SUMMARY OF ELECTRIC UTILITY CUSTOMER-FUNDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS, EXPENDITURES, AND BUDGETS

Transcription

1 SUMMARY OF ELECTRIC UTILITY CUSTOMER-FUNDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS, EXPENDITURES, AND BUDGETS Issue Brief March 2014

2

3 Summary of Electric Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Savings, Expenditures, and Budgets Issue Brief March 2014 Prepared by Adam Cooper Lisa Wood Edison Foundation Institute for Electic Innovation

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY SAVINGS ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY EXPENDITURES ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY BUDGETS... 9 ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESOURCES IN FORWARD CAPACITY MARKETS CONCLUSION APPENDIX A ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK APPENDIX B DATA AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION... 17

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Electric utility customer-funded energy efficiency (EE) programs (i.e., both energy efficiency and demand response programs such as load control and price-responsive demand) saved 126 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in As shown in Figure 1, energy savings are on a growth path in the U.S. 1 Electric utility customer-funded EE program budgets totaled about $7 billion, similar to 2012 levels. Actual expenditures totaled about $5.9 billion in 2012, a 3 percent increase over And, in five states (Indiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) expenditures more than doubled from 2011 levels. Electric efficiency programs are cost-effective ways for transforming how electricity is managed and used by households, businesses, and industries across the U.S. In fact, a 2014 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab finds that electric utility customer-funded efficiency programs that reported results during delivered energy savings at a cost of roughly 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh) saved over the lifetime of the investment. 2 Figure 1: U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings ( ) 150 U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings ( ) TWh In computing savings, the Institute supplemented the CEE database with annual energy savings data sourced from EIA for respondents with annual savings greater than 1 TWh when annual energy savings data were not available from CEE. This supplemented data represents about 31 TWh of the 126 TWh savings in The Program-Administrator Cost of Saved Energy for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs. LBNL. March

6 Figure 2: U.S. Electric Efficiency Budgets ( ) and 2025 Forecast Electric Efficiency Budgets: and 2025 Forecast Utility Customer Funding for EE ($Billion, nominal) Actual Medium Case Projection High Case Projection Source: LBNL (2013) with modifications by the Institute for Electric Innovation. This report focuses on the state of electric efficiency in the U.S. based on information collected from 171 U.S. organizations 159 electric and combined utilities and 12 non-utility energy efficiency administrators. 3 The data for this report is based on data collected by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) on electric utility customer-funded efficiency program savings, expenditures, and budgets from utility and non-utility administrators in the U.S. and Canada. 4 3 In this report, the term utility EE provider represents investor-owned, municipal, cooperative and federal electric service providers. Non-utility includes state/non-profit administrators of EE programs that do not provide electric service to customers. 4 For information on Canadian electric efficiency results and/or gas utility efficiency information, please reference the most recent CEE report at 2

7 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS Overall, electric efficiency programs saved 126 TWh in 2012 enough to power 12.2 million U.S. homes for one year and avoided the generation of 89 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. 5 U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency expenditures totaled close to $5.9 billion in 2012, a 3 percent increase from 2011 levels. In five states, 2012 electric efficiency expenditures more than doubled from their 2011 levels. Electric utilities are by far the largest providers of EE in the U.S., responsible for 89 percent of the total customer-funded electric efficiency expenditures nationwide. 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. U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency budgets totaled nearly $7 billion in 2013, similar to 2012 levels. 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, The Institute believes that customer-funded electric efficiency budgets are highly likely to exceed $14 billion by 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. 5 Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator; 6 The Future of Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United States: Projected Spending and Savings to LBNL 5803E. January

8 2012 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY SAVINGS As shown in Figure 3, electric utility customer-funded energy efficiency (EE) programs (i.e., both energy efficiency and demand response programs such as load control and price-responsive demand) saved 126 TWh of electricity in Electric efficiency programs are cost-effective ways for transforming how electricity is managed and used by households, businesses, and industries across the U.S. In fact, a 2014 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab finds that electric utility customer-funded efficiency programs that reported results during delivered energy savings at a cost of roughly 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh) saved over the lifetime of the investment. Figure 3: U.S. Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency Savings ( ) 150 U.S. Electric Efficiency Savings ( ) TWh Overall, electric efficiency programs saved 126 TWh in 2012, enough to power 12.2 million homes for one year, and avoided the generation of 89 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. 7 The goal of electric efficiency programs is to produce capacity and energy savings which benefit the end customer. For several decades, utilities have supported their customers interest in being energy efficient by providing incentives and information that lower the cost of purchasing energy efficient devices and encourage practices that enable sound energy management. The focus of 7 Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator; 4

9 energy efficiency programs is to reduce energy consumption (e.g., kilowatt-hours). Utilities also offer demand response (DR) programs to their customers to reduce peak energy demands (e.g., kilowatts) during times when the wholesale price of electricity is relatively high and/or when an event creates a situation that impacts reliability of the power delivery system. The data for this report is based on data collected by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) on customer-funded electric efficiency program savings, expenditures, and budgets from 171 utility and non-utility program administrators in the U.S. 159 electric and combined utilities and 12 non-utility energy efficiency administrators. From this dataset, the Institute develops an estimate of annual or total energy savings in a given year, based on three sources of energy savings: Energy savings due to past program participation which continue to deliver measurable and verifiable savings (e.g., installation of a high efficiency refrigerator in 2010 continues to save energy in 2012). Energy savings due to customer participation in new programs (e.g., in 2012, a new program offers an LED product rebate and, as a result, a customer purchases and installs an LED lamp in 2012). Energy savings due to new participants in an existing program (e.g., in 2012, a program administrator continues to rebate refrigerator purchases and a customer utilizes the rebate offer in their purchase of an eligible new refrigerator). Note that there is diversity in how utilities report EE savings information. Survey respondents typically report the same EE information that is used to meet filing requirements of their respective regulatory bodies. 8 Not all utilities maintain EE annual program results; some utilities only track incremental impacts. Incremental savings only capture the impacts of new programs and new participants in existing programs. Utilities may report energy impacts in net or gross terms. Gross savings are defined as the total change in energy consumption that results from program-promoted actions taken by program participants regardless of the extent or nature of program influence on their actions. Net savings are defined as the change in energy consumption attributable only to the EE program efforts, separating out exogenous influences on energy consumption, such as consumer self-interest, program free riders, and program spillover. 8 For additional details on the diversity in how states report energy savings, see Examining the Net Savings Issue: A National Survey of State Policies and Practices in the Evaluation of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs. ACEEE. January

10 To account for differences across the collected information, the Institute employs a simple prioritization methodology to develop an aggregate estimate of energy savings, utilizing gross annual savings information when available (86 percent of total savings reported). When gross annual information is not available, net annual information is used (eight percent of total savings reported). If annual information is not available at all, net or gross incremental information is used (six percent of total savings reported). Based on that method, Table 1 shows that customerfunded electric efficiency programs achieved over 126 TWh of aggregate energy savings in 2012 in the U.S., 19 TWh greater than The largest savings occurred in the Western Census region, primarily as a result of long-standing program efforts in California. Table 1: Aggregate Electric Efficiency Savings (MWh) by U.S. Census Region (2012) 2012 U.S. Electric Efficiency Impacts (MWh)--Aggregate Region Total Share MW 26,874,450 21% NE 20,156,633 16% S 16,981,289 14% W 61,551,017 49% Total US 125,563,390 Focusing only on incremental savings information, Table 2 shows that nearly 25 TWh of incremental energy savings occurred in 2012 from either (1) new programs or (2) new participants in existing programs. 10 Savings from participation in prior program years that persist in 2012 are not counted in this incremental savings estimate. Table 2: Incremental Electric Efficiency Savings (MWh) by U.S. Census Region (2012) 2012 U.S. Electric Efficiency Impacts (MWh)--Incremental Region Total Share MW 7,344,472 29% NE 4,746,586 19% S 3,798,464 15% W 9,031,161 36% Total US 24,920,683 9 The Institute supplemented the CEE database with annual energy savings data sourced from EIA for respondents with annual savings greater than 1 TWh when annual energy savings data were not available from CEE. 10 The March 2013 report erroneously contained an annual savings estimate embedded in the Western region incremental savings figures. This error inflated the reported 2011 incremental savings value by roughly 30 percent. 6

11 2012 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY EXPENDITURES Table 3 shows aggregate electric efficiency program expenditures of nearly $5.9 billion in the U.S. in 2012, a 3 percent increase over 2011, based on a combination of electric utilities and non-utility administrators. 11 Electric utilities, encompassing investor-owned, municipal, cooperative and federal utilities, are the largest providers of electric efficiency in the U.S., with program related expenditures of $5.2 billion, comprising 89 percent of expenditures nationwide. The Institute 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. Table 3: U.S. Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency Expenditures ( ) Figure 4 shows that of the $5.9 billion spent in 2012, roughly 82 percent was spent on energy efficiency programs and 18 percent on demand response programs. Of the DR programs, load control programs dominate. Electric Efficiency U.S. Expenditures Utility Share of Total In 2012, five states more than doubled their electric efficiency program expenditures relative to 2011 Indiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. In addition, two states increased their EE expenditures by over 50 percent Arkansas and Oklahoma. Percent Increase Total Utility Non-Utility 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% 2012 $5,861,218,593 $5,244,287,814 $616,930,779 89% 3% 11 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 as a proxy. 7

12 Figure 4: 2012 Electric Efficiency Expenditures by Program Type (%) 2012 Electric Efficiency Expenditures by Program Type (%) 5.0% EE 82.3% 17.7% DR 11.5% 1.2% EE DR-Load Control DR- No Breakout DR-Price Response Figure 5 shows the ten states with the largest 2012 electric efficiency expenditures. These ten states account for 66 percent of U.S. electric efficiency expenditures in California leads the states with close to $1.3 billion in EE expenditures, with New York second and Florida third. In 2012, Texas returned to the top ten, displacing the Pacific Northwest region. 12 Figure 5: 2012 Electric Efficiency Expenditures Top Ten States 2012 Electric Efficiency Expenditures: Top Ten States State NJ TX WA IL OH PA MA FL NY CA , ,200 1,500 $ Million 12 The Pacific Northwest region is the sum of BPA and NEEA program efforts in ID, MT, OR, & WA. 8

13 2013 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY BUDGETS As shown in Table 4, U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency budgets totaled nearly $7 billion in 2013 including energy efficiency; load management/demand response; and evaluation, measurement, and verification, about the same as in Electric utilities are by far the largest providers of EE in the U.S., with budgets comprising 86 percent of total customer-funded electric efficiency budget nationwide. Table 4: U.S. Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency Budgets ( ) Electric Efficiency U.S. Budgets Figure 6 shows that from 2007 to 2013, the average annual growth rate for electric efficiency budgets was approximately 18 percent. The rapid rate of growth is a result of more state regulatory policies supporting customer-funded energy efficiency programs as well as state energy efficiency goals and targets which tend to increase over time. 14 Oklahoma more than doubled its EE budget in Three states increased their EE budgets by over 50 percent Missouri, South Dakota, and Virginia. Utility Share of Total Percent Increase Total Utility Non-Utility 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% 2013 $6,978,744,639 $6,026,973,276 $951,771,363 86% 1% Over the past seven years, U.S. customer-funded electric efficiency budgets increased from $2.7 billion in 2007 to $7 billion in A 2013 report by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) forecasted $12.2 billion in customer-funded energy efficiency by 2025 under its high case scenario and $8.1 billion under its medium case scenario. 15 The LBNL report does not 13 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 as a proxy. 14 State Electric Efficiency Regulatory Frameworks. IEE. July The Future of Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United States: Projected Spending and Savings to LBNL 5803E. January

14 include load management programs, while this report does. The Institute made a simple calculation, based on 2013 budget information, where DR programs account for 18 percent of budgets, that produces a projection of $14.3 billion budgeted for electric efficiency in 2025 for the high case and $9.5 billion for the medium case. We believe that with energy efficiency resource standards in half of all U.S. states and more states with regulatory frameworks that support utility investments in EE, budgets are highly likely to exceed $14 billion by Figure 6: U.S. Electric Efficiency Budgets ( ) and 2025 Forecast Electric Efficiency Budgets: and 2025 Forecast Utility Customer Funding for EE ($Billion, nominal) Actual Medium Case Projection High Case Projection Source: LBNL (2013) with modifications by Institute for Electric Innovation. Figure 7 presents the ten states with the largest 2013 electric efficiency budgets. These ten states account for 69 percent of U.S. electric efficiency budgets in As with expenditures, California, New York, and Florida have the highest EE budgets. 10

15 Figure 7: 2013 Electric Efficiency Budgets Top Ten States 2013 Electric Efficiency Budgets: Top Ten States State WA TX IL OH PA NJ MA FL NY CA , ,200 1,600 $ Million 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 5shows 2012 electric efficiency expenditures, 2013 electric efficiency budgets, population by state, and the state s relative share of U.S. electric efficiency budgets, population, and electricity consumption. Consistent with past reports, six states California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have 2013 electric efficiency budget shares that are at least double their share of U.S. electricity consumption. Electric efficiency programs in these states have delivered substantial cumulative energy savings, thus lowering the per-capita consumption of electricity. 11

16 Table 5: Summary of U.S. Customer-Funded Electric Efficiency Efforts, by State State/Region 2012 Electric Efficiency Expenditures 2013 Electric Efficiency Budgets Population (2010 U.S. Census) Notes: Database reflects voluntary responses to the 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. 12 % of Total 2013 U.S. EE Budgets % of U.S. Population % of 2012 U.S. Electricity Consumption AK , % 0.2% 0.2% AL $39,832,522 $34,798,146 4,779, % 1.5% 2.3% AR $38,250,876 $72,724,333 2,915, % 0.9% 1.3% AZ $130,847,729 $164,334,468 6,392, % 2.1% 2.0% CA $1,265,427,609 $1,503,323,248 37,253, % 12.1% 7.0% CO $88,584,873 $85,452,078 5,029, % 1.6% 1.5% CT $80,864,427 $87,605,782 3,574, % 1.2% 0.8% DE , % 0.3% 0.3% DC $12,741,522 $13,956, , % 0.2% 0.3% FL $372,157,677 $509,045,607 18,801, % 6.1% 6.0% GA $56,589,705 $71,542,543 9,687, % 3.1% 3.5% HI $32,000,000 $33,483,031 1,360, % 0.4% 0.3% IA $111,577,140 $133,175,420 3,046, % 1.0% 1.2% ID $57,176,329 $30,772,991 1,567, % 0.5% 0.6% IL $197,214,830 $221,260,111 12,830, % 4.2% 3.9% IN $97,078,741 $147,919,951 6,483, % 2.1% 2.8% KS $14,474,503 $14,751,941 2,853, % 0.9% 1.1% KY $54,581,259 $54,615,523 4,339, % 1.4% 2.4% LA $3,474,656 $3,650,000 4,533, % 1.5% 2.3% MA $314,751,613 $475,642,766 6,547, % 2.1% 1.5% MD $104,026,116 $104,249,593 5,773, % 1.9% 1.7% ME $16,037,834 $20,541,187 1,328, % 0.4% 0.3% MI $146,296,932 $154,801,089 9,883, % 3.2% 2.8% MN $127,671,025 $116,161,625 5,303, % 1.7% 1.8% MO $22,806,820 $50,699,065 5,988, % 1.9% 2.2% MS $13,553,047 $10,052,594 2,967, % 1.0% 1.3% MT $12,842,794 $10,585, , % 0.3% 0.4% NC $83,510,861 $117,378,033 9,535, % 3.1% 3.5% ND $400,336 $940, , % 0.2% 0.4% NE $13,233,580 $15,075,866 1,826, % 0.6% 0.8% NH $19,733,624 $17,355,360 1,316, % 0.4% 0.3% NJ $171,510,772 $407,323,844 8,791, % 2.8% 2.0% NM $27,046,417 $32,881,071 2,059, % 0.7% 0.6% NV $38,665,223 $51,910,000 2,700, % 0.9% 1.0% *NW $150,165,589 $169,381, % -- NY $607,599,333 $610,887,944 19,378, % 6.3% 3.9% OH $210,275,091 $223,662,799 11,536, % 3.7% 4.1% OK $50,797,538 $72,642,696 3,751, % 1.2% 1.6% OR $104,658,726 $121,323,558 3,831, % 1.2% 1.3% PA $243,661,000 $247,530,848 12,702, % 4.1% 3.9% RI $46,155,447 $67,599,587 1,052, % 0.3% 0.2% SC $27,887,351 $33,668,980 4,625, % 1.5% 2.1% SD $1,695,070 $1,824, , % 0.3% 0.3% TN $118,754,071 $59,312,520 6,346, % 2.1% 2.6% TX $182,585,045 $221,228,986 25,145, % 8.1% 9.9% UT $44,596,872 $44,331,931 2,763, % 0.9% 0.8% VA $1,290,622 $868,786 8,001, % 2.6% 2.9% VT $34,015,646 $42,764, , % 0.2% 0.1% WA $195,231,318 $199,043,798 6,724, % 2.2% 2.5% WI $66,879,545 $79,939,703 5,686, % 1.8% 1.9% WV $6,237,669 $9,867,727 1,852, % 0.6% 0.8% WY $3,771,271 $4,855, , % 0.2% 0.5% Total $5,861,218,593 $6,978,744, ,745,538

17 ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESOURCES IN FORWARD CAPACITY MARKETS Over the past five years, energy efficiency has been bid as a resource into the forward capacity markets (FCM) in PJM and ISO-NE. These FCM auctions monetize EE resources. Figure 8 shows an increase in EE resources clearing PJM s Base Residual Auction (BRA) and ISO-NE s Forward Capacity Market (FCM) auction for delivery years 2012/2013 through 2016/ In PJM and ISO-NE, energy efficiency resources have increased significantly over the past five years. Utilities are responsible for the majority of energy efficiency that clears the market in PJM and ISO-NE. Figure 8: Energy Efficiency Resources Cleared in Forward Capacity Markets: (MW) 1,800 1,600 Energy Efficiency Resources Cleared in PJM and ISO-NE FCM Auctions ( ) 1,486 1,643 1,632 1,400 1,298 MW 1,200 1, , ,022 1,010 1,117 EE: ISO-NE EE: PJM / / / / /2017 Delivery Year 16 Delivery year covers June 1 thru May 30 of the respective period; e.g., June 1, 2012 thru May 30, Data represents BRA and incremental auction results in PJM; FCM only in ISO-NE. 13

18 CONCLUSION The Institute believes that EE budgets, expenditures, and savings will continue to grow over the next decade, and that budgets will exceed $14 billion by 2025, up from $7 billion in The addition of energy efficiency in PJM and ISO-NE s forward capacity markets monetizes EE as a resource. In addition, the auctions provide a small but growing revenue stream for EE programs. While 2012 and 2013 are banner years in terms of energy savings, expenditures and budgets, challenges persist. Having the regulatory frameworks in place that make the utility financially whole remain critically important for continuing to provide high-value electric efficiency services to customers. Low natural gas prices impose new market dynamics and challenge the ability of regulators and program administrators to develop and deliver energy efficiency programs under the current cost-effectiveness tests. What is certain is that as the role of demand-side resources continues to expand in importance in optimizing the nation s power grid, electric utilities are well positioned to ensure that electric efficiency continues to grow as a smart business solution that delivers broad-based benefits to customers and to utilities. 14

19 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, 33 states allow for some type of fixed cost recovery (either decoupling or a lost revenue adjustment mechanism) and 28 states have performance incentives. In addition, 25 states have enacted longterm (3+ years) energy efficiency savings targets known as Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). 17 Table 7 presents state s regulatory and EERS information ordered by budget. 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 6: Summary of U.S. State Regulatory Frameworks: July 2013 Summary of State Regulatory Frameworks: July 2013 Number of Energy Efficiency Incentive Mechanisms States Pending Fixed-Cost Recovery Lost Revenue Recovery 18 2 Mechanisms Revenue Decoupling 14 1 Performance Incentives 28 3 Source: State Electric Efficiency Regulatory Frameworks. IEE. July State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). ACEEE. July

20 Table 7: Regulatory Framework and 2013 Electric Efficiency Budgets (Sorted by Budget) Rank 2013 Electric Efficiency Fixed Cost Recovery 52 DE -- Pending Pending Source: State Electric Efficiency Regulatory Frameworks. IEE. July State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). ACEEE. July * NW is the sum of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. 16 Lost Revenue Mechanism Performance Energy Efficiency Resource State/Region Budgets Decoupling Incentive Standard 1 CA $1,503,323,248 Yes Yes Yes 2 NY $610,887,944 Yes Yes Yes 3 FL $509,045,607 Yes 4 MA $475,642,766 Yes Yes Yes 5 NJ $407,323,844 6 PA $247,530,848 Yes 7 OH $223,662,799 Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 IL $221,260,111 Yes 9 TX $221,228,986 Yes 10 WA $199,043,798 Yes Yes 11 *NW $169,381,147 Yes Yes Pending Yes 12 AZ $164,334,468 Yes Yes Yes 13 MI $154,801,089 Yes Yes 14 IN $147,919,951 Yes Yes Yes 15 IA $133,175,420 Yes 16 OR $121,323,558 Yes Yes 17 NC $117,378,033 Yes Yes Yes 18 MN $116,161,625 Yes Yes 19 MD $104,249,593 Yes Yes 20 CT $87,605,782 Yes Yes 21 CO $85,452,078 Yes Yes Yes 22 WI $79,939,703 Yes Yes Yes 23 AR $72,724,333 Yes Yes Yes 24 OK $72,642,696 Yes Yes 25 GA $71,542,543 Yes Yes 26 RI $67,599,587 Yes Yes Yes 27 TN $59,312, KY $54,615,523 Yes Yes 29 NV $51,910,000 Yes Yes 30 MO $50,699,065 Yes Yes 31 UT $44,331,931 Voluntary 32 VT $42,764,449 Yes Yes Yes 33 AL $34,798,146 Yes Yes 34 SC $33,668,980 Yes Yes 35 HI $33,483,031 Yes Yes Yes 36 NM $32,881,071 Yes Yes Yes 37 ID $30,772,991 Yes 38 ME $20,541,187 Yes 39 NH $17,355,360 Yes 40 NE $15,075, KS $14,751,941 Yes 42 DC $13,956,057 Yes Yes 43 MT $10,585,871 Yes Pending 44 MS $10,052,594 Pending Pending 45 WV $9,867,727 Pending 46 WY $4,855,345 Yes 47 LA $3,650,000 Yes Yes 48 SD $1,824,209 Yes Yes 49 ND $940, VA $868,786 Pending Voluntary 51 AK --

21 APPENDIX B DATA AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION The 2013 survey was sent to 226 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, Institute member companies, and several administrators who had responded to CEE s surveys in the past. Out of the 226 electric administrators that received the survey, 216 were U.S. administrators. CEE received results from 171 electric efficiency program administrators in the U.S. 18 Respondents were asked to fill out a survey instrument which included questions on their overall organization, 2012 program expenditures, 2012 program impacts, 2013 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. The Institute 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, Senior Manager, Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Innovation at acooper@edisonfoundation.net. 18 Of the 171 U.S. electric efficiency PAs, approximately 162 provided results via the CEE survey. For the 9 remaining U.S. electric PAs for which we are reporting responses, data from EIA or online documents (or a combination) are utilized. 17

22 About the Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Innovation The Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Innovation focuses on advancing the adoption and application of new technologies that will strengthen and transform the power grid. The Institute s members are the investor-owned electric utilities that represent about 70 percent of the U.S. electric power industry. The membership is committed to an affordable, reliable, secure, and clean energy future. The Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Innovation promotes the sharing of information, ideas, and experiences among regulators, policymakers, technology companies, thought leaders, and the electric power industry. It also identifies policies that support the business case for the adoption of cost-effective technologies. The Institute is governed by a Management Committee of electric industry Chief Executive Officers. It has a permanent Advisory Committee of leaders from the regulatory community, federal and state government agencies, and other informed stakeholder groups. In addition, the Institute has a Strategy Committee made up of senior electric industry executives and more than 30 smart grid technology company partners. Visit us at: About The Edison Foundation The Edison Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization dedicated to bringing the benefits of electricity to families, businesses, and industries worldwide. Furthering Thomas Alva Edison s spirit of invention, the Foundation works to encourage a greater understanding of the production, delivery, and use of electric power to foster economic progress; to ensure a safe and clean environment; and to improve the quality of life for all people. The Edison Foundation provides knowledge, insight, and leadership to achieve its goals through research, conferences, grants, and other outreach activities. For more information contact: Adam Cooper Senior Manager, Research Institute for Electric Innovation 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C acooper@edisonfoundation.net