Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Scholarly Works (16 results)

  • Article
LBL Publications (2013)
    Cover page: Energy Efficiency Program Typology and Data Metrics: Enabling Multi-State Analyses Through the Use of Common Terminology
    • Article
    LBL Publications (2013)
      Cover page: Implications of Cost Effectiveness Screening Practices in a Low Natural Gas Price Environment: Case Study of a Midwestern Residential Energy Upgrade Program
      • Article
      LBL Publications (2017)
      With rising interest in lowering energy costs for low- and moderate-income households, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) asked Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) to assess the implications of pursuing energy efficiency neighborhood-by-neighborhood where those households are most prevalent. DOE provided certain scenarios for qualifying geographic areas as “low- and moderate-income communities,” and LBNL used data on demographics, housing types and recent savings from low-income retrofits or weatherization to provide rough electricity savings estimates under those scenarios.
        Cover page: Gauging the Impact of Various Definitions of Low- and Moderate-Income Communities on Possible Electricity Savings From Weatherization:
        • Article
        LBL Publications (2017)
          Cover page: Better Buildings Residential Energy Efficiency Cost-Effectiveness Tool Version 2.0:
          • Article
          LBL Publications (2017)
            Cover page: Trends in the Program Administrator Cost of Saving Electricity for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs:
            • Article
            • Peer Reviewed
            LBL Publications (2018)

            The average cost to utilities to save a kilowatt-hour (kWh) in the United States is 2.5 cents, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of the cost performance of energy efficiency programs funded by electricity customers. These costs are similar to those documented earlier.

            Cost-effective efficiency programs help ensure electricity system reliability at the most affordable cost as part of utility planning and implementation activities for resource adequacy.

            Building on prior studies, Berkeley Lab analyzed the cost performance of 8,790 electricity efficiency programs between 2009 and 2015 for 116 investor-owned utilities and other program administrators in 41 states. The Berkeley Lab database includes programs representing about three-quarters of total spending on electricity efficiency programs in the United States. 

              Cover page: The Cost of Saving Electricity Through Energy Efficiency Programs Funded by Utility Customers: 2009–2015
              • Article
              • Peer Reviewed
              LBL Publications (2017)
              The program administrator and total cost of saved energy allow comparison of the cost of efficiency across utilities, states, and program types, and can identify potential performance improvements. Comparing program administrator cost with the total cost of saved energy can indicate the degree to which programs leverage investment by participants. Based on reported total costs and savings information for U.S. utility efficiency programs from 2009 to 2013, we estimate the savings-weighted average total cost of saved electricity across 20 states at 0.046 per kilowatt-hour (kW h), comparing favorably with energy supply costs and retail rates. Programs targeted on the residential market averaged 0.030 per kW h compared to 0.053 per kW h for non-residential programs. Lighting programs, with an average total cost of 0.018 per kW h, drove lower savings costs in the residential market. We provide estimates for the most common program types and find that program administrators and participants on average are splitting the costs of efficiency in half. More consistent, standardized and complete reporting on efficiency programs is needed. Differing definitions and quantification of costs, savings and savings lifetimes pose challenges for comparing program results. Reducing these uncertainties could increase confidence in efficiency as a resource among planners and policymakers.
                Cover page: Estimating the cost of saving electricity through U.S. utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs
                • Article
                • Peer Reviewed
                LBL Publications (2020)
                This study develops projections of future spending and savings from electricity efficiency programs funded by electric utility customers in the United States through 2030 based on three scenarios. Our analysis relies on detailed bottom-up modeling of current state energy efficiency policies, demand-side management and integrated resource plans, and regulatory decisions. The three scenarios represent a range of potential outcomes given the policy environment at the time of the study and uncertainties in the broader economic and state policy environment in each state. We project spending to increase to $8.6 billion in 2030 in the medium scenario, about a 45 percent increase relative to 2016 spending. In the high case, annual spending increases to $11.1 billion in 2030 and remains relatively flat in the low case ($6.8 billion in 2030). Our analysis suggests that electricity efficiency programs funded by utility customers will continue to impact load growth significantly at least through 2030, as savings as a percent of retail sales are forecast at 0.7 percent in the medium scenario and 0.98 percent in the high scenario.
                  Cover page: What does the future hold for utility electricity efficiency programs?
                  • Article
                  • Peer Reviewed
                  LBL Publications (2020)
                  This study estimates the cost of saving a therm of natural gas from energy efficiency programs funded by utility customers during the period 2012 to 2017. Berkeley Lab researchers compiled and analyzed efficiency program data reported by investor-owned utilities and other program administrators in a dozen states representative of the four U.S. Census regions — Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah. Depending on the year, the dataset accounts for about 50 percent to 70 percent of annual national spending on natural gas efficiency programs. The estimated cost of saving natural gas during the study period is $0.40 per therm. The analysis also includes estimates of the program administrator cost of saved energy for three core sectors for natural gas: commercial and industrial, residential, and low-income households. It aggregates these sectors to provide regional and national values. Our metrics include savings-weighted averages, unweighted medians, and interquartile ranges (25th and 75th percentiles) of the levelized program administrator cost of saving gas, in constant 2017 dollars. In addition, the study analyzes cost trends during the study period, finding that average program costs trended downward. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work.
                    Cover page: Cost of saving natural gas through efficiency programs funded by utility customers: 2012–2017
                    • Article
                    • Peer Reviewed
                    LBL Publications (2020)

                    Avoided energy and capacity costs are the primary yardstick utilities use to determine which energy efficiency programs are cost-effective for their customers. But sometimes "non-energy impacts" — not commonly recognized as directly associated with energy generation, transmission and distribution — represent substantial benefits, such as improving comfort, air quality and public health.

                    Considering whether and how to include non-energy impacts is an important part of cost-benefit analyses for these programs. This report offers practical considerations for deciding which non-energy impacts to include and how to apply values or methods from other jurisdictions.

                    Researchers reviewed studies quantifying non-energy impacts used in 30 states and applied a five-point system to indicate transferability of a value or method from each study for 16 categories of non-energy impacts:

                    • Water resource costs and benefits
                    • Other fuels costs and benefits
                    • Avoided environmental compliance costs
                    • Environmental impacts
                    • Productivity
                    • Health and safety 
                    • Asset value
                    • Energy and/or capacity price suppression effects
                    • Avoided costs of compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements
                    • Avoided credit and collection costs
                    • Avoided ancillary services
                    • Comfort
                    • Economic development and job impacts
                    • Public health impacts
                    • Energy security impacts
                    • Increased reliability

                    The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work.

                      Cover page: Applying Non-Energy Impacts from Other Jurisdictions in Cost-Benefit Analyses of Energy Efficiency Programs: Resources for States for Utility Customer-Funded Programs
                      Top