# 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 201 3

Prepared by
Adam Cooper Lisa Wood IEE

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1
M AJOR 

### H IGHLIGHTS 

### :

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 3 2011 ENERGY EFFICIEN CY SAVINGS

................................ ................................ .................. 4 2011 ELECTRIC EFFICI ENCY EXPENDITURES

................................ ................................ 7 2012 ELECTRIC EFFICI ENCY BUDGETS

................................ ................................ ............. 9 CONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 APPENDIX A

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 ENERGY EFFICIENCY RE GULATORY FRAMEWORK

................................ ................. 14 APPENDIX B

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 DATA AND SURVEY ADMI NISTRATION

................................ ................................ ........... 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 tr ansform the ways in which electricity is managed and used by
househol ds, businesses, and industries across the U.S.

Figure 1 : U.S. Electr ic Efficiency Savings (2007

- 2011 )

69 85 93 113 107

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011TWh 

# U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings (2007

- 2011)

### 2 Figure 2: U.S. Electric Efficiency Budgets (2007

- 2012) and 2025 Forecast

Source: LBNL (20 13 ) with modifications by IEE.



### In mid

- 201 2
, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CE E), in coordination with IEE, an Ins titute
of the Edison Foundation
, collected industry

- wide data on customer

- funded electric efficiency

program savings , ex penditures, and budgets from utility and non

- utility administ rators in the
U.S. and Canada (CEE/IEE database)

. 1



### This IEE report focuse s on the state of electric efficiency in the U.S. based on information
collected from 169 U.S. organizations

– 155 e lectric and combined utilities and 14 non

- utility energy efficiency a dministrators

.

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 2025Utility Customer Funding for EE($Billion, nominal) 

# Electric Efficiency Budgets: 2007

- 2012 and 2025 Forecast

Actual Medium Case Projection High Case Projection

### 3 M AJOR 

### H IGHLIGHTS



###  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 7 5 millio n 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 efficienc y expenditures nationwide.

 U.S. customer

- funded electric efficiency expenditu res

 States with regulatory frameworks that support utilities in their efforts to pu rsue electric efficiency as a sus tainable 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 m ore 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. st ates, covering two

- thirds of the nation’s population, and that several of these standards have scheduled increases, IEE believes that customer funded electric efficiency budget s ar e 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 di fferent 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 Efficie ncy Programs in the United States: Projected

Spending and Savings to 2025. LBNL

– 5803E. January 2013

.

### 4 2011 ENERGY EFFICIENCY SA VINGS
Savings f rom 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
househol ds, businesses, and industries across the U.S

.

Figure 3 : U.S. Electr ic 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, incenti ves, and information that lower the cost o f purchasing energy efficient devices and encourage practices that enable sound management of energy. To gauge the effect of
the se 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 2011TWh 

# U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings (2007

- 2011)

### 5 resulting from customer participation in exi sting EE programs , customer participation in new
programs, and new participants in exi sting programs during the most recent p rogram year (e.g., 2011). This approach to measuring energy savings is viewed as retrospective and produces a
value known within th e 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 part icipants in existing programs. Another factor that influences the evaluation and comparison of efficiency program s is whether the energy impacts are reported i n “net” or “gross” terms. Gross savings are defined as total savings and net savings are defined as savings attributable only to the EE pr ogram administrator’s efforts. R espondents report available
information
, and that information some times varies in format.

To account for differences across the collected information
, CEE and IEE developed a prioritization meth odology 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 i ncremental information is used (about 30 percent of total savings reported)

. Based on that method
, Table 1 shows that customer

- funded electric efficiency programs ach ieved 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 occu r r ed in the West ern Census region. The residential and commercia l 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
11 3 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



### Acknowl edging 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 fr om either (1) new programs or (2) new participants in existing programs

. S avings 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 imp acts 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 effi ciency resource standards , and more states with regulatory frameworks that support utility investments in EE

. E lectric 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 in creased by $879 million, an 18 percent increase from 2010 levels.

Table 3 : U.S. Customer

- Funded Electric Ef ficiency Expenditures (2008

- 2011 )

Notes: 2009 values include non

- survey data provided by Arkansas Publi c 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 stat es with the largest 2011 electri c efficiency expendit ures . 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 s econd and Massachusetts third. Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wash ington 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 : 201 1 Electric Ef ficiency Expenditures

— Top Ten States

* NW is the sum of Bonnevi lle Power Administration (BPA) and Northwest Ene rgy 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



### $ MillionState/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 201 2

– 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 util ities 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 Electr ic Efficiency Budgets (2007

- 2012 )

Notes: 2010 values include non

- survey data provided by Arkan sas 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 efficie ncy budgets was approximately 21 percent . The rapi d 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 eff iciency 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 e lectric efficiency budgets increased from $2.7
billion in 2007 to $6.9 billion in 2012

. A 201 3 report by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ( LBNL ) forecasts $12.2 billion in customer

- funded energy efficiency by 202 5 under its “hi gh

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 1 7 percent of total elect ric efficiency budgets in 2012. 9 Program budgets were primarily provided in calendar year format. In some instances the progr am

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 bu dgets 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 account ed for 17 percent o f 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 202 5 Forecast

Source: LBNL (20 1 3 ) with modifications by IEE.

11 The Future of Utility Customer

- Funded Energy Efficiency Programs in the Uni ted 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 2025Utility Customer Funding for EE($Billion, nominal) 

# Electric Efficiency Budgets: 2007

- 2012 and 2025 Forecast

Actual Medium Case Projection High Case Projection

### 11 T h r e e states have 2012 EE budgets more than double their 201 1 budgets

– Arkansas , Nebraska,

a n d South D akota . 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. O ver the next 10 years, as d ifferent states develop new, and in some cases first t ime
, programs, we can expect

some new states to become leaders in energy efficiency.

In the states where 2012 energy efficiency bud gets were 50 percent higher than their 2011 budgets
, a major source of electricity generation is coal. 12



### Figure 6 presents the ten states w ith 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 Massachusett s have the highest EE budgets. Illinois and Washington
are new additions to the top ten , d isplacing 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 Ef ficiency Budgets

– Top Ten States

* NW is the sum of Bonnevi lle Power Administration (BPA) and Northwest Ene rgy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)

in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington

.

12 Ene rgy 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



### $ MillionState/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. T able 5 shows 201 1 electr ic 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 no te, 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. E lectric efficiency

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

per

- cap ita 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: D atabase reflects volunt ary 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 RE GULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory environment in each state is a large factor that determines the size of customer

funded energy efficie ncy programs. Over the past several years, state regulatory frameworks
have ch anged significantly in support of ener gy efficiency programs. As shown in Table 6, 27

states allow for some type of fixed cost recovery (either decoupling or a lost re venue adjustment mechanism) and 23 states have performance incentives. In addition, 29 st ates have enacted long

term (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 el ectric 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 201 2 Electric Efficiency Budgets (Sorted by Budget)

Source: State Electric Efficiency Regulatory Frameworks. IEE. July 201 2

. 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 Standard Rank State/Region 2012 Electric Efficiency Budgets Fixed Cost Recovery

Performance Incentive

### 16 APPENDIX B DATA AND SURVEY ADMI NISTRATION

The 2012 survey was sent to 246 electric program administrators, which co mprised electric utilities, combined electric and gas utilities, and non

- utility administ rators in the U.S. and
Canada. The recipients consisted of CEE members, IEE member companies, and several administrators who had responded to CEE’s surv eys in the past. Out of the 246 electric
administrato rs 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 whic h included questions o n the ir overall organization, 2011 program expenditures, 2011 program impacts , 2012 budgets, and state regulatory policies related to energy efficiency

. The survey requested that i nformation on program expenditures, impacts
, and budge ts be delivered in c alendar year format. The majority
of prog ram administrators provide d calendar year information, while some administrators provided information based on their non

- calen dar year program/fiscal year

. CEE managed all aspects of the survey a dministration and developed a database using the voluntary responses
from th e 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 figu res 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 th e respective state
commissions. We kindly request that all requests for clarifications and other comments regarding
the find ings 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 lead

ers, 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 com

munity, 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