board to regulate GHGs as part of
the California Low Emission Vehicle Program. Th e 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 GH G 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 vehi cle (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

s tates 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 fin ancial 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, o r 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 increase2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 45 fuel efficiency, and policies to promote the ir purchase therefore are not included in the State
Scorecard . However, the State Scorecard does include incentives for EV s 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

- effic iency 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 widesprea d adoption. In addition to reducing the high up

front 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 plann ing is vital in support ing 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

 T ransit

- oriented development, including mixed land uses (mix of jo bs, stores, and housing) and good street connectivity that makes neighborhoods friendly to all modes of transportation

 A reas of compact development

 C onvenient modes of transportation that provide alternatives to automobiles

 C enters of activity where popula r 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 ha ve 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 2014 d ). 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 walking2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 46 a fter 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 significa nt 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 ty pically 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

i t 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 tra nsit 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 trans portation 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 a nd, 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 the2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 tr ansportation 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 r eporting 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.



## M ETHODOLOGY AND 

## R ESULTS


### 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 pro gram earned 1.5 points in this chapter. Additionally, states with consumer incentives for the purchase of high

- efficiency vehicles were awarded 0.5 point s , while those with more than 20 registered

EVs per 100,000 people qualified for an additional 0.5 poin t s

.

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 earn ed 1 point in this year’s State Scorecard . For details, see Appendix E. States also receive d points based on the magnitude of their transit spendin g: relatively large investments ($50 per capita or more) received 1 point, while investments ranging from $20 to $50 per capita received 0.5 point s

.

Policies promot ing compact development and ensur ing 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 201 4 ). States that adopted reduction targets for VMT statewide were also eligible for 1 point. This year Vermont earned a point for the VMT goal s 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 point s to st ates 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 freight

specific transportation plan meeti ng MAP

- 21 requirements. An additional 0.5 point s w ere awarded if those plans contain ed energy efficiency performance metrics.

Table 22 shows the results.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 MAP

21 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 High

efficiency

vehicle

consumer incentives (0.5 p ts.) 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 3.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 MAP

21 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 High

efficiency

vehicle

consumer incentives (0.5 p ts.) 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 0.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 MAP

21 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 High

efficiency

vehicle

consumer incentives (0.5 p ts.) 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

. 7 State legislation ; see Appendix E for a complete description of state transit funding

. 8 NCSC 2014

. 9 DOE 2014.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 52 Table 23 outlines states’ consumer incentives available for the purchase of high

- efficiency
vehicles.

Table 23. State purchase incentives for high

- effi ciency 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 target s 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 purch ase hybrid trucks for use within the

state. California also offers tax rebates of up to $2,500 for light

- duty zero

emission EV s and plug

- in hybrid EV s 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 heavy

duty 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 $3,0 00.

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 EV s (MOR

- EV) p rogram offers rebates of

up to $2,500 to customers purchasing plug

- in EV s

. 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 start ed 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 53 State Tax incentive

Puerto Rico In 2012 Puerto Rico amended the Internal Revenue C ode 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 EV s 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 EV s weigh ing 8,500 pounds or less that are purchased after September 1,

2013

, are eligible for a $2,500 rebate.

Utah Until Decem ber 31, 2014, EV s qualify for up to $605 in tax credits.

Washington EV s 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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, dir ecting 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 Yor k 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 red uction 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 op tion 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 c alls 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 55 

## Chapter 4

. Building Energy Codes

Author: Max Neubauer



## I NTRODUCTION 

### 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 fo r 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, Or egon, 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 Internatio nal 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 (IES NA ). The IECC commercial building provisions also include prescriptive and perfo rmance 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 c odes 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 s avings 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,

33 New determinations for the 2015 IECC and ASHRAE 2013 were not published in time to be included in the research and writing of this report.

34 Virginia and Idaho have adopted the 2012 International Residential Code®; however, state

- specific amendments make it equivalent to the 2009 IECC.

35 Idaho, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Oregon2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 t hat 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

year s 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
achi eve d 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 achieve d greater energy efficiency than the preceding editions by generating 18.2% greater site energy savings than ASHRAE 90.1

- 2007 (DOE 2011b). Stat es 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



### Buildi ng 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

A merican N ational S tandards I nstitute /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. Virg in Islands) have either adopted or are on a clear path toward adopti ng 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 und er 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

36 Determinations 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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, ensur ing that states will reap the benefits of their proactivity requires robust implementation and enforcement of t he 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

commerci al) 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 h ave 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 d ivided 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 P hase 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 t he 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 complian ce 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 supplemente d 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 Partne rships (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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 58 several states not onl y 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 supp ort 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 devel oping 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 a nd 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 , a nd a growing number of states utilize approaches that incorporate most or all of
the m

. 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 o ur scoring
methodo logy 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 fo r 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 w ith 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 partic ipate, p rudent regulatory mechanisms such as program cost recovery or shared savings policies must be in place to compensate them for their efforts.



## M ETHODOLOGY AND 

## R ESULTS 

### States earn credit on two measures of building energy codes: the stringency of resi dential 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 o ur 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 wil l be reflected in its compliance rates. So while it is important for states to incorporate these various compliance strategies, the paramount concern is whether2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 59 or not new construction is actually complying with the state

- mandated building energy codes.

Cu rrently, 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

avai lable 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
ind ividuals 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 eac h 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 t able 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 d egree of code stringency as noted in t able 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 qua lification 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 t able 2 6 , we denote those states with a clear path toward adoption and implementation with an asterisk and award them full credit.

We also award ed 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. S ome of the se 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 in corporation into the next iteration of our State Scorecard

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 EPCA 39 ) 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 maj or 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 E nergy P olicy 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 t o award credit to states based on the publication of compliance studies, the rigor of those studie s, 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
allocatin g 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/enfor cement 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 com pliance. We have grouped the metrics to convey our focus on compliance studies versus qualitative compliance activities. Table 2 5 shows the various compliance metrics and the scoring methodology for measuring state compliance efforts. A total of 2 points i s 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 AS HRAE 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 61 updated during that time. A state can then earn an additional 0.5 point s for engaging in one or

two of the compliance metrics, and another 0.5 point s 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 eff orts

Metrics for state compliance efforts Number of compliance

metrics ac hieved 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 3.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 cred it commensurate with the degree of code stringency as noted in t able 2 4

. 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 enfo rcement 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 addi tional 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, onl y 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.

N ine states lack mandatory statewide energy codes for either resident ial 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, in cluding 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 64 

## Chapter 5

. Combined Heat and Power

Authors: David Ribeiro , Anna Chittum, and Kate Farley



## I NTRODUCTION 

### 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 custo mers 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 eigh t factors considered when scoring CHP for the 2014 State Scorecard were

 S tandard interconnection rules

 Inclusion of CHP in a state EERS

 Inclusion of CHP/waste heat recovery in a state RPS or other standard

 F avorable revenue streams

, including wholesale net metering, feed

- in tariffs, or standard offer programs

 A pplicable financial incentive programs

 L oan and loan guarantee programs

 O utput

- based air emissions regulations

 A ny additional supportive policies

We also assessed , but d id 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 the m ; in these situations, we did not give credit for the policy in question. For example, although Ohio has received credit f or 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.



## M ETHODOLOGY



### We continue d to use, with so me modifications, the methodology that we developed for the

State Scorecard in 2012. This chapter includes a brief explanation of our scoring criteria for each2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 65 category. For an in

- depth discussion of our methodology, see the ACEEE white paper CHP
Methodolo gy in the 2012 Scorecard (Chittum 2012). T he maximum combined score is 5 points.

Interconnection Standards

States could receive up to 1 point for having an interconnection standard that explicitly
establishe d parameters and procedures for the interconnection of CHP systems. We relied on secondary sources

— such as the Database of State Incentives for Renewable s and Efficiency (DSIRE 2014) and EPA ’s CHP Partnership database (EPA 2014 b )

— 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 interconnect ion 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 obtain ed 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 award ed up to 1 point for CHP’s eligibility i n 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 electricit y 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

 Exp licitly 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 distr ibuted 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 ht tp:// www.ieee.org

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 66  Be binding, includ ing 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 EERS s

.

CHP Inclusion in RPS Policies

We award ed 0.5 point s for CHP’s eligibility in a n 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 role s 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 includ e penalties for utilities that do not meet goals

Favorable Revenue Streams

We award ed up to 0.5 point s 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 pol icies 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 s ometimes 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 specifical ly 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 incent ive 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

S ee Appendix I for the revenue streams that earned points.

In centives for CHP

States could also receive up to 0.5 point s 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 67 which are usually more permanent than grant pr ograms. 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 multi ple types of incentives. To be eligible for 0.5 point s , 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 t o appropriate contenders for CHP, they were credited. Additional information on incentives for CHP is available from EPA through its CHP Partnership (EPA 2014 b ) and from the Database of
State Incentives for Renewable s and Efficiency (DSIRE 2014).

Financing Assistance

States could receive up to 0.5 point s 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 bo nding 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.

S ee Appendix I for more detailed descriptions of state incentives and financing programs that received credit in this chapter.

Emissions Treatment

We also award ed 0.5 point s for the pres ence 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 genera tors 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 po wer 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

Addit ional information on policies in this category is also available from EPA via its CHP Partnership w ebsite (EPA 2014 b ).

Other Supportive Policies

We also award ed 0.5 point s for other supportive policies. Such policies can include targeted
technical assistan ce programs, education campaigns, or other unique policies or incentives that2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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)

.



## R ESULTS



### 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 sco re this year

, 4.5 points. They were two of only four states

— the others being Rhode Island and California

— to have EERS s that included specific target s for CHP. Neither Connecticut nor Massachusetts earn ed credit in the revenue stream metric this year. Round ing 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 p olicies that are favorable to CHP to expire, resulting in a lower average score across all states compared to last year.

Table 27. State scor es for CHP

State Inter

c o nn e ction

s tandard (1 pt. ) EERS

t r eat m e nt (1 pt. ) RPS

t r ea tm e nt (0.5 pts. ) Rev enue

s tream s (0.5 pts. ) Incentives

(0.5 pts. ) Financing

(0.5 pts. ) Emissions

t reatm e nt (0.5 pts. ) Other

p olicies (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 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 69 State Inter

c o nn e ction

s tandard (1 pt. ) EERS

t r eat m e nt (1 pt. ) RPS

t r ea tm e nt (0.5 pts. ) Rev enue

s tream s (0.5 pts. ) Incentives

(0.5 pts. ) Financing

(0.5 pts. ) Emissions

t reatm e nt (0.5 pts. ) Other

p olicies (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

. V irgin 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



### F ew notable policies have been enacted to enhance CHP’s attractiveness to CHP developers in the year s ince the 2013 State Scorecard wa s publish ed . 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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, a s 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 com pari ng 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 Scorecar d 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

p rogram 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 pro gram 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 st ate 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

. R ecognizing 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 effo rts 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 71 into eac h state’s ranking recognizes that a state cannot directly control the retail price of electricity or gas to customers. However, the price s of electricity and gas directly drive a state’s CHP market to varying degrees, and policymakers can implement policie s that help overcome
economic barriers erected in part by lower electricity prices or higher gas prices. Table 28 shows

t he industrial retail price s of both electricity and natural gas, reflecting the fact that the largest opportunity for CHP remains in th e 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 ( k W) N umber of

new CHP

installations
in 2012 Total new

capacity
installed in
2012 ( k W) 2 013 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 5.692014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 72 State Number of new

CHP

installations in
2013 Total new

capacity
installed in 2013 ( k W) N umber of

new CHP

installations
in 2012 Total new

capacity
installed in
2012 ( k W) 2 013 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 73 

## Chapter 6

. State Government

- Led Initiatives

Author: David Ribeiro



## I NTRODUCTION 

### 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 i nitiatives 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 st ate governments: financial incentive programs for consumers, businesses, and industry; policies that require commercial and residential buildings to disclose energy usage data; lead

- by

example policies and programs put in place by states to improve the ene rgy 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 progra ms 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 exempt ions 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. Incenti ves 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 ev entually 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 di sclosure 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 to2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 governme nts 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 comm only referred to as “lead by example.” In the current environment of fiscal austerity, lead

- by

- example policies and programs are a proven strategy for improv ing the operational efficiency and economic performance of states’ assets. Furthermore, lead

- by

exa mple 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 gove rnments 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

hav e 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 efficien cy 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

i mprovements 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 en ergy 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 EnergyC ap 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 75 In addition to lead

- by

- example initiatives in state government buildings, states have also put in place policies encour aging 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 mainte nance 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 veh icle 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 fo r 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 energy

efficient 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 techno logies 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 st ate 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 effic iency 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 im plement 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 cent ers, 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 f rom 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

pr ograms 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

t able 29 below, a substantial share went to states from the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 76 Renewable Energy (DOE 2013)

. 44 

### Additional programs that may indirectly provide money for state and local government programs include the Advanced Research Project s 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 decisi on makers to the benefits of energy efficiency programs.

Table 29. ARRA energy efficiency funding made available to state and local governments

Program B udget 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. 2 billion

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

m echanisms 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 parti al 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, ARR A 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 Co nservation 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 efficien cy programs and incentives in their own capital budgets.



## M ETHODOLOGY AND 

## R ESULTS 

### 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 cou ld be used for energy efficiency improvements, among numerous other modernization or renovation measures.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 A RRA

- 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, f or ACEEE to com plete 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 Program s 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 Ben efits Programs and Policies. Nor were they given for p rograms solely funded by ARRA (see t able 29). Acceptable sources of funding include d 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 en ergy 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 r each, and impact. 45 

### Incentive programs generally received 0.5 point s 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 bas e s 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
bu dgets 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 r ebate 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 energy

efficient products

, Clean Energy Communities incentive program 2.5

Delaware Three loan programs

, two grant programs , and one rebate program for energy

efficient 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 p rogram

, 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

, Alabama WISE 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 energy

efficient 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 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 l oan 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 02014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 point s 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 a dditional 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 the ir 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,

M aryland

. 46 

### State disclosure policies are presented in t able 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, in dustrial, 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 o ff 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 pro grams. 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 energ y 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 cr edits are also available for the manufacture of energy

- efficient technologies.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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

Hawaii 1 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 single

family 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

. 1 Jim Flanagan Associates 2013

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 84 Lead by Example

Our review of states’ lead

- by

- example initiatives is based o n 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 point s for energy savings ta rgets in new and existing state buildings

, 0.5 point s for a benchmarking requirement for public facilities

, 0.5 point s for energy savings performance contracting activities

, and 0.5 point s for fleet fuel efficiency mandates.

Energy savings targets must co mmit 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 point s . Leaders hip 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 q ualify for the

0.5 point s

.
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

t able 33. A state was awarded 0.5 point s 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 stan dard 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 h ouse 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 ben chmarking 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 t he 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 85 Table 33. Scoring criteria for ESPC policies and programs

Criteri on Qualifying action

Support The state explicitly promotes the use of ESPCs to improve the energy efficiency of public

buildings throu gh 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 co mpanies, 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 point s 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 ma y have environmental benefits, they will likely not result in improved fuel econom y

. Table 34 presents s tates’ scores for lead

- by

- example initiatives

.

Table 34. State scoring on lead

- by

- example initi atives

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 • • • 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 02014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 point s w ere awarded for each major R&D program dedicated to energy efficiency that is funded by the state gover nment, 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

e fficiency R&D program activities

.

47 Institutions that are primari ly 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. Si x 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 designi ng, managing, and improving building energy performance. Beginning with aggressive standards for state buildings based on the long

- term goal of having a zero

carbon 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
vehicle s 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 cons umption 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 econom y standards of at least 40 mpg by July 1, 2014.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 88 Tabl e 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) p rogram and Natural Gas Research

, Development

, and Demonstration p rogram ; 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 Rese arch 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 f o r 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 Application s 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 Building s 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 ; Penn sylvania 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 Lab oratory 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 Program s 0.5

Utah Utah State University 0.5

Vermont University of Vermont Smart Grid Research Center 0.5

Washington Northwest Building E fficiency Technology Hub 0.5

West Virginia West Virginia University Advanced Energy Initiative 0.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 90 

## P OTENTIAL 

## M ETRICS 

### 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 s avings, 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
availab le 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 c ommitment 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 institu tion.
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 an d 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 effi ciency 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 towa rd 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

construc tion 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 energy

efficient 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 increasing ly 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 i n 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 a nd 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 polic ies 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 creat ing 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 a ssistance. Resources, including guidebooks, online resources, and state staff,
dedic ated to assisting local government with increas ing efficiency in municipal buildings and schools

 Financial a ssistance. Incentives aimed at local governments to increase the efficiency of public facilities

 Legislative or r egulatory r equirements. Requiremen ts promulgated by the state requiring municipal fleets or buildings to achieve specific energy reductions

48 For more information on state g overnment programs and policies aimed at local governments, see How State Governments Enable Local Governments to Advance Energy Efficiency (Sciortino 2011)

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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
governmen ts 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 stan dards 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 t he 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 sta ndards.

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 wit h 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 bud get

- 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 b uildings for the term of the loan.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 93 

## Chapter 7

. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards

Author: Max Neubauer



## I NTRODUCTION 

### Every day in our homes, offices, and public buildings, we use appliances and equipment that are less energy efficient than o ther 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 m ay 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 m ore 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 N ew 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 h ad 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 p residential m emorandum that, over the next four years, require d the introduction or updat ing of standards for 26 prod ucts. To date, DOE has set or updated 21 standard s

. 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 cataly st 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 gener ally 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
th at 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 standard s after feder al 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.



## M ETHODOLOGY AND 

## R ESULTS


### 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 appliance2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 94 eff iciency 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 customer s 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 s tandards

Energy savings per

c ustomer 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 s tandards

State Energy s avin gs

per c ustomer through 2030 (BB tu/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 pre

rinse spray valves. Since no analysis has yet been completed that estimates savi ngs, we awarded Georgia and Texas 0.5 point s since the savings would at least be greater than zero. California was already a warded 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 in2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 95 2011. Oregon passed new standards in 2013 for battery chargers, televisions, and double

- ended quartz halogen lamps.

For the past several y ears, 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

. Addit ionally, 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, urinal s, 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 wastewa ter. 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 Standard s
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

. Cal ifornia

. 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 War ren

Alquist 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 r egulations create standards
for 21 categories of appliances, including both federally regulated and non

- f ederally regulated appliances. Presently, California has adopted standards for10 products that are not covered by federal standards.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 effici ent 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 nu mber 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 g rowing 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 eff iciency 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 regulat ory 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.



## L OOKING 

## A HEAD 

### We see signs that many states will cont inue 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 Clea n 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 impo rtant 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 efficien cy programs. Legislation passed in July 2014 calls for the development of savings targets and requires utilities to develop and2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 97 implement energy efficiency programs to meet these targets. The law also allows for cost recovery and improved evaluation, measu rement, 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 i mpact 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 (Ba rbose 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 po licies 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 impa ct 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 hav e 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 l eading 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.



## F URTHER 

## R ESEARCH



### Addressing Data Needs The scoring framework we used in this r eport 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 effic iency 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 98 One of the most pron ounced 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 use d 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 best

practices 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 f ace 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 progr am 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

- by

state 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,

pu blic 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 savin gs 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.

Additiona l 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 mo difications. 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 Scorecar d . 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 ass essment of the data gaps that inhibit the comprehensive benchmarking of utility energy efficiency spending and savings.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 Cha pter 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 Effici ency 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 100 

## R eferences

AASHTO ( American Association of State Highwa y Transportation Officials). 2014

. Survey of State Funding fo r 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: A CEEE

. http://database.aceee.org/

.
AR PSC (Arkansas Public Utility Commission). 2014. Eddy Moore, Commission Leg al Advisor, personal c ommunication. 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 Customer

Funded 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/lbnl

5803e.pdf

.

C EE (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

- appendices

2013

.

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 Camp aign. 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 Departmen t of Regulatory Affairs). 2014. Rachel Ack ermann. Rate/Financial Analyst, personal communication. June 9.

CPUC (California Public Utility Commission). 2014. Amy Reardon, Senior Regulatory Analyst, personal c ommunication. June 13.

CT DEEP (Connecticut Depar tment of Energy and Environmental Protection). 2014. Diane

Duva , Office Director, and Michele Melley, Associate Research Analyst, personal

c ommunication. June 9.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 101 DDOE (District Department of the Environment). 2014a. Taresa Lawrence , Deputy Director,

person al c ommunication. 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 Manag er, personal

c ommunication. 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. Natio nal 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: St ate 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 Ince ntives 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 102 EIA ( U.S. Energy Information Admini stration )

. 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 Ele ctric 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 In formation 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

.

———
. 201 4c

. Annual Energy Outlook

. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Ener gy, Energy
Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/.

———
. 2014d. “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Data.” Accessed J une 2014 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informatio n 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. Was hington, 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 c ommunication. June 9.

Entergy New Orleans. 2013. Energy Smart Year 2 Annual Report. New Orleans: LA: Entergy. http://www.entergy

neworleans.com/content/docs/2013_0621_Energy_Smart_Year_2_Annual_Rpt_Algiers_Qu arterly_Rpt.pdf

.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Clean E nergy Lead by Example Guide: Strategies, Resources and Action Steps for State Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/statelocalc limate/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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 103 ———
. 2014b. “ d CHPP (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 . Washingt on, DC:

ACEEE

. http://www.aceee.org/research

- report/e12c

.

Frontier Associates. 2014. Amy Martin, Manager of Program Design and Evaluation, personal

c ommunication. July 3.

GA PSC (George Public Servi ce Commission). 2014. Jamie Barber, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Manager, personal c ommunication. June 6.

Guam Energy Office. 2014. Peter Calvo, Director, personal c ommunication. 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/fortnight ly/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

. Washingto n, DC: ACEEE

. http://www.aceee.org/research

report/e1401

.
HI PUC (Hawaii Public Utility Commission). 2014. David Parsons, Economist, personal

c ommunication. June 13.

ICC (Illinois Commerce Commiss ion). 2014. Jim Zolnierek, Director of Policy, personal

c ommunication. 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

- performance

policy

Itron. 2011. Verification of Rep orted 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 c ommunicati on. June 4.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 104 IURC (Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission). 2014. Brad ley Borum , Electric Director, and Carmen Pippenger , Utility Analyst, personal c ommunication. 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/re search

- report/u122

.
KY PSC (Kentucky Public Service Commission). 2014. Bob Russell , Financial Analyst, personal

c ommunication. 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

, D irector of Marketing and Stakeholder Engagement, personal c ommunication. 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.ma

eeac.org/docs/MA%20TRM_2011%20PLAN%20VERSION.PDF

.
MD PSC (Maryland Public Service Commission). 2014. Stacy Sherwood, Ass istant Director, Energy Analysis and Planning Division, personal c ommunication. May 30.

MI PSC (Michigan Public Service Commission). 2014. Karen Gould, Staff, Energy Efficiency Section, personal c ommunication. June 2

.
MJB&A (M.J. Bradley & Associates). 201 1. Benchmarking Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Portfolios
in the U.S. Concord, M A : M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC. http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/benchm arking

- electric

- utilities

- 2011

.

MN COMM (Minnesota Department of Commerce). 2014. Jessica Burdette, Supervisor, Conservation Improvement Program, personal c ommunication. 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 Economi c Growth and Energy Sustainability. Washington, DC: ACEEE

.

MO PSC (Missouri Public Service Commission). 2014. John Rogers. Manager, Energy Unit, Resource Analysis Section, personal c ommunication. 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 Terr itory Energy Offices. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Energy Offic ials

. 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 Offic ials

. http://www.naseo.org/Data/Sites/1/documents/self s/state_energy_rlf_report.pdf

.

NCFSA ( National Conference of State Fleet Administrators ) . 2007. 2007 NCSFA Target Membership Estimated Fleet Totals and Dollars (Reported by State Fleets). Gaithersburg, M D : 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.

———
. 201 4. 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 A nalyst, personal c ommunication. June 16.

NJ BPU (New Jersey Board of Public Utilities). 2014. Sherri Jones, Marketing Administrator, personal c ommunication. June 18.

NJ Spotlight. 2012. “Christie plans to siphon off hundreds of millions earmarked for

envir onment.” Accessed June 28. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0507/2327/

.
NM PRC (New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission). 2014. John Reynolds , Economist, personal c ommunication. May 12.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 Efficien cy Supervisor,

p e rsonal c ommunication. June 10.

NV PUCN (Nevada Public Utility Commission). 2014. Cristina Zuniga, Economist, personal

c ommunication. 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 c ommunication. May 30.

NYSERDA (New York State Energ y Research and Development Authority). 2014. Rebecca Reed, Project Manager, Reporting and Quality Assurance, personal c ommunication. June 9.

OCC (Oklahoma Corporation Commission). 2014. Kathy Champion, Regulatory Analyst, personal c ommunication. June 4.

O PPD (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. Au gust 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 Utili ties Commission). 2014.Jack Floyd, Utilities Engineer, personal c ommunication. June 5.

Puerto Rico Office of the Governor. 2014. Efrain O’Neill Carrillo, Senior Energy Advisor, personal c ommunication. June 10.

Pye, M.

, and S. Nadel. 1997. Energy Technolog y 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 N ault, Public Utilities Analyst, personal c ommunication. June 5.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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

Nation al 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 Effi ciency 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 c ommunication. May 29.

SD PUC (South Dakota Public Utility Com mission). 2014. Brian Rounds, Utility Analyst, personal c ommunication. 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/energy

efficiency/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 c ommunication. 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 Authori ty). 2014. Kyle Lawson, Program Analyst, personal

c ommunication. 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/PLAW

112publ141.pdf

.

UT PSC (Utah Public Service Commission). 2014. Jamie Dalton, Commission Utility Economist, personal c ommunication. 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 c ommunication. June 9.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 108 WA UTC (Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission). 2014. Juliana Williams,

Re gulatory Analyst, Conservation and Energy Planning, personal c ommunication. June 9.

WI PSC (Wisconsin Public Service Commission). 2014. Jolene Sheil, Director, Focus on Energy and Joe Fontaine, Program and Policy Analyst, personal c ommunication. May 21.

W V PSC (West Virginia Public Service Commission). 2014. Susan Small, Communications Director, personal c ommunication. May 29.

York, D.

, and M. Kushler. 2002. State Scorecard on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs: An Update . Washington, D C: 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 Utilit y for the 21 st Century. Washington, DC: A CEEE

. 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 109 

## Appendix A

. Electric Efficienc y Program Budgets P er 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

. t otal $ 6

, 294.6

Florida 258.1 13.20 Median $43.38 $ 13.562014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 110 

## Appendix B

. 2012 and 2013 Savings Data Disaggregated

State 2012

electric
program savings (MWh) Savings

as % of

retail

s ales 2012

natural gas
program savings (MMTherms) Savings

as % of

r eta il

s ales* 2013

electric
program savings (MWh) Savings

as % of

retail

s ales 2013

natural gas
program savings (MMTherms) Savings

as % of

retail

s ales*

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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 111 State 2012

electric
program savings (MWh) Savings

as % of

retail

s ales 2012

natural gas
program savings (MMTherms) Savings

as % of

r eta il

s ales* 2013

electric
program savings (MWh) Savings

as % of

retail

s ales 2013

natural gas
program savings (MMTherms) Savings

as % of

retail

s ales*

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 w here only gross savings were available. *Natural gas sales are 2012 commercial and retail sales only from EIA (2014b).2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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

c ompleted within two years. Self

- d irection funds are paid once per year once the project is compl eted 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 c ompany. Rebates are pa id 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 s elf

- d irect program, customers must have an aggregated peak load greater than 1 MW in any single month and aggr egated 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 o r $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 m emorandum of u nderstanding (Mo U). 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 fo r 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
facilitie s. 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 progr ams, representing 0.04% of

load.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 113 State Availability Description

Illinois Statewide for natural gas

customers based on NAICS

code ; p ilot 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 serv ice territory of the affected gas utility or with aggregate usage of 8 million therms or more

in the s tate 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 requireme nts 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 subj ect 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 un der their Section 8

- 103 programs that would create similar opportunities for large electric customers. This program is not yet in effect and de tails are still being developed, but its structured EM&V protocols are likely to result in more certain energy sa vings.

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 ® p rogram

a dministrators 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 lea st 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. Self

directed 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 pro grams. These programs are self

- certified, but subject to Michigan Public Service Commission revi ew. T he c ustomer 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 i n 2012.This reflects the flexibility and comprehensive program options being offered by the utility provider programs.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 funct ions 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 pr ovided 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 partici pated in the program.

New Mexico Statewide in the territories

of three IOU s 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, A merican E lectric P ower (AEP) , has a self

- direct program that offers custome rs 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 Jan uary 1, 2008

, and must p roduce 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 115 State Availability Description

O regon Customers of Portland

General Electric, Pacifi C orp, and Emerald P eople’s U tility

D istrict (PUD) In the Portland General Electric and Pacifi C orp service t erritory, 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, Pacifi C orp, 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

r eview 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 c hoose 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 per iod 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 ef ficiency through the use of an energy savings account (ESA) or the customer credit program . The ESA option allows Vermont business es 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 g as: The SMEEP program has been extended to cover natural gas. Eligible only for transmission and industrial electric and natural gas ratepayers, customer efficiency charges f or electric usage must be a

mini mum 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, t he 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 116 State Availability Description

Washington All utilities have the option to

develop self

- direct options
for industrial and commercial customers, but
of the IOU s
, only Puget Sound Energy has developed a self

- direct
program Puget Sound Energy's self

- direct program is available only to i ndu strial or c ommercial 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 thei r 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 receive s their contributions ba ck to be used on energy efficiency projects. Evaluation is required

under P ublic S ervice C ommission (PSC) Admin istrative 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 c redit 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 117 

## Appendix D

. Details of States’ Energy Efficiency Resource Standards

State (year enacted) Policy type Sector(s) c overed Applicability (% of sales affected) Description Approx imate
annual electric savings t arget (2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Arizona (2010)
EERS

Electric and n at ural g as IOUs, c o

- 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 g as: ~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

, Dec ision 71855 3

Arkansas (2010)
EERS

Electric and n at ural g as 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 o ut Order No. 17, Docket No. 08

- 144

- U Order No. 15, Docket No. 08

- 137

- U Order No. 1, Docket No. 13

- 0 02

- U 1.5

California (2004 and 2009)
EERS

Electric and n at ural g as IOUs (~78%) Electric: ~0.9 % annual savings through 2020. Demand reduction of 4,541 MW through 2020.

Natural g as: 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 t argets
Electric and n at ural g as IOUs (~57%) Electric: Black Hills follow s 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.
R0 9

- 0542
COPUC Docket No. 12A

- 100E
Dec. R12

- 0900
Docket 10A

- 554EG 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 118 State (year enacted) Policy type Sector(s) c overed Applicability (% of sales affected) Description Approx imate
annual electric savings t arget (2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Connecticut (2011

and 2013)
EERS

Electric and n at ural g as Electric: Targets based on all cost

- effective efficiency requirement, equivalent to annual savings of about 1.4% through 2015.

Natural g as: 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 g oal (100%) In 2009, transitioned away from a combined RPS

EERS to a standalone EE R S 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

H awaii P ublic U tility
C ommission Order, Docket
2010

- 0037 2

Illinois (2007)
EERS

Electric and n at ural g as

u tilities with over 100,000 customers, Illinois

D epartment of C ommerce and E conomic O pportunity (~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 I llinois C ommerce C ommission are significantly lower due to cost cap limitations.

Natural g as: 8.5% cumulative savings by 2020 (0.2% annua l savings in 2011 , ramping up to 1.5% in 2019). 0.9% Cost c ap S.B. 1918
Public Act 96

- 0033 § 220 ILCS 5/8

- 103 1

Iowa (2009)

Tailored t argets
Electric and n at ural g as Statewide g oal (100%) Electric: Varies by utility from 1 % to 1.5% annually.

Natural g as: 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 n at ural g as 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 cost

effective mandate. 1.6% Opt o ut Efficiency Maine Triennial Plan
H.P. 1128

– L.D. 1559 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 119 State (year enacted) Policy type Sector(s) c overed Applicability (% of sales affected) Description Approx imate
annual electric savings t arget (2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Maryland (2008)
EERS

Electric
Statewide g oal (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 n at ural g as IOUs, c o

- ops, m unis, 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 g as: 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 n at ural g as Statewide g oal (100%) Electric: 0.3% annual savings in 2009, ramping up to 1% in 2012 and continuing through 2015.

Natural g as: 0.10% annual savings in 2009, ramping up to 0.75% in 2012 and continuing through 2015. 1.0% Cost c ap M.G.L. C h. 25, § 21
Act 295 of 2008 2

Minnesota (2007)
EERS

Electric and n at ural g as Statewide g oal (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 f or 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. 22014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 120 State (year enacted) Policy type Sector(s) c overed Applicability (% of sales affected) Description Approx imate
annual electric savings t arget (2013+) Stringency Reference Score

New York (2008)
EERS

Electric and n at ural g as Statewide g oal (100%) Electric: Annual savings of ~1% per year through
2015. Natural gas: Annual savings of ~0.5% per year through 2015.

EE P S 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 g oal (100%) Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard requires renewable generation and/or
energy sa vings 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 o ut N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62

- 133.8
04 NCAC 11 R08

- 64, et seq. 0

Oregon (2010)

Tailored t argets
Electric and n at ural g as 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 g as: 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 c ap 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 n at ural g as IOUs, m unis (~99%) Electric: Annual savings of 1.7% in 2012, 2.1% in 2013, 2.5% in 2014. EERS includes demand response targets.
Natural g as: 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 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 121 State (year enacted) Policy type Sector(s) c overed Applicability (% of sales affected) Description Approx imate
annual electric savings t arget (2013+) Stringency Reference Score

Texas (1999 and 2007)
EERS

Electric IOUs (~73%) 20% i ncremental l oad g rowth 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 c ap, o pt

o ut Senate Bill 7

House Bill 3693 Substantive Rule § 25.181
Senate Bill 1125 0

Vermont (2000)

Tailored t argets
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 energ y efficiency. Budgets for the next program cycle have been approved, but q uality p erformance i ndicators 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, c o

- ops, m unis (~81%) Biennial and 10

- y ear g oals 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

requ irement. 1.4% Binding Ballot Initiative I

- 937
WAC 480

- 109
WAC 194

- 37 2

Wisconsin (2011)

Tailored t argets
Electric and n at ural g as Focus on Energy (100%) Electric: 0.66% of annual sales in 2011

– 2014 and
0.77% of annual sales in 2015

– 18.

Natural g as: 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 c ap Order, Docket 5

- GF

- 191 12014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 $1.562014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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/Stat e

- TDA.html

Colorado Colorado adopted the FASTER legislation in 2009,

which created a State Transit and Rail F und 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 pedestr ian 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=0 48_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

scurr ent/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 legisla tion. http://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1 011/id/6733392014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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

mul timodal development program in communities with immediate transportation needs. http://votesmart.org/bill/11412/ 30514/tra nsportation

- works

- for

kansas

- program%20%28T

Works%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 auto

related 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

increase d certain registration and renewal fees to fund public trans it. It also created the Metropolitan Transit Authority financial assistance fund to support subway, bus, and rail. http://www.ncsl.org/issues

research/transport/major

- state

transportation

- legislation

2010.aspx#N

North Carolina In 2009 North Carolina passed House Bill 148, which

call ed 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 Pay roll Tax Program that

provides a direct ongoing revenue stream for transit
distr icts that can demonstrate equal local matching revenues from state agency employers in their service

areas

. https://www.oregonlegislature.go v/citizen_engage ment/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

..HTM2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 126 State Description of transit legislation Source

Tennessee Tennessee Senate Bill 1471, passed in 2009, calls for

the creation of a r egional t ransportation a uthority 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/

pu b/pc0362.pdf

Virginia House Bill 2313, adopted in 2013, create d 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/cgi

bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+CHAP
0766

Washington In 2012, Washington adopted House Bill 2660, which

created an account to provide grants to public transit
ag encies 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 W est
V irginia Commuter Rail Access Act. It establishes a special fund in the s tate t reasury to pay track access fees accrued by commuter rail services oper ating 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=1032014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 127 

## Appendix G

. Summary of State s’ Building Code Stringency

State B uilding code s tringency 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 I nternational R esidential C ode® ( 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
do ne 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 s tate 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
AS44.420 20 (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 ad opted 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 reference s 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 C alifornia 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

. T he 2003 IECC is the mandatory minimum for jurisdictio ns 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 area s 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. 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 128 State B uilding code s tringency 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 bi ll 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. Subse quently, 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 proj ects 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 t he I nternational
Green C onstruction C ode 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 ASH RAE 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 par t 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 th e 2008 National Green Building Standard with 2011 Georgia a mendments, 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 w ere held in abeyance for further analysis on applicability by the Guam Building Code Council. Resubmission is pending for f all 2014. 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 129 State B uilding code s tringency Score

Hawaii On February 14, 2012, the Hawaii Building Code Council adopted the I ECC 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 C ouncil’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 en ergy 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

- develop ed 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 S tandard 90.1

- 2007 as of May 6, 2010. Executive Order 08

- 14, signed by Governor Charlie Daniels on June 28, 2008, requires a ll new state buildings to
earn LEED S ilver 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

commerci al buildings must also comply with the 2012 IECC, with reference to ASHRAE
90.1

- 2010. The Iowa Department of Public Safety has a m emorandum of u nderstanding 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

stand ard 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.
Cens us 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
counti es 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 20 09 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 vot ed 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 Octob er 1, 2014. 3.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 130 State B uilding code s tringency 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 com pliance 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 requ ired 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 mean t that only 89 of Maine’s 53 3 municipalities (based on 2010 census data) we re required to comply with energy efficiency codes, which

mean t the requirement applie d to approximately 60% of the state’s population. Smaller municipalities may adopt the uniform code, but are not required t o. 2

Maryland The 2012 Maryland Building Performance Standards are mandatory statewide and

reference the 2012 ICC c odes, including the 2012 IECC, for all new and renovated residential and commercial buildings. § 12

- 503 of the Maryland Code requires the

De partment 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 requirement s 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 S tandard 90.1

- 2010, with

an effective date of July 1

, 2014. The M assachusetts 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 M assachusetts Stretch Energy Code. It is currently adopted in 140 towns and cities representing over 50% of the state population. The M assachusetts
S tretch E nergy C ode 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 b uildings. 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
Minnes ota s tate r egistrar 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. 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 131 State B uilding code s tringency 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 l egislature 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 e nergy c odes e conomic a nalysis conducted by BCAP and Southface, as well as a dditional data collected by the Mississippi Development Authority , approximately 60% (1.75 million out of a total 2.9 million residents) of the

s tate’s population reside in cities or counties with building codes equivalent to the 2003 IBC or higher, and th e 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 energy

using equipment shall be at least as stringent as the most recent energy efficiency

stand ards 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 t he 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, c odified in A dministrative R ules of

M ontana 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 ho me

- 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 IEC C 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 N EC is the minimum standard. 3

Nevada Nevada Revised Statute 701.220 requires the d irector of the Governor’s Office of Energy

to adopt the most recent version of the IECC. On March 27, 2014, t he d irector 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 200 9 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 state

specific amendments. The commercial codes are based on ASHRAE 90.1

- 2007 with state

specific amendments. 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 132 State B uilding code s tringency 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 (NME CC) 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 excee ds the state minimum. The c ity of
Santa Fe and t own of Taos have adopted g reen b uilding codes that are more stringent than the 2009 IECC and require LEED Silver at a minimum. Builders can also use the N ew M exico 2009 Energy Conservation Code Residential Ap plications 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 s tate, 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 C onservation 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

- 20 10. 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 energ y 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 C hapter 11 of the IRC

, jurisdictions have the choice of adopting the
IRC re quirements or the 2009 IECC requirements. In C hapter 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 S ections 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 R equirements ( S ection 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

bu ildings. 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 c ode editions, including the 2009 IBC. The recommended code was approved by the Oklahoma Legislature and the g overnor, effective November 1,
20 12. 32014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 133 State B uilding code s tringency 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

Provi sions (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 Co de, 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 c ompatible

with all the 2009 i nternational c odes 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 S ections were
available for adoption except for Division VIII (IECC) and energy requirements of Division II (IRC), which were adopted progressively in accordance to t he Building Occupancy Group. A
g randfather c lause 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

c ode, 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 ac hieve 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 I sland’s Energy Efficiency Procurement Plan, a Building Codes and Standards Initiative has been approved by the R hode I sland Public Utilities Commission, and a stated feature is the development of a stretch code targeting “15% more energy than buildings con structed according to the prevailing path.” This effort is being pursued in conjunction with the

R hode I sland Building Code Commission and the R hode I sland 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

alte rnative 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 jurisdiction s 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 complia nce 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. 12014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 134 State B uilding code s tringency 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
buil dings 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, commer cial

, 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 20 06 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 B uilding 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 C BES 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. T he Vermont D epartment of

P ublic S ervice (DPS) is in the process of updating the current residential and commercial energy codes to the 2015 IECC or better and anticipate s adoption by December 2014

with an effective date of March 2015. As specific amendments are still under discussion, savings from energy efficiency stipu lations are still unclear. Act 89 of 2013 gives the

Vermont D PS 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 requi rements 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 Cod e 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%. Ho wever, equipment tradeoffs render the codes equivalent to the 2012 IECC. 42014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 135 State B uilding code s tringency Score

West Virginia West Virginia's residential and commercial building codes a re mandatory statewide;

however, adoption by jurisdictions is voluntary. The 2013 West Virginia Legislatur e 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 st ate’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 manda tory

statewide. The state

- developed residential code, referred to as Wisconsin Administrative Chapter SPS 322, Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC), is mandatory for one

- and two

family 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 h as 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: T he 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. 12014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 136 

## Appendix H

. Summary of Building Code Compliance Efforts

State Compliance efforts Score

Alabama

Gap a nalysis/ s trategic

c ompliance p lan In 2010, BCAP and the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) developed

the Alabama g ap a nalysis 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/ o utreach 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 understandi ng, awareness,

an d compliance. The AERC Board is also developing a s peakers b ureau 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 g ap a nalysis and a strategic plan, which were completed in late 2012.

Training/ o utreach 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 i nvolvement Four of Arizona's utilities are actively involved in code

- related efforts. Up to one

third 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/ o utreach The Governor’s Office of Energy Policy works with util ities, specifically A rizona

P ublic S ervice and S alt R iver P roject, on education related to energy efficiency codes. The utilities are allowed, per the state’s energy efficiency standards

, to count the training toward their e nergy 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/ o utreach The A rkansas Energy Office (AEO) has grant with the U

. S

. G reen B uilding C ouncil (USGBC) Arkansas c hapter to conduct commercia l code classes around the state
and a grant with the Arkansas Home b uilders 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 s trategic p lan for 2009 to 2020 represents the state’s first integrated framework of goals and strategies for saving energy ; cover s 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 s trategic p lan established the Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies (BBEES), which call s for all newly constructed residential buildings to be z ero n et e nergy (ZNE) by 2020 and all newly

constructed c ommercial buildings by 2030. The Codes and Standards Action Plan and Zero Net Energy Action Plan ad d detail to the s trategic p lan. In addition,
the CPUC and IOUs conduct EM&V studies to investigate wa ys to improve compliance with the s tandards. The IOU Compliance Enhancement Program developed a b est p ractices report based on a gap analysis of seven building departments. The 2013

– 14 EM&V Roadmap includes a process evaluation of

the c ompliance

- i mprovemen t activities conducted by the IOUs and the Bay Area

R egional E nergy N etwork (BayREN)

.

Baseline and u pdated

c ompliance s tudies 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 c odes
and s tandards research, including evaluation of compliance for multifamily buildings and updates for residential and potentially nonresidential compliance.

Utility i nvolvement California is a national leader in collaboration with the PUC and IOUs in implementation of the s tandards and improvement of compl iance. The utilities ’

n ew c onstruction programs, in close coordination with California’s solar electric incentives programs, p rovide incentives to achieve California’s reach s tandards, pulling builders and other industry professionals through the learning curve necessary to sustain ongoing advancement of ma ndatory s tandards toward ZNE.
The CPUC and IOUs also provide technical sup port to many local governments who adopt stretch s tandards as man datory 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

pro gram 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 peop le, engine ers, and architects. The CPUC also approved BayREN to conduct initiatives to improve compliance with the s tandards in the nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area region.

Stakeholder a dvisory g roup 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 Complian ce Improvement Advisory Group. These groups on an ongoing basis do gap analysis and develop
white papers regarding compliance issues, and under take initiatives to add ress recommended improvements. The Energy Commission also works closely with
the Contractors State License Board (C S LB) to address contractor failure to pull permits for alterations to exi sting buildin gs and willful noncompliance. CSLB conducts stings and sweeps in conjunction with the multiagency Joint
Enforcement Strike Force.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 138 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach 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 s tandards requirements apply to
ind ividual construction projects. The c o mmission also provides t he Blueprint

n ewsletter to keep building departme nts and the industry informed. The

c ommission also provides training videos through the Online Learning Center that building off icials, 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 p roficiency with the s tandards. The 2013

s tandards also established a training and certification program for professionals who provide accepting testing for ensuri ng 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 p lan 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 go als of a gap analysis and the specific near

- term goals of a strategic compliance plan.

Baseline and u pdated

c ompliance s tudies 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 i nvolvement In conjunction with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Xcel Energy (the state’s largest utility) has supported code compliance tho ugh 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 a dvisory g roup The Colorado Energy Code Compliance Collaborative is heavily involved in building code compliance. The c ollaborative’s mission is to facilitate compliance with local energy codes and to coordinate energy code actions and policies throughout the state. The c ollaborative was originally started and supported with funding from BCAP. Now, it is self

- supporting and meets on a quarterly basis.

Training/ o utreach 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 M o U signed with the Appraisal Institute

– Colorado Chapter and the Colorado Coalition of Appraisers. CEO has also partnered with the U.S. Department of H ousing and U rban D evelopment , EPA, and other thi rd 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

archite cts. The training will explain how to adopt, implement, and comply with
codes.

Total 22014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 f or 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 loc al code officials, licensed inspectors, building designers

, and the trades, as well as the annual compliance rate for that

year.

Baseline and u pdated

c ompliance s tudies In 2014, the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board approved two new code compliance studies: ( 1) The R51 or r esidential study will assess progress toward
the ARRA fund recipient requirement that Connecticut achieve a 90% ener gy code compliance rate by 2017, and ( 2) the C&I evaluation will assess the energy code compliance rate, a s 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 i nvolvement 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 a uditing of energy efficiency projects, which included a review of building energy code compliance requirements.

Stakeholder a dvisory g roup 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 s tate 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/ o utreach In April and May of 2014, DEEP sponsored the Building Operator Certification 1

and 2 level training course. The purpose wa s to educate facility managers on the efficient oper ation of buildings, and the format include d 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, en gin eers

, 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 s tate of Connecticut employees to become g reen p rofessionals through the USGBC Urban
Green Council New York Chapter GPRO O perations and M aintenance 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 co vered, 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, i ncluding code compliance issues, energy efficiency

, and connecting to financing programs and initiatives. In
2012

– 13

, the state extended that training to include c ollege and u niversit y facilities staff

.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 u pdated

c ompliance s tudies 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 a dvisory g roup The Delaware Energy Code Coalition is an active stakeho lder group.

Training/ o utreach 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 s tandard s 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 B uilding Act, and other relate d regulations in the city. The
d ivision is currently in the process of developing a robust implementation
program

.

Training/ o utreach DCRA educate s contractors and code officials on how to c omply 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 u pdated

c ompliance s tudies 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 an d makes recommendations for targeting areas known to improve compliance.

Stakeholder a dvisory g roup 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 141 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach 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 train ing 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/ o utreach 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 a dvisory g roup The Guam Building Code Council seeks input from stakeholders when proposing changes to its building codes.

Training/ o utreach 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 Departme nt 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 a dvisory g roup The Hawaii Building Code Council (HBCC) was created by the s tate l egislature in 2007 to promulgate updated codes in accord with national three

- year code cycles, and regularly convenes stakeholders to discuss relevant issues.

Training/ o utreach 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 Co uncil and D epartment of B usiness, E conomic

D evelopment and T ourism lobbied actively for the passage of Senate Bill 2581, which would provid e HBCC with a full

- time a dministrato r 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 g overnor's
desk. In addition, SEO is finalizing a n $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%

c ompliance with the 2009 IECC by 2017, tasked by PNNL.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 142 State Compliance efforts Score

Baseline and u pdated

c ompliance s tudies 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 t he 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 Utiliti es, completed a study of residential energy code compliance in Idaho with positive results: U sing three different methodologies, estima ted compliance rates were 90%, 83%

, and 109%.
The 10 9 % result from energy modeling shows that many homes go beyond the minimum requirements.

Stakeholder a dvisory g roup The Idaho Energy Code Collaborative discusses code compliance, but that is not

the main focus.

Training/ o utreach 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 I daho 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 c ode 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 s tate Energy Office (Illinois Dep artment of Commerce and Economic Opportunity) worked with BCAP to complete a gap analysis.

Baseline and u pdated

c ompliance s tudies The s tate Energy Office received a federal grant to conduct a compliance study to test DOE’s recommended methods for measuring bu ilding 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 stat e’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio.

Utility i nvolvement 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 a dvisory g roup The s tate 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 doc ument and claim the additional energy savings. This effort has grown into
an Illinois Codes Collaborative with a g overnance b oard composed of representatives of the Illinois utilities and the s tate Energy Office. The Illinois Commerce Commission has approved this statewide effort as a component of
the utilities’ and the s tate Energy Office’s three

- year Energy Efficiency Portfolio

Plan with a three

- year budge t of approximately $8 million. In addi tion to expanded training and technical assistance

, the c ollaborative will include rebates
for third

- party inspectors to verify code compliance and leasing of equipment (such as blower doors and duct blasters).2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 143 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach 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 bui lding professionals each year. Thes e programs also include blower door training, HVAC right

- sizing training, and a code interpretatio n 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/ o utreach 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 C OMc heck TM and some basic energy
conservation code information.

Total 0.5

Iowa

Gap analysis/strategic compliance plan In 2012 the s tate worked with PNNL to produce the Iowa Compliance Implementation and Evaluation Guide . The g uide is designed to assist the state and local code jurisdictions in achieving statewide compliance with the 2009
IEC C for the residential and commercial sectors.

Baseline and u pdated

c ompliance s tudies The DOE Residential Energy Code Pilot Study for Iowa was complete d 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 i nvolvement Alliant Energy, Cedar Falls Utilities

, and MidAmerican Energy have for the past two years sponsored daylong training events targeting residential contractors,

ar chitects, 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 a dvisory g roup The B uilding Code Advisory Council is a g overnor

- 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 w orkgroup ha d 30 participants from all aspects of the construction of commercial and residential buildings.

Training/ o utreach 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 s tate Building Code Bureau has te amed up with the state IOU s, the Iowa Association of Building Officials

, and the Iowa Association for Energy Efficiency to provide training throughout the state.

Total 2

Kansas

Baseline and u pdated

c ompliance s tudies The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) annual survey of local jurisdictions provides an initial baseline for assessing adoption and compliance.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 144 State Compliance efforts Score

Stakeholder a dvisory g roup In 2013, KCC established the Kansas Codes Collaborative, a stakeholder group involving utilities, local codes officials, and others. The new c ollaborative builds on the work of the previous Energy Efficiency Building Codes Working Group, with more emphasis on development and impl ementation of the plan to assess code compliance in local jurisdictions.

Training/ o utreach KCC partner s 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 a dvisory g roup The Dep artment 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 provi des feedback to the agency on code activities

. Furthermore, the Dep artment for Energy Development

and Independence (DEDI) , along with its sister agency the Dep artment of Housing

, Buildings and Construction, ha s 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/ o utreach 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 recei ve ongoing in

- service training and are
certified.

Total 1

Louisiana

Training/ o utreach 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 u pdated

c ompliance s tudies In 2013, the Governor’s Energy Office surveyed all code enforcement officers in the 88 municipali ties 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 i nspections performed by a third

- party inspector

.

Stakeholder a dvisory g roup The Maine Dep artmen t 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 145 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach 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 kee p their certification

current. The Maine Building Offi c ials and Inspector s 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 u pdated

c ompliance s tudies 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 oth er 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/ o utreach 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 t elephone.

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 pa rt 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

r ate 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 r aters 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 perfo rmance

- based HERS rating approach, which ties into ratepayer

- funded new construction incentives.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 146 State Compliance efforts Score

Utility i nvolvement A framework of savings attribution for utilities is being developed. Current utility

sponsored trainings and compliance support are being implemented on a pilot basis with a view to a broader program in coming years.

Training/ o utreach The Green Communities Act requires the Board of Building Regulations and Standards and DOER to develop specific energy efficiency training and
certifi cation for all local code officials. No training has been conducted to date in
2013

– 14 as M assachusetts 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

– spon sored 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/ o utreach The state energy office recently dedicated some U.S. DOE S tate E nergy P rogram 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 th roughout 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 i nvolvement 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/ o utreach 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 s tate. Based on recent estimates, a large percentage of the s tate’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 additiona l data collected by the M ississippi

D evelopment A uthority , 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 co de standard for these local jurisdictions is 2006 ICC.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 c ollaborative will be comprised of local

and s tate code enforcement officials, builders, contractors, architects, engineers, energy managers, facility managers, and s tate government officials.

Training/ o utreach 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 D epartment of E nvironmental Q uality ( DEQ ) is currently hosting a stakeholder group who s e purpose is to develop a strategic compliance plan t o 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 ener gy code compliance in Montana. Although the study is interesting, the results are questionable due to sample size, lack of retu rn visits, and items analyzed. It has not been updated in the past two years.

Utility i nvolvement 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 long

term work plan to implement the stra tegic plan. This DEQ

- sponsored group meets approximately every two months.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 148 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach 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 on

site trainings w ith 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 ha ve attended a training session

. With the adoption of the
2012 code

, training has ste pped up dramatically

, with offer ings 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 t hem on energy code compliance

. Total 2

Nebraska

Gap analysis/strategic compliance plan Nebraska has completed a gap analysis produced b y BCAP . Nebraska has also completed a strategic compliance pla n 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

e nergy code compliance in 2012. One hundred homes in 18 counties (only 44 homes were needed for a statistically valid sample) were evaluated by a RESNE T Certified Home Energy Rater. In aggregate, the state average of energy cod e 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

c ompliance 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 Ins titute 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 provide s an assessment of the effectiveness of the localized, customized, one

- on

- one training being provided to codes staff members by an Energy Office contrac tor (retired codes official). This study estimated that the training provided had increased compliance by about 9 %

, f or a statewide av erage 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 i nvolvement 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

Plain s Energy Codes Conference. In the past, all of the utilities have provided financing, conference facilities

, and other types of support.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 149 State Compliance efforts Score

Stakeholder advisory group Nebraska formed a Codes Compliance Collaborative in March 2013 with the
assistance of BCA P/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, educa tors, 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 c ollaborative meets at least quarterly and continues to w ork at the
committee level on issues of relevance

, such as training and funding sources

.

Training/ o utreach The state actively recruits codes officials, builders, designers

, and other professio n al s for workshop opportunities. At least four distinct types of training/information opportunities for codes officials and others have been provi ded since the 2013 submission: ASHRAE, REScheck TM

, 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

, one

on

- one technical assistanc e to local code jurisdictions. This effort, begun in 2012, utilizes the findings of the code compliance evaluation of 100 homes to identify deficienc ies 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 th e 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, a nd 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 i nvolvement NV Energy (Nevada’s largest IOU and the major provider in the st ate) 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 t he Nevada Code Collaborative , which first

met in April 2012 , and has also named seven Code Ambassadors

. SWEEP
continues to facilitate the collaborative.

Training/ o utreach Several training sessions have been offered on the residential and commercial provisions of the 2009 IECC. The Code Collaborative has formed a t raining

s ubcommittee to determine current and future training needs. GOE continues to work with PNNL and contractors to provide training on the Nevada Compliance Implementation an d Evaluation Guide to building code officials and the building industry.

Total 22014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 N ew H ampshire Energy Code Compliance Roadmap was completed in 2012 as part of the NH Energy Code Compliance project, initiated by ARRA.

Utility i nvolvement The Public Utilities Commission allows the u tilities to provide trainings using
some of the funds d erived from the Systems Benefit Charge. The state’s largest utility is actively involved in supporting energy code compliance through trainings
on behalf of a ll major utilities.

Stakeholder advisory group The NH Building Energy Code Compliance Collabor ative was established as part of the NH Energy Code Challenge, which is a stakeholder group of diverse professionals and in dividuals 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/ o utreach 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
IECC s and

, based on the adoption of the most appropriate code, support of training programs an d 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 s tate’s goal of reaching 90% compliance with the Energy Conservat ion Construction Code of New York State

2010 (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 S tandard
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 com pliance 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 i nvolvement In October 2011, the New York State Public Service Commission issued an o rder that includes over $16 million in funding for Advanced Energy Codes and Standards as part of NYSERDA's Technology and Marketing Development Program o perating p lan for 2012

– 16. Long Island Power Authority has developed HERS infrastructure to promote co des and provides financial support for towns that adopt ENERGY STAR specifications as the local code.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 151 State Compliance efforts Score

Stakeholder advisory group NYSERDA staff and contractors conduct regular meetings with the code enforcement, design

, and construction communities. Form al quarterly meetings are held with the New York Department of State, the agency responsible for all code promulgation and enforcement in New York s tate, to maintain a dialog on
ECCCNYS.

Training/ o utreach 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 c ode

c ommentary 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 throug h ICC’s website.

Total 2

North Carolina

Training/ o utreach The Engineering Division of the NC Department of Insurance regularly conducts code training through various state associations and ha s energy conservation code training modules available on its website

. Total 0.5

North Dakota

Training/ o utreach 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 g ap a nalysis report in 2010. The Ohio Development Services Agency (DSA) has contracted BCAP to update that report, and to create a strategic compliance plan.

Utility i nvolvement 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: T he Public Utilities Commission of Ohio does not require utility investment in code compliance efforts.

Training/ o utreach Ohio DSA has facilitated the development of an Ohio Energy Codes Ambassador

P rogram, 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 cer tification 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/ o utreach The Construction Industries Board documents continuous education, training,
and outreach for Oklahoma c ode o fficials, contractors

, and tradespeople.

Total 0.5

Oregon2014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 s takeholders with additional training.

Baseline and updated compliance studies NEEA recently completed its 2013 c ompliance study for the region . It includes recommendations to improve compliance, which Oregon is incorporating into training and process improvements. Design is underway for c ommercial

c ompliance studies in the NEEA r egion. 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 i nvolvement The Oregon P ublic U tility C ommission (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 a dvisory g roup 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 work s closely with the Pacific Coast
Collaborative on codes and standards opportunities

.

Training/ o utreach 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 ev ery three years. In addition, NEEA has developed and is presenting a modified version of the B uilding C odes

D ivision energy code training.

Total 2

Pennsylvania

Gap analysis/strategic compliance plan The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) funded the Pennsylvania g ap a nalysis conducted by BCAP. Over 90% of Pennsylvania's 2,562 municipalities have elected to administer and enforce the U niform
C onstruction C ode locally using thei r 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

P ennsylvania

.

Training/ o utreach 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 Pennsylva nia State Association of Township Supervisors and Pennsylvania Codes Construction Academy to train contractors and code officials through
2015

. Total 1

Puerto Rico2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 153 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach Regularly, the Permits Office provides training and outreach programs for contractors and other professionals of the construction industry. T he 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 representati ves 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 semin ars were offered with the help of ICC to
familiarize all stake holders with the 2009 I

- Codes. Three days were used for

t echnical h earings

, where proposed amendments were evaluated in order to produce a b uilding c ode for Puerto Rico that took into considerat ion 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 advancem ent of codes.

Baseline and updated compliance studies The s tate of Rhode Island and National Grid jointly funded residential and commercial code compliance baseline studies in 20 12 . 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 wit h 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 c ompliance tools in order to continually measure code compliance.

Utility i nvolvement 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 g roup 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 Initi ative and will continue to monitor and oversee the implementation of the i nitiative across the s tate in the coming years.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 154 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach In the past, the s tate 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 i nitiative 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 impl ementation in the state.

Training/ o utreach 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 d uct and e nvelope t ightness verifier training. Based on materials developed by South f ace, 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/ o utreach The Tennessee Fire and Code Academy is hosting courses both in person and
online. In summer 2013 the a cademy 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 com pliance, 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 155 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach SPEER has developed a statewide Energy Code Ambassador Program

. T hese professionals have advanced training in the energy codes and provide peer

- to

peer assistance to code officials an d builders in their local areas

. The program is being expanded in 2014. SECO also provides several training prog rams around the state and has established an online training center, t he Texas Energy Code Training Center: http://www.txenergycodetraining.org

.
Total 1

U.S. Virgin Islands

Training/ o utreach 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 ha ve conducted IECC code compliance training for inspectors, architect s, engineers,
and contractors. The most recent training courses were held in June 2013. One

on

- 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 i nvolvement The Office of Energy Development provides energy code training in co llaboration with Rocky Mountain Power and Questar Gas. There is no specific utility commission guidance regarding utility code support.

Training/ o utreach The Office of Energy Deve lopment has signed a M o U 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 m arket a ssessments, which were completed in Feb ruary 2013
and December 2012

, respectively. The technical compliance rate f or residential
was 74% and for commercial

, 88%.

Utility i nvolvement Efficiency Vermont (EVT), the state’s energy efficiency utility

, is very active in supporting building energy codes. It maintain s an Energy Code Assistance Center

with a toll

- free number to provide assistance with the codes. It also provide s 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 b uilding c ode c ollaborative, which will be in place by the time the new energy cod es become effective, toward the end of 2014 or early 2015.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 156 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach E VT 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 c ompleted. 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 c erti ficates of o ccupancy.

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/PN N L in 2012.

Training/ o utreach 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 c ode update traini ng is currently underway for both commercial and residential energy re quirements. At least four more on

- site training sessions are sche duled for July and August 2014. After live on

- site training is completed, the training will be placed on the a gency’s Kno wledge
Center and available at no cost to code officials and contractors thr oughout the state of Virginia. There is no cost to access the free online training.

Total 1.5

Washington

Gap analysis/strategic compliance plan Washington s tate 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 200 9 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 code

identi fied 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 Wash ington 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 energ y use of "as

- built" homes to the energy use of homes built to meet the prescripti ve 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, complia nce was measured at 94%. A new study is in the design phase.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 157 State Compliance efforts Score

Utility i nvolvement 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 utili ty 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 bui lding 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 s tate works collaboratively with other northwestern state s 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.go v 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/ o utreach Washington s tate and N orthwest 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 Stat e 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 req uired by the W ashington 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 traini ng aids, compliance forms

, and supplemental
informatio n 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 W est V irgini a’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 in dustry, on the codes. Appraisers have since joined the
effort.2014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 158 State Compliance efforts Score

Training/ o utreach In 2014, WVDOE sponsored commercial as well as residential energy code training. In 2013, WVDOE sponsored residential energy co de 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 traini ngs continued and included an added feature: a focus on the National Green Building Standard with instruction on building 15 % more stringent ly than the 2009 IECC. On the commercial side, WVDOE expanded its ASHRAE training from three workshops in 2013 to fo ur 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 e nergy 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 A merican I nstitute of

A rchitects 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 buil dings, 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 adde d components on energy efficiency measures for industrial facilities and an introduction to energy management.

Total 1

Wisconsin

Baseline and updated compliance studies W isconsin 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 sta te amendments as addressed under SPS 363).

Training/ o utreach All licensed U niform D welling C ode and W isconsin c ommercial b uilding i nspectors 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 addr essed by organizations such
as W isconsin Focus on Energy, the Energy Center of W isconsin

, the W isconsin
Builders Association

, and others.

Total 1 .5

Wyoming

Stakeholder advisory group Wyoming Conference of Building Officials

Training/ o utreach The Wyoming State Energy Office has ongoing seminars available.

Total 0.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © 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 desig n 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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

— MassS ave Utility Energy Efficiency Program offers production incentives based on a

three

- tier system considering energy efficiency

. CHP systems that receive incentives through the MassSave p rogram 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 provide s a sales and use tax exemption on natural gas purchases for customers using the ga s 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 pre

engineered 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 S TATE S CORECARD © 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, corp orate, 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 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 162 

## Appendix J

. Expanded Table of State R&D Programs

State Major R&D p rograms 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

ind ustrial, agriculture

, and water sectors. The U niversity of C alifornia 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

incl udes 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 buil t
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
ef ficiency, 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 b y 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 throug h 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 Developm ent 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 facult y throug h 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

s torage, 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. 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 163 State Major R&D p rograms 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 c enter has a staff of 150 and receives $3 million in operating funds annually from the u niversity and $8

– 12 million in external grants. The Energy and Sustainability Center at Florida State University focuses on energy efficiency projects

, including the c enter’s Off

- Grid Zero Emission Building project, which created a n energy

efficient 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 u niversity. The Univ ersity of
Florida’s Florida Institute for Sustainable Energy performs efficiency research that focuses on fuel cells, building construction, and lighting. The i nstitute 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

th e 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 fun ds, the CARD p rogram 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 CA RD 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 impact s 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 Rese arch 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 econom ic 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 Distri ct. Past research has studied low

- in come, 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 Nebrask a

– Lincoln to develop new projects for identifying, financing, implementing

, and tracking demand

side management and energy efficiency projects at the university. 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 164 State Major R&D p rograms 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 poten tial 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 l aboratory 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 p rivate 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 mana gement 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 efficien cy, 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 Efficien cy. 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

c enter promotes and develops strategies for the reduc tion 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. 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 165 State Major R&D p rograms Score

Oregon The Oregon Built Environment and Sustainable Technologies Cente r (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 share s 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 Building s 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 sust ainable urban development, which covers smart

- grid development and

net

- zero energy use. The l ab is a joint project of the u niversity 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 t rust runs programs to field

- test emerging technologies.
The Oregon Tra nsportation 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 Portland

based 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 c enter’s research is supported by contracts and grants from government and industry. The c enter also operates the Ene rgy 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 trans fer, 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 t he 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 s olutions 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 fie ld research, energy

efficiency program evaluation

, and market research ; offers education programs ; and develops and implements programs. The c enter 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 e merging t echnology program that promotes emerging industrial energy efficiency technologies. The program deploys and commercializes technologies that have the potential for large, cost

- effective energy saving s 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. 1.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 166 State Major R&D p rograms Score

Arizona The Sustainable Energy Solutions Group of Northe rn Arizona State provides research,

development, and demonstration of new as well as improved energy technologies and systems, including those focused on efficiency. The g roup is funded by the Arizona Technology Research and Initiative Fund as well as an a verage 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 behavio r 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 i nstitute on its weatherization training and technical assistance. At the Georgia

Ins titute of Technology, the Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems focuses on engineering water and power infrastructures, and the i nstitute’s current efficiency

based research is focused around its Sustainable Infrastructure for Energy and Water Syst ems 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 c enter receives funding from the u niversity, a variety of public and private clients, and sponsorships from the Amoco Foundation, Commonwealth Edison, the Electric Power Research Institute, People’s Energy Corp oration , and Nicor Inc orporated . The Illinois Sustainable Technology Center at the University of Illinois at Ur bana

- 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 intrast ate 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 medium

sized companies as well as technology transfer and commercialization efforts. 1

Kansas Studio 804, Inc orporated is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation that works in partnership

with the University of Ka nsas’ 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 const ruction 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 fo r 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 utilit ies. 12014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 167 State Major R&D p rograms 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 e nergy 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 source s 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

comm ercialization. 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 e lectric u tilities 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 technol ogies with unique abilities to service energy and environmental problems. The c enter 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

- efficien t 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 me mbers of the state's alternative energy industry. As part of a “renaissance z one,” 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 ha s 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 job s, and develop natural resource, environmental, and economic technologies. The c enter 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 als o 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 N ational S cience F oundation 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. 12014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 168 State Major R&D p rograms 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 researche r s are also developing web

- based tools to test the energy efficiency of new homes before

construction. The Uni versity 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 was te and conserve natural resources. 1

Virginia The Tobacco Commission in Virginia has allocated $42 million to help fund r esearch

and d evelopment c enters in Southside and Southwest Virginia since 2007.The Riverstone Energy Cent e r focuses on modeling and si mulation 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 conduct ing 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 c enter’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 i nstitute'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 s tate of Idaho through its three public research universities: Boise State University, Idaho State University, and the University of Idaho. The c enter performs research on energy efficiency as well as a variety of other issues, and receives funding from the s tate of Idaho, U.S. DOE, and a variety of priv ate 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 fo reign oil. The c enter 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 e nergy and the e nvironment and explicitly includes energy efficiency technologies. 0.52014 S TATE S CORECARD © ACEEE



### 169 State Major R&D p rograms Score

Mississippi Under Mis sissippi's Smart Business Act

, a corporation collaborating with a s tate

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 a n MoU with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. The Clean Energy Fund provides grants of $100,000 to $500,000 to New Jersey compani es 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 c enter 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, stat e, 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, Inc orporated , to develop an electric bus

charged by wireless energy transfer between the roadway and the vehicle. The

u niversity also operates the Utah House, an energy and water efficiency demonstration facility. 0.5

V ermont 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 s tate 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 thei r sustainable energy program, which houses the i nitiative’s energy efficiency research. 0.5