A program called ``Innovative Billing?? has been developed to provide individualized energy information for a mass audience?the entire residential customer base of an electric or gas utility. Customers receive a graph on the bill that compares that customer?s consumption with other similar customers for the same month. The program aims to stimulate customers to make ef?ciency improvements. To group as many as several million customers into small ``comparison groups??, an automated method must be developed drawing solely from the data available to the utility. This paper develops and applies methods to compare the quality of resulting comparison groups. A data base of 114,000 customers from a utility billing system was used to evaluate Innovative Billing comparison groups, comparing four alternative criteria: house characteristics (?oor area, housing type, and heating fuel); street; meter read route; billing cycle. Also, customers were interviewed to see what forms of comparison graphs made most sense and led to fewest errors of interpretation. We ?nd that good quality comparison groups result from using street name, meter book, or multiple house characteristics. Other criteria we tested, such as entire cycle, entire meter book, or single house characteristics such as ?oor area, resulted in poor quality comparison groups. This analysis provides a basis for choosing comparison groups based on extensive user testing and statistical analysis. The result is a practical set of guidelines that can be used to implement realistic, inexpensive innovative billing for the entire customer base of an electric or gas utility.

We argue that today’s primary focus on energy efficiency may not be sufficient to slow (and ultimately reverse) the growth in total energy consumption and carbon emissions. Instead, policy makers need to return to an earlier emphasis on “conservation,” with energy efficiency seen as a means rather than an end in itself. We briefly review the concept of “intensive” versus “extensive” variables (i.e., energy efficiency versus energy consumption), and why attention to both consumption and efficiency is essential for effective policy in a carbon- and oil-constrained world with increasingly brittle energy markets. To start, energy indicators and policy evaluation metrics need to reflect energy consumption as well as efficiency.

We introduce the concept of “progressive efficiency,” with the expected or required level of efficiency varying as a function of house size, appliance capacity, or more generally, the scale of energy services. We propose introducing progressive efficiency criteria first in consumer information programs (including appliance labeling categories) and then in voluntary rating and recognition programs such as ENERGY STAR. As acceptance grows, the concept could be extended to utility rebates, tax incentives, and ultimately to mandatory codes and standards.

For these and other programs, incorporating criteria for consumption as well as efficiency offers a path for energy experts, policy-makers, and the public to begin building consensus on energy policies that recognize the limits of resources and global carrying-capacity. Ultimately, it is both necessary and, we believe, possible to manage energy consumption, not just efficiency in order to achieve a sustainable energy balance. Along the way, we may find it possible to shift expectations away from perpetual growth and toward satisfaction with sufficiency.