SUMMARY OF CUSTOMERFUNDED ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY 

SAVINGS, EXPENDITURES, AND 

BUDGETS (2011-2012)

IEE Issue Brief

March 2013

Summary of Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency

Savings, Expenditures, and Budgets

(2011-2012)

IEE Issue Brief

March 2013

Prepared by

Adam Cooper

Lisa Wood

IEE
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS: ................................................................................................................... 3

2011 ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS.................................................................................. 4

2011 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY EXPENDITURES ................................................................ 7

2012 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY BUDGETS............................................................................. 9

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................. 14

ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK................................................. 14

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 16

DATA AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION........................................................................... 16
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Savings from customer-funded electric efficiency programs are poised to grow. As shown in 

Figure 1, energy efficiency (EE) savings are on a growth path in the U.S., with 107 TWh of 

savings achieved in 2011. The stability of 2012 electric efficiency budgets relative to 2011

(about $7 billion) places EE programs on solid ground as utilities continue to find cost-effective 

energy efficiency solutions that transform the ways in which electricity is managed and used by 

households, businesses, and industries across the U.S.

Figure 1: U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings (2007-2011)

69

85

93

113

107

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

TWh

U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings (2007-2011)
2

Figure 2: U.S. Electric Efficiency Budgets (2007-2012) and 2025 Forecast 

Source: LBNL (2013) with modifications by IEE.

In mid-2012, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), in coordination with IEE, an Institute 

of the Edison Foundation, collected industry-wide data on customer-funded electric efficiency 

program savings, expenditures, and budgets from utility and non-utility administrators in the 

U.S. and Canada (CEE/IEE database).

1

This IEE report focuses on the state of electric efficiency in the U.S. based on information 

collected from 169 U.S. organizations – 155 electric and combined utilities and 14 non-utility 

energy efficiency administrators.

 1 For information on Canadian electric efficiency results and/or gas utility efficiency information, please 

reference the most recent CEE report at www.cee1.org.

2.7 3.2

4.4

5.4

6.8 6.9

9.5

14.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2025

Utility Customer Funding for EE

($Billion, nominal)

Electric Efficiency Budgets: 2007-2012 and 

2025 Forecast

Actual Medium Case Projection High Case Projection
3

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS

 Overall, electric efficiency programs saved 107 TWh in 2011 – enough to power 9.3 million 

U.S. homes for one year – and avoided the generation of 75 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide.2

 Electric utilities are by far the largest providers of EE in the U.S., responsible for 86 percent 

of the total customer-funded electric efficiency expenditures nationwide.

 U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency expenditures

 States with regulatory frameworks that support utilities in their efforts to pursue electric 

efficiency as a sustainable business tend to be leaders in electric efficiency expenditures and 

savings.

totaled over $5.7 billion in 2011, an 18 

percent increase from 2010 levels. In three states, 2011 electric efficiency expenditures more 

than doubled from their 2010 levels.

 U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency budgets

 Given that energy efficiency resource standards are established in half of all U.S. states, 

covering two-thirds of the nation’s population, and that several of these standards have 

scheduled increases, IEE believes that customer funded electric efficiency budgets are highly 

likely to exceed $14 billion by 2025.

totaled $6.9 billion in 2012, similar to 2011 

levels.

3

 Over the next 10 years, as different states develop new, and in some cases first time,

programs, we can expect some new states to become leaders in energy efficiency.

 2 Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator;

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html

3 The Future of Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United States: Projected

Spending and Savings to 2025. LBNL – 5803E. January 2013.
4

2011 ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS

Savings from customer-funded electric efficiency programs are poised to grow. As shown in 

Figure 2, energy efficiency (EE) savings are on a growth path in the U.S. with 107 TWh of 

savings achieved in 2011. The stability of 2012 electric efficiency budgets relative to 2011

(about $7 billion) places EE programs on solid ground as utilities continue to find cost-effective 

energy efficiency solutions that transform the ways in which electricity is managed and used by 

households, businesses, and industries across the U.S.

Figure 3: U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings (2007-2011)

Overall, EE programs saved 107 TWh in 2011, enough to power 9.3 million homes for one year, 

and avoided the generation of 75 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.4

The goal of electric efficiency (EE) programs is to produce energy savings (i.e., impacts) which 

benefit the end customer. For several decades, utilities have supported their customers by 

providing rebates, incentives, and information that lower the cost of purchasing energy efficient 

devices and encourage practices that enable sound management of energy. To gauge the effect of 

these programs, CEE and IEE collect industry-wide data to determine the energy savings 

 4 Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator; 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html

69

85

93

113

107

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

TWh

U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings (2007-2011)
5

resulting from customer participation in existing EE programs, customer participation in new 

programs, and new participants in existing programs during the most recent program year (e.g., 

2011). This approach to measuring energy savings is viewed as retrospective and produces a 

value known within the industry as “annual” savings.

Not all utilities maintain EE program results in an “annual” format; some utilities track their 

program impacts in an “incremental” format. Incremental savings only capture the impacts of 

new programs and new participants in existing programs. Another factor that influences the

evaluation and comparison of efficiency programs is whether the energy impacts are reported in 

“net” or “gross” terms. Gross savings are defined as total savings and net savings are defined as 

savings attributable only to the EE program administrator’s efforts. Respondents report available 

information, and that information sometimes varies in format.

To account for differences across the collected information, CEE and IEE developed a 

prioritization methodology that utilizes net annual savings information when available 

(representing 38 percent of total savings reported). When net annual information is not available,

gross annual information is used (33 percent of total savings reported). If annual information is 

not available at all, net or gross incremental information is used (about 30 percent of total 

savings reported). Based on that method, Table 1 shows that customer-funded electric efficiency 

programs achieved 107 TWh of aggregate energy savings in 2011 in the U.S.

5

Table 1: Aggregate EE Savings (MWh) by U.S. Census Region (2011)

The largest 

savings occurred in the Western Census region. The residential and commercial sectors account 

for almost 80 percent of total energy savings.

2011 U.S. aggregate electric efficiency savings of 107 TWh are comparable to 2010 levels of 

113 TWh. The persistence in achieving energy savings reflects the steadfast commitment of the 

 5 Low income programs impacts are included in the Residential sector.

Region Residential Commercial Industrial Other Total

MW 6,213,594 8,834,062 4,110,953 2,783,048 23,390,061

NE 6,266,010 9,181,914 1,483,446 1,015,979 19,048,451

S 6,630,690 4,099,158 1,027,671 2,177,371 14,016,042

W 16,184,735 21,629,265 7,759,739 4,602,434 50,335,247

Total US 35,295,029 43,744,399 14,381,808 10,578,832 106,789,801

Percentage of total 34% 42% 14% 10%

2011 U.S. Electric Efficiency & DR Impacts (MWh)
6

electric power sector to EE. The difference between 2010 and 2011 can be largely explained by 

organizations reporting impacts in different formats in those two years (e.g., annual terms last 

year, but only reporting incremental impacts this year which will result in a lower savings 

number). In addition, the survey respondents vary somewhat from year to year.

6

Acknowledging the fact that some recipients are unable to provide annual savings information, 

Tables 2 shows incremental energy savings, which are the savings that occurred in 2011 from 

either (1) new programs or (2) new participants in existing programs. Savings from prior 

participation in existing programs that are still occurring are not counted in this incremental 

savings estimate.

Table 2: Aggregate Incremental EE Savings (MWh) by U.S. Census Region (2011)

 6 2011 Northeast savings figures were influenced by a change in reporting by one program administrator. In 

prior surveys, the administrator provided annual impacts and this year, for the first time, reported only 

incremental impacts.

Region Residential Commercial Industrial Other Total

MW 2,550,992 2,094,585 536,739 707,975 6,876,618

NE 2,079,075 2,046,516 447,461 972,611 6,000,525

S 1,545,602 1,162,900 321,890 8,285 3,107,910

W 8,585,327 7,838,663 2,495,699 1,520,048 20,610,737

Total US 14,760,996 13,142,663 3,801,790 3,208,919 36,595,791

Percentage of total 40% 36% 10% 9%

2011 U.S. Electric Efficiency & DR Impacts (MWh)--Incremental
7

2011 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY EXPENDITURES

Table 3 shows aggregate electric efficiency program expenditures of $5.7 billion in the U.S. in 

2011, based on a combination of electric utilities and non-utility administrators.

7

IEE believes that the increase in expenditures can be partially attributed to households and 

businesses becoming more concerned with long-run energy costs, upticks in energy savings 

goals associated with state energy efficiency resource standards, and more states with 

regulatory frameworks that support utility investments in EE.

Electric utilities 

are the largest providers of EE in the U.S., with expenditures of $4.9 billion, comprising 86

percent of total energy efficiency expenditures nationwide. The reported 2011 electric efficiency 

expenditures increased by $879 million, an 18 percent increase from 2010 levels.

Table 3: U.S. Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency Expenditures (2008-2011)

Notes: 2009 values include non-survey data provided by Arkansas Public Service Commission. CEE survey total 

for 2009 expenditure is $3,770,398,250.

In 2011, three states more than doubled their electric efficiency expenditures relative to 2010 –

Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In addition, nine states increased their EE expenditures by over 

50 percent – Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, the Pacific 

Northwest, Rhode Island, and Wyoming.

Figure 3 lists the ten states with the largest 2011 electric efficiency expenditures. These ten states

account for 71 percent of U.S. electric efficiency expenditures in 2011. California leads the states 

with more than $1.3 billion in EE expenditures, with New York second and Massachusetts third. 

Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington are new additions to the top ten, displacing 

Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas from the top ten expenditure list in 2010.

 7 Program expenditures were primarily provided in calendar year format. In some instances the program 

administrator was unable to provide expenditures for the calendar year and program/fiscal year expenditures 

were used.

Utility Non-Utility

Utility 

Share of 

Total

Percent 

Increase

2008 $3,395,273,063 $3,009,521,643 $385,751,420 89%

2009 $3,776,011,406 $3,312,287,327 $458,110,923 88% 11%

2010 $4,831,868,289 $4,271,690,924 $560,177,365 88% 28%

2011 $5,711,276,703 $4,914,350,762 $796,925,941 86% 18%

Electric Efficiency 2008-2011 U.S. Expenditures

Total
8

Figure 4: 2011 Electric Efficiency Expenditures—Top Ten States

* NW is the sum of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 

in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

1,294 

554

393

383

285

250

177

169

162

160

0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500

CA

NY

MA

FL

PA

*NW

OH

WA

NJ

IL

$ Million

State/Region

2011 EE Expenditures: Top Ten States
9

2012 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY BUDGETS

As shown in Table 4, based on the CEE/IEE database, U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency 

budgets totaled $6.9 billion in 2012 – including energy efficiency (EE); load 

management/demand response (LM/DR); and evaluation, measurement, and verification 

(EM&V) – a 1 percent increase over the $6.8 billion budget in 2011.

8,9

Electric utilities are by far the largest providers of EE in the U.S., with budgets comprising 83

percent of total customer-funded electric efficiency budget nationwide.

Table 4: U.S. Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency Budgets (2007-2012)

Notes: 2010 values include non-survey data provided by Arkansas Public Service Commission. CEE survey total 

for 2010 budget is $5,422,548,158.

Figure 4 shows that from 2007 to 2012, the average annual growth rate for electric efficiency 

budgets was approximately 21 percent. The rapid rate of growth is indicative of the recent 

dramatic increase in budgets for energy efficiency as a result of new state regulatory policies 

supporting customer-funded energy efficiency programs as well as state energy efficiency goals 

and targets which tend to increase over time.

10

Over the past six years, U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency budgets increased from $2.7 

billion in 2007 to $6.9 billion in 2012. A 2013 report by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(LBNL) forecasts $12.2 billion in customer-funded energy efficiency by 2025 under its “high 

 8 The load management/demand response (LM/DR) category includes budgets for direct load control, 

interruptible demand, price response, and other programs. LM/DR budgets account for 17 percent of total 

electric efficiency budgets in 2012.

9 Program budgets were primarily provided in calendar year format. In some instances the program 

administrator was unable to provide budgets for the calendar year and program/fiscal year budgets were 

used.

10 State Electric Efficiency Regulatory Frameworks. IEE. July 2012.

Utility Non-Utility

Utility 

Share of 

Total

Percent 

Increase

2007 $2,722,788,884 $2,413,639,443 $309,149,441 89%

2008 $3,165,329,920 $2,704,072,429 $461,257,491 85% 16%

2009 $4,370,445,097 $3,796,110,308 $574,334,789 87% 38%

2010 $5,433,087,642 $4,789,681,107 $643,406,535 88% 24%

2011 $6,812,079,691 $5,750,298,200 $1,061,781,491 84% 25%

2012 $6,890,930,717 $5,728,523,510 $1,162,407,207 83% 1%

Electric Efficiency 2007-2012 U.S. Budgets 

Total
10

case” scenario and $8.1 billion under its “medium case” scenario.

11

Given that state energy efficiency resource standards are established in half of all U.S. states, 

covering two-thirds of U.S. population, and that several of these standards have scheduled 

increases, IEE believes that customer-funded electric efficiency budgets are highly likely to 

exceed $14 billion by 2025.

The LBNL report does not 

include load management programs, while the information in the CEE/IEE database and 

presented in this report does include load management. For consistency, IEE made a simple 

calculation, based on collected 2012 budget information, to include load management activities

in the forecasted LBNL 2025 estimate. Load management programs accounted for 17 percent of 

2012 electric efficiency budgets and applying this percentage to LBNL’s projections produces an 

estimate of $14.3 billion budgeted for electric efficiency in 2025 for the “high case” and $9.5 

billion for the “medium case”.

Figure 5: U.S. Electric Efficiency Budgets (2007-2011) and 2025 Forecast

Source: LBNL (2013) with modifications by IEE.

 11 The Future of Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United States: Projected

Spending and Savings to 2025. LBNL – 5803E. January 2013.

2.7 3.2

4.4

5.4

6.8 6.9

9.5

14.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2025

Utility Customer Funding for EE

($Billion, nominal)

Electric Efficiency Budgets: 2007-2012 and 

2025 Forecast

Actual Medium Case Projection High Case Projection
11

Three states have 2012 EE budgets more than double their 2011 budgets – Arkansas, Nebraska, 

and South Dakota. In addition, six states increased their EE budgets by over 50 percent—

Georgia, Illinois, Maine, North Dakota, Ohio, and Washington. This is due in part to state 

legislative and regulatory policies supporting utility energy efficiency investments. Over the next 

10 years, as different states develop new, and in some cases first time, programs, we can expect 

some new states to become leaders in energy efficiency.

In the states where 2012 energy efficiency budgets were 50 percent higher than their 2011

budgets, a major source of electricity generation is coal.12

Figure 6 presents the ten states with the largest 2012 electric efficiency budgets. These ten states

account for 67 percent of U.S. electric efficiency budgets in 2012. As with expenditures, 

California, New York, and Massachusetts have the highest EE budgets. Illinois and Washington 

are new additions to the top ten, displacing Arizona and Maryland from last year’s report.

The increases in electric efficiency 

budgets will help these states reduce their carbon footprint.

Figure 6: 2011 Electric Efficiency Budgets – Top Ten States

* NW is the sum of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 

in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

 12 Energy Information Administration, Form 861, Retail Sales of Electricity by State by Sector by Provider.

1,536 

697

484

411

344

339

230

216

213

168

0 400 800 1,200 1,600

CA

NY

MA

FL

NJ

PA

WA

IL

OH

*NW

$ Million

State/Region

2012 EE Budgets: Top Ten States
12

To provide some sense of relative magnitude, it is important to consider spending on electric 

efficiency in both absolute terms and in relation to the state’s share of the nation’s total 

population and electricity consumption. Table 5 shows 2011 electric efficiency expenditures, 

2012 electric efficiency budgets, population by state, and the state’s relative share of U.S. 

electric efficiency budgets, population, and electricity consumption.

Several relative measures are detailed in Table 5. Of note, six states have 2011 electric efficiency 

budget shares that are at least double their share of U.S. electricity consumption – California, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Electric efficiency 

programs in these states have delivered substantial cumulative energy savings, thus lowering the 

per-capita consumption of electricity.

CONCLUSION

2012 is posed to be a stellar year for savings from customer-funded EE programs in the U.S. IEE 

believes that EE budgets, expenditures, and savings will continue to grow over the next decade 

and the budgets will exceed 14 billion by 2025, up from $7 billion in 2012.
13

Table 5: Summary of U.S. Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency Efforts, by State

Notes: Database reflects voluntary responses to the CEE survey, is therefore not comprehensive, and may not reflect 

all electric efficiency spending/budgets. See Appendix B for discussion of possible limitations of the database.

* NW is the sum of BPA and NEEA program efforts in ID, MT, OR, & WA.

State/Region

2011 Electric 

Efficiency 

Expenditures

2012 Electric 

Efficiency 

Budgets

Population 

(2010 U.S. 

Census)

% of Total 

2012 U.S. 

EE 

Budgets

% of U.S. 

Population

% of 2011 

U.S. 

Electricity 

Consumption

AK -- -- 710,231 0 0.2% 0.2%

AL $39,735,037 $55,736,367 4,779,736 0.8% 1.5% 2.4%

AR $23,558,060 $57,442,347 2,915,918 0.8% 0.9% 1.3%

AZ $121,400,665 $136,409,897 6,392,017 2.0% 2.1% 2.0%

CA $1,294,039,472 $1,535,568,381 37,253,956 22.3% 12.1% 7.0%

CO $70,496,656 $84,045,664 5,029,196 1.2% 1.6% 1.4%

CT $108,671,073 $103,343,854 3,574,097 1.5% 1.2% 0.8%

DE -- -- 897,934 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

DC -- -- 601,723 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%

FL $382,891,510 $410,965,385 18,801,310 6.0% 6.1% 6.0%

GA $41,208,490 $48,548,869 9,687,653 0.7% 3.1% 3.6%

HI $25,077,053 $33,318,967 1,360,301 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

IA $122,968,857 $134,668,007 3,046,355 2.0% 1.0% 1.2%

ID $53,258,459 $60,302,717 1,567,582 0.9% 0.5% 0.6%

IL $160,397,465 $215,914,096 12,830,632 3.1% 4.2% 3.8%

IN $32,957,778 $117,682,786 6,483,802 1.7% 2.1% 2.8%

KS $11,831,866 $13,495,234 2,853,118 0.2% 0.9% 1.1%

KY $33,615,453 $50,774,132 4,339,367 0.7% 1.4% 2.4%

LA $3,843,000 $3,650,000 4,533,372 0.1% 1.5% 2.3%

MA $393,463,918 $484,258,228 6,547,629 7.0% 2.1% 1.5%

MD $130,390,069 $138,271,574 5,773,552 2.0% 1.9% 1.7%

ME $14,855,628 $22,270,258 1,328,361 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%

MI $113,631,399 $152,276,724 9,883,640 2.2% 3.2% 2.8%

MN $120,052,668 $113,296,584 5,303,925 1.6% 1.7% 1.8%

MO $64,877,225 $33,024,282 5,988,927 0.5% 1.9% 2.2%

MS $14,966,081 $16,486,759 2,967,297 0.2% 1.0% 1.3%

MT $11,016,743 $13,849,646 989,415 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%

NC $84,291,601 $98,254,203 9,535,483 1.4% 3.1% 3.5%

ND $564,184 $843,850 672,591 0.0% 0.2% 0.4%

NE $11,185,660 $11,907,000 1,826,341 0.2% 0.6% 0.8%

NH $18,591,621 $19,524,743 1,316,470 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%

NJ $161,587,573 $343,510,872 8,791,894 5.0% 2.8% 2.0%

NM $27,833,259 $33,160,383 2,059,179 0.5% 0.7% 0.6%

NV $44,580,047 $49,863,755 2,700,551 0.7% 0.9% 0.9%

*NW $249,641,752 $167,610,876 -- 2.4% --

NY $554,153,079 $697,491,761 19,378,102 10.1% 6.3% 3.8%

OH $176,666,175 $212,932,671 11,536,504 3.1% 3.7% 4.1%

OK $35,615,951 $34,083,098 3,751,351 0.5% 1.2% 1.6%

OR $100,503,092 $121,586,540 3,831,074 1.8% 1.2% 1.3%

PA $285,211,388 $338,767,362 12,702,379 4.9% 4.1% 4.0%

RI $45,249,000 $61,408,800 1,052,567 0.9% 0.3% 0.2%

SC $21,267,710 $30,832,180 4,625,364 0.4% 1.5% 2.1%

SD $536,500 $1,208,847 814,180 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

TN $59,247,450 $80,310,450 6,346,105 1.2% 2.1% 2.7%

TX $138,685,526 $159,718,699 25,145,561 2.3% 8.1% 10.0%

UT $42,701,803 $47,047,412 2,763,885 0.7% 0.9% 0.8%

VA $400,210 $554,210 8,001,024 0.0% 2.6% 2.9%

VT $36,886,848 $38,038,993 625,741 0.6% 0.2% 0.1%

WA $169,024,253 $229,957,951 6,724,540 3.3% 2.2% 2.5%

WI $50,350,120 $62,136,228 5,686,986 0.9% 1.8% 1.8%

WV $2,816,876 $9,884,376 1,852,994 0.1% 0.6% 0.8%

WY $4,480,400 $4,694,700 563,626 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%

Total $5,711,276,703 $6,890,930,717 308,745,538
14

APPENDIX A

ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The regulatory environment in each state is a large factor that determines the size of customerfunded energy efficiency programs. Over the past several years, state regulatory frameworks 

have changed significantly in support of energy efficiency programs. As shown in Table 6, 27 

states allow for some type of fixed cost recovery (either decoupling or a lost revenue adjustment 

mechanism) and 23 states have performance incentives. In addition, 29 states have enacted longterm (3+ years) energy efficiency savings targets known as Energy Efficiency Resource 

Standards (EERS).13

States with regulatory frameworks that support utilities in their efforts to pursue electric 

efficiency as a sustainable business tend to be the leaders in annual electric efficiency 

expenditures and budgets.

Table 7 shows the details state by state.

Table 6: Summary of U.S. State Regulatory Frameworks: July 2012

Source: State Electric Efficiency Regulatory Frameworks. IEE. July 2012.

 13 State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). ACEEE. September 2012.

Number of 

States Pending

13 3

Revenue Decoupling 14 5

23 6

Summary of State Regulatory Frameworks: July 2012

Energy Efficiency Incentive Mechanisms

Fixed-Cost Recovery 

Mechanisms

Lost Revenue Recovery

Performance Incentives
15

Table 7: Regulatory Framework and 2012 Electric Efficiency Budgets (Sorted by Budget)

Source: State Electric Efficiency Regulatory Frameworks. IEE. July 2012.

State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). ACEEE. September 2012.

*NW is the sum of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) in 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

Decoupling

Lost 

Revenue 

Mechanism

1 CA $1,535,568,381 Yes Yes Yes

2 NY $697,491,761 Yes Yes Yes

3 MA $484,258,228 Yes Yes Yes

4 FL $410,965,385 Pending Yes

5 NJ $343,510,872

6 PA $338,767,362 Yes

7 WA $229,957,951 Yes

8 IL $215,914,096 Yes

9 OH $212,932,671 Pending Yes Yes Yes

10 *NW $167,610,876 Yes Yes Pending Yes

11 TX $159,718,699 Yes Yes

12 MI $152,276,724 Yes Yes Yes

13 MD $138,271,574 Yes Yes

14 AZ $136,409,897 Yes Yes Yes

15 IA $134,668,007 Pending Yes

16 OR $121,586,540 Yes Yes

17 IN $117,682,786 Yes Yes Yes

18 MN $113,296,584 Pending Yes Yes

19 CT $103,343,854 Yes Yes

20 NC $98,254,203 Yes Yes Yes

21 CO $84,045,664 Yes Yes Yes

22 TN $80,310,450

23 WI $62,136,228 Yes Yes Yes

24 RI $61,408,800 Yes Yes Yes

25 ID $60,302,717 Yes Pending

26 AR $57,442,347 Yes Yes Yes

27 AL $55,736,367

28 KY $50,774,132 Yes Yes

29 NV $49,863,755 Yes Yes

30 GA $48,548,869 Yes

31 UT $47,047,412 Pending Pending Pending Yes

32 VT $38,038,993 Yes Yes Yes

33 OK $34,083,098 Yes Yes

34 HI $33,318,967 Yes Yes Yes

35 NM $33,160,383 Pending Yes Yes

36 MO $33,024,282 Pending Pending

37 SC $30,832,180 Yes Yes

38 ME $22,270,258 Yes

39 NH $19,524,743 Pending Yes

40 MS $16,486,759

41 MT $13,849,646 Yes Pending

42 KS $13,495,234 Yes Pending

43 NE $11,907,000

44 WV $9,884,376

45 WY $4,694,700 Yes

46 LA $3,650,000

47 SD $1,208,847 Yes

48 ND $843,850

49 VA $554,210 Pending Yes

50 AK --

51 DE -- Pending Pending

52 DC -- Yes

Energy 

Efficiency 

Resource 

Rank State/Region Standard

2012 Electric 

Efficiency 

Budgets

Fixed Cost Recovery

Performance 

Incentive
16

APPENDIX B

DATA AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

The 2012 survey was sent to 246 electric program administrators, which comprised electric 

utilities, combined electric and gas utilities, and non-utility administrators in the U.S. and 

Canada. The recipients consisted of CEE members, IEE member companies, and several 

administrators who had responded to CEE’s surveys in the past. Out of the 246 electric 

administrators that received the survey, 235 were U.S. administrators. CEE received results from 

169 electric efficiency program administrators in the U.S.

Respondents were asked to fill out a survey instrument which included questions on their overall 

organization, 2011 program expenditures, 2011 program impacts, 2012 budgets, and state 

regulatory policies related to energy efficiency. The survey requested that information on 

program expenditures, impacts, and budgets be delivered in calendar year format. The majority 

of program administrators provided calendar year information, while some administrators 

provided information based on their non-calendar year program/fiscal year. CEE managed all 

aspects of the survey administration and developed a database using the voluntary responses 

from the survey. IEE received a modified version of the database and post-processed data to 

construct this report.

All survey results were voluntarily provided and the total reported figures should be considered 

conservative given the survey’s energy impacts prioritization methodology, organizations 

covered, and response rate.

We encourage participation from all program administrators, their staff, and the respective state 

commissions. We kindly request that all requests for clarifications and other comments regarding 

the findings contained in this report be sent to Adam Cooper, Research Manager, IEE at 

acooper@edisonfoundation.net.

About IEE

IEE is an Institute of the Edison Foundation focused on advancing 

the adoption of innovative and efficient technologies among electric 

utilities and their technology partners that will transform the power 

grid. IEE promotes the sharing of information, ideas, and experiences 

among regulators, policymakers, technology companies, thought leaders, and the electric power industry. IEE also identifies policies that 

support the business case for adoption of cost-effective technologies. 

IEE’s members are committed to an affordable, reliable, secure, and 

clean energy future.

IEE is goverened by a Management Committee of 23 electric industry 

Chief Executive Officers. IEE members are the investor-owned utilties 

who represent about 70% of the U.S. electric power industry. IEE has 

a permanent Advisory Committee of leaders from the regulatory community, federal and state governement agencies, and other informed 

stakeholders. IEE has a Strategy Committee of senior electric industry 

executives and 22 smart grid techology company partners.

Visit us at: www.edisonfoundation.net/IEE

For more information contact:

Adam Cooper

Research Manager

IEE

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004-2696

202.508.5551

acooper@edisonfoundation.net