State and Local Policy Database

Evaluation, Measurement, & Verification

Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) demonstrates the value of energy efficiency programs by providing accurate, transparent and consistent assessments of their methods and performance. One central objective of evaluation is to determine how much savings to attribute to an energy efficiency program as opposed to other factors (such as weather). Comparing savings to baseline levels allows evaluators to report the effects of individual measures and entire programs. Evaluators also compare benefits and costs for programs. The benefits may include, but are not limited to: lower greenhouse gas emissions, improved public health, lower energy prices, job creation, increased income, improved national security, and reduced construction expenses for utilities. Determining how well a program is designed and implemented is another key function of evaluation. Such evaluation efforts are critical to understanding and improving program performance.

The Commission permits rate recovery for energy efficiency programs that are cost-effective for all retail customers.

Last Updated: June 2016

There are no formally approved ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Alaska. There is no required reporting to any central entity.

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: SCT
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs for Arizona’s regulated utilities relies on regulatory orders ( A.A.C R14-2-2409 and R14-2-2415). Evaluations are conducted by third-parties for each of the regulated utilities. Arizona has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in A.A.C R14-2-2409 and R14-2-2415. Arizona relies on the Social Cost Test (SCT) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test, the rules for which are stated in A.A.C R14-2-2401(36) and R14-2-2412(B). These benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio, total program, and individual measure level screening, with exceptions made for low-income, pilots, and new technologies.

Last Updated: September 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Arkansas relies on regulatory orders (APSC Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency Programs, Docket 06-004-R). Evaluations are administered by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC). Evaluations are conducted for each of the utilities, but there are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Arkansas. Arkansas uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in APSC Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency Programs, Docket 06-004-R. Arkansas specifies the TRC to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, customer project, and individual measure level screening.

The Commission requires each utility to hire an independent EM&V contractor, and to jointly fund an Independent EM&V Monitor.  The Commission required an EM&V collaborative to develop a Technical Resource Manual that is updated annually and approved by the Commission. 

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, SCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes (DEER)

California is a national leader in EM&V. The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in California relies on regulatory orders (CPUC Decision 09-09-047). Evaluations are administered by both utilities and the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC oversees EM&V studies for investor owned utilities, regional energy networks (RENs), and Community Choice Aggregators (CCA) programs, with a budget of 4% of the statewide portfolio. The 2010-2012 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Report is available on the CPUC web site here. Evaluation reports for program years 2013-2014 have been finalized and published on CalMAC
Evaluation is now underway for program year 2015.  As the energy program funding cycle changes from a three-year cycle to a rolling portfolio cycle, EM&V will follow a predictable schedule of study scoping in the fall and study publication in the spring.

California has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Decision 09-09-047. Evaluations are conducted statewide and for each of the utilities. California uses all of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in CPUC Decision 05-04-051. California currently specifies the TRC to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio screening. 

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Colorado relies on regulatory orders. Evaluations are administered by the utilities. Colorado has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation. The utilities submit a set of technical assumptions as part of their respective plan filings, which are approved by the Commission; see Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in Public Service Company Docket No. 08A-366EG. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Colorado relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in PUC HB 07-1037. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio and total program level screening.

Last Updated: September 2016

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Connecticut relies on legislative mandates (Public Act 11-80). Evaluations are administered by the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Connecticut has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Public Act 11-80 and Evaluation Rules and Roadmap. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Connecticut uses two of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT) test. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Public Act 11-80. Connecticut specifies the UCT to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio and total program level screening.  The 2015 Connecticut Program Savings Document (PSD) has additional information. 

Last Updated: June 2016

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Delaware relies on legislative mandates (Energy Efficiency Resource Standards Act of 2009). Evaluations are administered by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Statewide evaluations are conducted. In terms of a benefit-cost test, Delaware relies on the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC), and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. Rules for benefit-cost tests and evaluation requirements are outlined in the Delaware Evaluation Framework and will be specified in upcoming regulations. Regulations are under development by DNREC with public workshops scheduled for May 2016. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test (with DRIPE and Non-Energy Benefits) will be the primary test in Delaware.  The Rate Impact Measure (RIM) Test will no longer be formally included. 

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: SCT
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

Evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in the District of Columbia is mandated by legislation (Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008). Evaluations are administered the District Department of the Environment using an independent contractor. DCSEU's FY 2013 portfolio of programs is cost effective, with a benefit cost ratio of 4.54, according to the Tetra Tech Evaluation report for DCSEU FY13 Annual Performance Benchmarks Final. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations. Evaluations are conducted for the portfolio of programs administered by the DCSEU. The District of Columbia relies on the Social Cost Test (SCT) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in the Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio screening.

Last Updated: September 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Florida relies on both legislative mandates (Florida Statutes Sections 366.82(10)and 377.703(2)(f)) and regulatory orders (Rule 25-17.0021). Evaluations are administered by each utility. Florida has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Rule 25-17.0021. Florida uses three of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Rule 25-17.008. These benefit-cost tests are required for total program level screening. The current goals were set at levels consistent with RIM test results.

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, SCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

Evaluations of programs are required. EM&V reports are required every two to three years as part of the Resolution of Outstanding Issues in Docket No. 31082 and the orders filed in Docket Nos. 36499/36498. Georgia has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Rules 515-3-4-.09(3)(e) 4 and 5. Statewide evaluations and evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. Georgia uses all of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the  California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The TRC test is used as part of the DSM Program Planning Approach, formerly called the Nine Step Process. Measures must pass the TRC test in order to be used in program plans (as stated in 2010 IRP final order in Docket No. 31082 Appendix H and in Commission Rule 515-3-4-.04(3b)). Furthermore, in the 2010 IRP order, the Commission stated that a ratio below 1.0 on the RIM test is not grounds for rejection of a program. While the RIM test should be considered in conjunction with other tests, such as the TRC test, Societal test, the Program Administrator test and the Participant test, a ratio above 1.0 under the RIM test should not be deemed mandatory.rules for benefit-cost tests are not specified, and Georgia does not have a primary cost-effectiveness test that it relies upon.

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Hawaii relies on legislative mandates (HRS § 269-124(7)). Evaluations are administered by Hawaii Public Utilities Commission. Hawaii has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation. Statewide evaluations are conducted. In terms of a benefit-cost test, Hawaii relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in HRS § 269-124(7). These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio screening. In addition to TRC, Hawaii Energy has also implemented the Lawerence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL) Levelized Cost of Saved Energy (CSE) calculation to be used as a measurement of effectiveness comparable to other efficiency programs.

Last Updated: July 2015

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Idaho relies on regulatory orders. Evaluations are administered by the utilities. The Idaho PUC does not administer EM&V. IPUC reviews and analyzes the documentation.No rules or requirements are specified, but there is a January 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among Commission Staff and the three electric Idaho investor-owned utilities. Evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. Idaho uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Idaho does not have a primary cost-effectiveness test that it relies upon. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, customer project, and individual measure level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. Measure level screening has strictly applied tests.

Last Updated: September 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC with some societal components
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes 

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Illinois relies on both legislative mandates (Public Act 95-0481) and regulatory orders (the order follows the legislation). Evaluations are administered by the utilities and The Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Illinois has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Case No. 07-0540—Order on Rehearingand SAG’s Proposed Framework to Count Savings in Illinois—most recent version. Evaluations are conducted for each of the utilities. In terms of a benefit-cost test, Illinois relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Public Act 95-0481. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio level screening. See also 20 ILCS 3855/1-10 and 220 ILCS 5/8-104(b). The deeemed savings database is the Illinois Statewide Technical Reference Manual for Energy Efficiency (IL-TRM).  CHP was recently added as a measure in the IL-TRM Version 4.0. The IL-TRM is updated annually. Consistent net-to-gross methodologies were included in Appendix A to the IL-TRM Version 4.0 for several programs and IL-TRM Version 5.0 will include IL-NTG Methods for the programs currently not covered.  Pursuant to 220 ILCS 5/8-103(f)(7) and 220 ILCS 5/8-104(f)(8), an independent evaluation of the utilities and DCEO's energy efficiency programs is performed annually.

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes (Indiana Technical Reference Manual)

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Indiana relies on regulatory orders (Cause No. 42693, Phase II Order). Evaluations for electric programs are administered by both the utilities and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Requirements are in Section 4 of 170 IAC 4-8 Guidelines for Demand-Side Cost Recovery by Electric Utilities. Section 4 states: Sec. 4. (a) When seeking commission approval for cost recovery, DSM incentives, or lost revenue, a utility shall develop a process and load impact evaluation plan to assess implementation and quantify the impact on energy and demand of the demandside resource. Indiana uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Rule 8. 170 IAC 4-8. Indiana specifies the TRC to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, and customer project level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

Cost effectiveness tests above have not changed and the Indiana Technical Reference Manaual exists as a resource for utilities. However, effective December 31, 2014, SEA 340 ended the state-wide core program, vacated the Commission's DSM energy savings targets that were established in the 42693 DSM Phase II Order, and precluded the use of a statewide third-party administrator. With SEA 340, decisions relating to programs, goals, and evaluation are at discretion of the utility even though utility program oversight boards with non-utility stakeholders as members exist. IURC rules do require an independent EM&V vendor conduct EM&V and thus the 2015 energy efficiency plans approved by the IURC include an EM&V plan that incorporates an independent vendor conducting EM&V for that utility.

Natural gas programs are subject to EM&V developed by a third-party evaluator and directed by a Joint Oversight Board consisting of representatives from the utilities, the Indiana State Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, and the Citizens Action Coalition, a local non-profit representing the interests of Indiana consumers. Each natural gas utility which is authorized to recover costs associated with an energy efficiency program is required to perform EM&V annually and provide a report detailing the findings to the Commission as a compliance filing. 

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: SCT,  UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Iowa relies on both legislative mandates Iowa Code §476.6(16) and regulatory orders (Iowa Administrative Code 199—35.13(476)). Evaluations are administered by the utilities. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Iowa. Evaluations are conducted statewide and for each of the utilities. Iowa uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Iowa Code §476.6(14)and IAC 199—35.8(2). Iowa specifies the SCT to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, customer project, and individual measure level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. The Settlement Agreements for each of the recently approved EEP dockets (EEP-2012-0001, EEP-2012-0002 and EEP-2013-0001) contain a plan for EM&V for the 2014-2018 plan cycle.

Last Updated: July 2015

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Kansas relies on regulatory orders (Order in Docket No. 08-GIMX-442-GIVOrder in Docket No. 10-GIMX-013-GIV, and Order in 12-GIMX-337-GIV). Evaluations are administered by the Kansas Corporation Commission. Kansas has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Docket No. 08-GIMX-442-GIVDocket No. 10-GIMX-013-GIV, and Docket 12-GIMX-337-GIV. Evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. Kansas uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Docket No. 08-GIMX-442-GIVand Docket No. 10-GIMX-013-GIV. Kansas specifies the TRC to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for total program and customer project level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

Last Updated: July 2015

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Kentucky relies on regulatory orders (807 KAR 5:058). Evaluations are administered by the utilities, but there are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Kentucky. Kentucky uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Case No. 1997-083. Kentucky specifies the TRC to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for total program level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Louisiana relies on regulatory orders (Docket No. R-31106-) by the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC). LPSC rules require that evaluations be conducted for each of the utilities, but there are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Louisiana.

Louisiana uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM).  

The rules for benefit-cost tests are those of Arkansas, as stated in APSC Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency Programs, Docket 06-004-R. Louisiana specifies the TRC to be its cost-effectiveness test required for program-level screening.

Each utility is to hire an independent EM&V contractor, and to jointly fund an Independent EM&V Monitor. The Commission requires an EM&V collaborative to develop a Technical Resource Manual that is updated annually and approved by the Commission. 

For purposes of Quick Start EE program cost effectiveness evaluations, utilities may use deemed saving estimates from other state programs or other nationally recognized source(s) of information for EE program benefits, with appropriate adjustments for each specific Louisiana utility. 

Last updated: September 2016

The independent evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Maine is required by statute (Title 35a Section 10104 subsection 10). Evaluations are administered by Efficiency Maine. Requirements for these evaluations in Maine are articulated in Code of Maine Rules 65-407, Ch. 380 transferred to Code of Maine Rules 95-648, Ch. 380. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Maine relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, customer project, and individual measure level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. The level at which benefit-cost testing is applied depends on the program.

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, SCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Maryland relies on both legislative mandates (Empower Statute Public Utilities 7-211)and regulatory orders (Orders in case numbers 9153-9157Order 82869, and Order 87082). The order follows the legislation. Evaluations are administered by both the utilities and the Maryland Public Service Commission. Maryland has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in the Maryland Strategic Evaluation Plan. Evaluations are conducted statewide and for each of the utilities. Maryland uses all of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Public Utilities 7-211 and Orders in case numbers 9153-9157. Maryland specifies the TRC to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, and customer project level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

In Maryland, reported savings are evaluated by Navigant (the utilities' EM&V contractor) and verified by Itron (the PSC's independent evaluator). EM&V is done on an annual basis and results are filed with the Commission between March/April for evaluation and between May/June for verification.

Last Updated: July 2016

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts relies on both legislative mandates (Green Communities Act of 2008) and regulatory orders (DPU 8-50-A). The order follows the legislation. Evaluations are mainly administered by the Energy Efficiency Program Administrators through an Evaluation Management Committee which includes a representative from each PA, however, the Massachusetts’s Energy Efficiency Advisory Council oversees the evaluations. Statewide evaluations are conducted, with the exception of PA-specific pilots. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations. Massachusetts uses benefit-cost tests in connection with their ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs. Massachusetts relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and considers it to be its primary test for decision making. Resource and non-resource benefits are determined through the EM&V process to be included in the TRC and approved by the DPU. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in the Green Communities Act of 2008 and DPU 8-50-A. Benefit-cost tests are required at the overall portfolio and total program levels screening.

In 2016, the Mass Save program administrators issued their second 3-year strategic EM&V plan outlining scopes and suggested outcomes of the studies planned through 2018. Impact, process and market assessments are all considered through a stakeholder process.

Last Updated: June 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: USRCT
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes (MEMD)

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Michigan relies on legislative mandates (PA 295). Evaluations are administered by the utilities, and Michigan has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation. The primary measure used in Michigan to determine cost effectiveness is the Utility System Resource Cost Test (USRCT), the only measure required under PA 295. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in PA 295.

Last Updated: July 2016

In addition to the TRM, Minnesota has developed the Energy Savings Platform (ESP) to track and report the energy savings for all 187 utilities that participate in CIP. The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Minnesota relies on legislative mandates (MN Statutes 261B.241). Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities. However, the Division of Energy Resources and staff from Minnesota Department of Commerce also assists in the evaluation administration. Evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. Minnesota has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in MN Statutes 261B.241 and Rule 7690.0550. Minnesota uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Minnesota specifies the SCT to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio, total program, and customer project level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in MN Statutes 261B.241 and Rule 7690.0550.

Last Updated: July 2016

Electric and gas utilities with more than 25,000 customers were required to submit Quick Start Plans with implementation starting in mid-2014 that included plans for EM&V. While specific of EM&V plans have yet to be designed for comprehensive programs, the success of the Quick Start Programs will largely be evaluated by independent 3rd parties hired by the utilities to provide EM&V services. EM&V plans will be more specifically defined as the state moves toward setting EERS and performance incentives.

For more information on Evaluation Measurement and Verification, click here.

Last Updated: July 2015

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, PCT, SCT, RIM for electric utilities.
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes. (A technical resource manual (TRM) was approved for Ameren Missouri as part of the stipulation and agreement in Case No. EO-2012-0142.  A statewide collaborative of electric investor-owned utilities and their stakeholders was expected to begin investigation in 2013 of a statewide TRM. The collaborative has not yet been formed. Thus, no work has been performed to develop a statewide technical resource manual.)

The evaluation, measurement and verification of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Missouri relies on 4 CSR 240-22.070(8), 4 CSR 240-3.163(7) and 4 CSR 240-20.093. Evaluations are performed by the utilities’ independent evaluators and are reviewed by the Missouri Public Service Commission’s EM&V auditor.  Missouri uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Missouri specifies the TRC to be a primary test for cost effectiveness. The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio and total program level screening.  Some exceptions exist for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

Natural gas utilities use all five cost effectiveness tests as governed by. 4 CSR 240-14 and 4 CSR 240-3.255.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, SCT
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Montana relies on regulatory orders (Utility Division Docket No. D2003.6.77, Order No. 6496f and Utility Division Docket No. D2004.6.90, Order No. 6574e.). Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Montana, and the rules for benefit-cost tests are not specified. Evaluations are conducted for each of the utilities. Montana uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/ProgramAdministrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Social Cost (SCT) test. Montana specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for the individual measure level for program screening, but there are exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

Last Updated: September 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs is not formally required in Nebraska, and the rules for benefit-cost tests are not specified. Evaluations are administered by the utilities and are conducted statewide and for each of the utilities. Nebraska uses three of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/ProgramAdministrator (UCT), and Participant (PCT) test. Nebraska specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio and total program level screening. 

Last Updated: July 2015

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, RIM, SCT, PTC, ATRC (TRC is primary)
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Nevada relies on regulatory orders (NAC 704). Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities and are conducted for each program. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Nevada. Nevada considers all of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), the Utility Cost Test (UCT), the Rate Impact Measure (RIM), Participant Cost Test (PCT) and the Societal Cost Test (SCT).  The PUCN requires the electric utilities to provide an adjusted TRC (ATRC). The benefit-cost tests are required for each individual program as well as on the portfolio level. The PUCN requires that each program is cost effective and relies upon the TRC and ATRC for this analysis. Some exceptions exist in the application of benefit-cost tests to low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.  

Last Updated: September 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in New Hampshire relies on legislative mandates (SB 323). Evaluations are mainly administered by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. New Hampshire has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in Docket DE 05-157, Order 24,599. Statewide evaluations are conducted. In terms of a benefit-cost test, the Total Resource Cost (TRC) is used in New Hampshire and is considered to be the primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for total program and individual measure level screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Order 23,574. Some exceptions exist for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

Last Updated: July 2015

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in New Jersey is not formally required, but it is recognized that it is highly desirable, and the Board approves an annual evaluation budget in an Order adopting annual program plans and budgets. Evaluations are administered by the both the utilities and the NJ Board of Public Utilities. New Jersey has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in 2010-2011 Evaluation and Research Plan and Protocols to Measure Resource Savings\Revisions to December 2009 Protocols. Statewide evaluations are conducted. New Jersey uses all of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/ProgramAdministrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). New Jersey does not have a primary cost-effectiveness test that it relies upon. The benefit-cost tests are required for total program and customer project level screening. New technologies must pass benefit cost screening at the measure level. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in BPU Docket No. EO08030164.

An updated evaluation and research plan was developed in 2015 and updated protocols were approved in May 2015.

Last Updated: August 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: UCT
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

Section 8 of the Efficient Use of Energy Act concerns the legislative requirements for measurement and verification of energy efficiency programs. Annual reports must be submitted by each utility and a comprehensive M&V report must be conducted by an independent evaluator every three years. Typically, a subset of programs is independently evaluated every year. New programs are independently evaluated in their first year and every year the two programs with the highest projected energy savings are evaluated. The Commission has oversight in selecting the independent program evaluator and uses an RFP process for this purpose. The Utility Cost Test (UCT) is conducted in New Mexico and is considered to be the primary test for decision making and evaluating program cost-effectiveness. The benefit-cost tests are required for total program level screening. New Mexico has a Technical Resources Manual (TRM) that provides deemed savings for 15 of the most common measures implemented in the state.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes. A technical reference manual, which provides formulas and input and many input values for savings, is in use (Technical Reference Manual).

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in New York relies on regulatory orders Case 07-M-0458 and Case 07-G-0141,). Both utilities and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) administer the evaluation of programs. New York Evaluation Plan Guidance for EEPS Program Administrators is established for conducting evaluations. Statewide evaluations and evaluations for each utility are conducted. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) is used in New York and is considered to be the primary test for decision making. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Case 07-M-0458 and Case 07-G-0141. The benefit-cost test is required at individual measure and customer program level screening, with exceptions for pilots, and new technologies.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in North Carolina relies on regulatory orders (Rule 8-68 and Rule 8-69). Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in North Carolina. Evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. North Carolina uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Program Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). North Carolina specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio and total program level programs screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in SB 3—NC GA session law (SL 2007-397)Rule 8-68 and Rule 8-69.

Last Updated: August 2016

There are no formally approved ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in North Dakota. For more information on Evaluation Measurement and Verification, click here.

Last Updated: July 2015

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Ohio relies on regulatory orders (Green Rules as adopted by the Commission in Case No. 08-888-EL-ORD).Evaluations are administered by both the utilities and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Rules and requirements for these evaluations are drafted in the Draft Technical Reference Manualand the Draft Technical Reference Manual Docket: Case No. 09-512-GE-UNC. Evaluations are conducted statewide and for each of the utilities. Ohio uses two of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility/Program Administrator (UCT) test. Ohio specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio and customer project level screening, and are stated in Case No. 09-512-GE-UNC.

Last Updated: September 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, SCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Oklahoma relies on regulatory orders and Commission rules, (Title 165 CC Chapter 35 Electric Utility Rules Subchapter 41. Demand Programs 165:35-41-7). The administering utilities are primarily responsible for timely evaluation, measurement, and verification of their energy efficiency programs. Oklahoma uses all of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual to evaluate energy efficiency programming. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/ProgramAdministrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Social Cost (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Oklahoma specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, customer project, and individual measure level screening, with exceptions made for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Title 165 CC Chapter 35 Electric Utility Rules.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Oregon for Energy Trust investor-owned utility territory relies on regulatory orders (Docket UM 551, Order 94-590). Evaluations are mainly administered by the Energy Trust of Oregon. Oregon has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in Docket UM 551, Order 94-590. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Oregon uses two of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Utility/Program Administrator Test (UCT) and Total Resource Cost test (TRC). Oregon specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for total program and individual measure level screening, with exceptions made for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Docket UM 551, Order 94-590. 

Beginning with 2014 reporting, Energy Trust describes what was formerly considered to be a 'Societal' Cost-Effectiveness Test as a Total Resource Cost test (TRC), which more accurately describes it. Energy Trust continues to use the Utility Cost Test (UCT) as well. Based on Oregon PUC DOCKET UM 551, ORDER 94-590 exceptions to the cost-effectiveness requirements are allowed if one of the following conditions are met:  

a. Produce significant non-quantifiable non-energy benefits; 
b. Will lead to market transformation and reduced costs; 
c. Are needed for consistency with other DSM programs in the region; 
d. Will help to increase participation in a cost-effective program; 
e. Cannot be changed frequently, and will be cost-effective during the period  the program is offered; 
f. Are included in a pilot or research project; and 
g. Are required by law or are consistent with Commission policy or direction 

Last Updated: September 2016

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Pennsylvania relies on both legislative mandates and regulatory orders. The order follows the legislation. Evaluations are mainly administered by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, but there are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Pennsylvania. Evaluations are conducted for each of the utilities. Pennsylvania relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. A benefit-cost test is required for portfolio level screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in M-2009-2108601.Deemed savings are permissible in some instances but greater preference and consideration is being given towards to metered savings.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities. Rhode Island has formal requirements for evaluation. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Deemed savings are used by the utility in evaluating cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs.  Evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs relies on regulatory orders and the Least Cost Procurement Standards approved in Docket 4443. National Grid also provides a Technical Reference Manual, and has offered to the PUC access to an online Technical Reference Library, both of which show savings and costs on a measure level.

Rhode Island relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. The benefit-cost tests are required for total program level screening. 

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: RIM, UTC and TRC
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in South Carolina relies on both regulatory orders (SC Code Ann. Section 58-37-30) and legislative mandates (SC PSC Docket # 09-226-E (Duke)SC PSC Docket # 09-261-E (SCE&G)SC PSC Docket # 08-251-E/09-191-E/10-161-E (Progress)). Evaluations are mainly administered by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and assisted by The South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS). Statewide evaluations are conducted. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in South Carolina. EM&V is completed by independent 3rd parties for all the IOU's for their suite of programs annually. ORS examines the RIM, UTC and TRC.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in South Dakota relies on both regulatory orders and legislative mandates. Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in South Dakota. South Dakota uses two of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test. South Dakota specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for total program, customer project, and individual measure level screening, with some exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. No rules for benefit-cost tests are specified. 

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

Evaluations in Tennessee are mainly administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Tennessee. TVA uses three of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/ProgramAdministrator (UCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). TVA specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. According to TVA, the benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio and total program level screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are not specified. Some exceptions of flexibility exist in the application like low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.

TVA has instituted a robust EM&V effort to assess all its programs on an ongoing three- to four-year cycle.  An independent, third-party contractor has been engaged to collect onsite performance data, validate adherence to program guidelines and identify potential process improvements.  Planning estimates of impacts, life spans and net-to-gross ratios are adjusted in accordance with the findings of the EM&V assessments.

Last Updated: July 2016

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Texas relies on both legislative mandates (Senate Bill 1125) and regulatory orders, The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) hires an independent third-party contractor to perform evaluations.

In 2011, the Texas Legislature enacted SB 1125, which requires PUCT to develop an EM&V framework for effective program design and streamlined reporting. The EM&V framework is embodied in P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.181, relating to Energy Efficiency Goal (see section P)

Last updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: UCT, TRC, PCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Utah relies on regulatory orders (Docket No. 09-035-27).Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities. Utah has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in Docket No. 09-035-27Docket No. 09-035-74 and Guideline Revisions Report, Exhibits A, B, C and D. Evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. Utah uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Program Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Utah specifies the UCT to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, and customer project level screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Docket number 09-035-27.

Last Updated: July 2016

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Vermont relies on both legislative mandates (30 V.S.A. §209) and regulatory orders (Process and Administration of an Order of Appointment). Evaluations are mainly administered by the Vermont Public Service Department. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Vermont. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Vermont uses three of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Social Cost (SCT). Vermont specifies the SCT to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, and customer project level screening, with some exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in 30 V.S.A. §203 and 218b and Docket No. 5980. Vermont has a “non-resource acquisition” (NRA) category that designates funding for activities that are worthwhile but do not necessarily return quantifiable savings.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: RIM, TRC, UCT, PCT
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Virginia relies on legislative mandates (VA Code Section 56-585.1 a5). Evaluations are mainly administered by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Virginia has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in 20 20 VAC 5-304-10 . Evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. Virginia uses four of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Virginia specifies the RIM to be its primary test for decision making, however, Virginia adopted new rules in 2012 that prohibit rejecting or screening out energy efficiency based on the results of any one test.The benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio, total program, customer project, and individual measure level programs screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in 20 VAC 5-304-10 .

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM through 2013; TRC and UCT only starting in 2014.
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes

The Regional Technical Forum, a part of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, maintains a regional deemed savings database and develops protocols for calculating savings from certain efficiency measures.  The electric investor-owned utilities are required to use these savings values, unless they can demonstrate that a company-develop savings value is more appropriate than a regional value.  This allows the utilities flexibility to develop service territory-specific values or update values based on new information more frequently than the Regional Technical Forum. 

Evaluation of ratepayer-funded electric energy efficiency programs in Washington relies on regulatory orders (Docket UE-111880, Docket UE-111881, and Docket UE-111882 for Pacific Power and Light Company, Puget Sound Energy, and Avista Corporation, respectively). Evaluations are conducted by the independent third-party consultants selected by the utilities. Each electric utility has filed, develops, and maintains an EM&V Framework as well as an EM&V Plan, which is filed with each Biennial Conservation Plan. Washington uses two of the benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and the Utility/Programs Administrator Cost Test (UCT).Washington specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making.  The benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio and program-level screening. Companies may implement Low Income programs that have a TRC ratio of 0.67 or above. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in the Energy Independence Act of 2006

The Commission's newly adopted Energy Independence Act rule (WAC 480-109) requires an independent third-party evaluation of biennial conservation savings to be included in each utility's biennial conservation report. Independent third-party evaluators are  selected by the utilities in consultation with their conservation advisory groups and Commission staff. 

For natural gas, the Commission initiated a rulemaking procedure in July, 2012 to address the cost-effectiveness of natural gas conservation portfolios in light of low natural gas prices and avoided costs (Docket UG-121207).  The Commission issued a policy statement on natural gas conservation cost-effectivness as a result of this proceeding. The policy statement identifies the Commission’s preference for the TRC as the primary cost-effectiveness test, but allows natural gas utilities to request to use the UCT as the primary test where there are significant non-energy benefits that are known but unquantified, thus biasing the TRC against conservation.

Last Updated: July 2016

Appalachian Power is required to have a 3rd party program evaluator.  All energy efficiency programs are evaluated both from a process and impact standpoint.  Gross and Net savings are reported for each program.   All 10 of Appalachian Power's programs are formally approved and are funded by the rate payers.

For more information on Evaluation Measurement and Verification, click here.

Last Updated: July 2016

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, and RIM.
  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes (Deemed Savings Data)

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Wisconsin relies on both legislative mandates (Wisconsin Act 141) and regulatory orders (PSC Chapter 137). For the statewide Focus on Energy Program, Act 141 requires the Public Service Commission to contract with an independent evaluator for annual evaluations.  If a utility offers a voluntary program, they are responsible for hiring an evaluator to conduct the evaluation.Wisconsin uses three of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Program Administrator (UCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Wisconsin specifies a modified TRC, which counts reduced emissions as benefits along with utility avoided costs, to be its primary test for decision making. A benefit-cost test is required for overall portfolio level screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Commission order: Docket 5-FE-100, Ref #: 215245, final decision dated September 5, 2014.

Last Updated: July 2015

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: TRC, UCT, PCT,SCT, RIM
  • Uses a deemed savings database: no

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Wyoming is not required. Evaluations rely on regulatory orders specified in dockets for each utility and are mainly administered by the Wyoming Public Service Commission. Wyoming uses all of the five classic benefit-cost tests identified in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Utility/Program Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), Societal, (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Wyoming specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio level screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are not specified.

Last Updated: November 2016