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: July 2017

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

Last Updated: July 2017

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test
  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none

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). Third parties conduct evaluations for each regulated utility. Arizona has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, documenting them in A.A.C. R14-2-2409 and R14-2-2415. Arizona uses the Societal Cost Test (SCT) and considers it the primary cost-effectiveness test; SCT rules are in A.A.C. R14-2-2401(36) and R14-2-2412(B).

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Arizona applies the Societal Cost Test (SCT) primarily at the portfolio level and secondarily at the program and measure level. Arizona’s SCT accounts for non-energy costs and benefits associated with productivity (improved systems operations), health and safety, participant satisfaction (customer service), water savings, environmental impacts, and public health (health effects from burning fossil fuels).

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Arizona is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).

Last updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test
  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test

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). The Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) administers evaluations. The Commission requires each utility to hire an independent EM&V contractor and to fund jointly an independent EM&V monitor, but there are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Arkansas.  The Commission requires all EM&V activities to be consistent with the Arkansas Technical Reference Manual (TRM), as stated in the efficiency rules.

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. According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Arkansas applies the TRC primarily at the program level and secondarily at the portfolio and measure level. Arkansas’ TRC accounts for non-energy costs and benefits associated with water savings, other fuels, participants’ equipment replacement costs, participant measure costs, and additional non-energy benefits (NEBs) for low-income customers.

Arkansas recently conducted a review of their current practices to assess its alignment with principles of the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM).

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Arkansas is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test and utility cost test 

  •  Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: None

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in California relies on regulatory orders (CPUC Decision 09-09-047). Utilities and the California Public Utilities Commission administer evaluations. The CPUC oversees EM&V studies for investor-owned utility, regional energy network (REN), and Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) programs. Evaluation information is available on the CPUC web site here, and historical evaluation reports dating to the 1990s are available on CalMAC.  

California has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are in Decision 09-09-047. Evaluations are conducted statewide and for each of the utilities. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in CPUC Decision 05-04-051.  According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), California currently specifies the TRC and UCT to be its primary cost-effectiveness tests. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio screening. Non-energy benefits (NEBs) included in California’s tests include avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for California is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

 

Last updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary tests used: participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test, utility cost test, societal cost test 

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. According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), 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. Colorado’s TRC accounts for avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations and benefits associated with improved public health, participant health and environmental benefits. Additional non-energy benefits (NEBs) may be included in a 10% adder as determined by the commission.  

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Colorado is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

 

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost, modified utility cost test  

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. The state maintains a Connecticut Program Savings Document to provide detailed, comprehensive documentation of savings corresponding to energy efficiency programs. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Public Act 11-80.  

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Connecticut specifies the utility cost test (UCT) to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio and total program level screening.  An exception is made for low-income programs, for which the total resource cost test (TRC) is used in order to account for benefits beyond what the UCT considers. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Connecticut is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).  

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: rate and bill impacts  

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Delaware relies on legislative mandates (Energy Efficiency Resource Standards Act of 2009). The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control administers evaluations. Statewide evaluations are conducted.  

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Delaware relies on the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. Delaware’s TRC accounts for avoided environmental compliance costs, reduced emissions, and improved participant health. Delaware also accounts for other non-energy benefits of productivity (avoided O&M costs), non-primary fuel benefits, and water savings. Rules for benefit-cost tests and evaluation requirements are outlined in the Delaware Evaluation Framework. Evaluation, Measurement, & Verification Regulations (Title 29, Section 8059) were published in the State Register of Regulation December 2016, becoming promulgated January 11, 2017.   

These regulations include EM&V procedures and standards including impact evaluation, environmental outcomes, process evaluation, market effects, and cost-effectiveness evaluation. They require energy providers to actively demonstrate, document, and report compliance with energy savings targets. The EM&V regulations also define how to measure electricity and natural gas savings.  

The EM&V Subcommittee to the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (EEAC) was  formed to help guide the council on all aspects of EM&V, ensuring compliance of EM&V activities with the regulations, and striving for consistency in the execution of EM&V activities statewide.  

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Delaware is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

  • 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 2016 portfolio of programs is cost effective, with a benefit cost ratio of 3.77, according to the Tetra Tech Evaluation report for DCSEU FY16 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: June 2018

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test  

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 Cost Test (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.  

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test, utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, ratepayer impact measure test  

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) test, Utility/Programs Administrator Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), Social Cost Test (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test. The TRC test is used as part of the DSM Program Planning Approach. 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 using 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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

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.

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Hawaii relies on the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test. Hawaii’s TRC accounts for avoided participant costs. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in HRS § 269-124(7). These benefit-cost tests are required for overall portfolio screening.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Hawaii is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test and participant cost test 

Each utility is required to conduct an impact and process evaluation of its energy efficiency programs every 2-3 years. According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Idaho relies on the Utility Cost Test (UCT) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. The participant cost test is used, but does not drive decisions on cost-effectiveness. Idaho’s UCT accounts for non-energy benefits such as participant health and safety for low-income programs, non-primary fuel benefits, and water savings.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Idaho is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test 

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Illinois relies on both legislative mandates (the Illinois Power Agency Act, Public Act 95-0481, and the Future Energy Jobs Act, SB2814) and regulatory orders (that follow the legislation). Illinois has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Case No. 07-0540—Order on Rehearing and the net-to-gross (NTG) framework. See also 220 ILCS 5/8-103B for electric, effective June 1, 2017, and 220 ILCS 5/8-104 for natural gas utility evaluation. Evaluations are conducted for each of the utilities.  

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Illinois relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) benefit-cost test as its primary cost-effectiveness test. The utility cost test (UCT) is the secondary test. Rules for benefit-cost tests were updated in the Future Energy Jobs Act and are stated in Public Act 95-0481 and outlined in the Illinois Energy Efficiency Policy Manual. 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)). Illinois’ test accounts for avoided costs of compliance with greenhouse gas emissions regulations and environmental impacts. Illinois’ TRC accounts for costs and benefits associated with participant productivity (reduced O&M costs), other fuel (natural gas), and water savings. 

The state maintains an Illinois Statewide Technical Reference Manual for Energy Efficiency. The current version in effect became effective date of January 1, 2018. The IL-TRM is updated annually. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Illinois is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test 

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 demand-side 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. 

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 vendor to conduct EM&V. 

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 that 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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, total resource cost test, and ratepayer impact measure

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Iowa relies on regulatory orders (Iowa Administrative Code 199—35.5(2) (f)(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(13) and IAC 199—35.8(2). Iowa specifies the SCT to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. 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.

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Iowa relies on the Societal Cost Test (SCT) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test.  However, Iowa rate-regulated utility customers may opt out of the five-year energy efficiency plan if a program does not pass the RIM test. Iowa’s SCT accounts for non-energy benefits such as asset value, natural gas savings, and appliance water savings. Iowa also accounts for avoided environmental costs. Low-income programs do not need to pass a cost-effectiveness test.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Iowa is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test 

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Kansas relies on regulatory orders (Order in Docket No. 08-GIMX-442-GIV, Order 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-GIV, Docket 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-GIV and 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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure  

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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test 

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). In order to implement a program, at a minimum, each efficiency program must have a Total Resource Cost test that is greater than 1.0. (General Order 1-11-2019, R-31106

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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test

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

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Maine relies on the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. Maine’s TRC accounts for avoided fossil fuel and supply water and wastewater processing costs. Economic development, job creation, productivity improvements, and environmental benefits are included to the extent they can be quantified and valued. Maine also has a target of 10% of available program funds or $2.6 million, whichever is greater, to low-income programs.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Maine is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Maryland relies on both legislative mandates (SB 184) and regulatory orders (Orders in case numbers 9153-9157, Order 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.

In Maryland, reported savings are evaluated by the utilities' EM&V contractor(s) and verified by 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.

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Maryland relies on the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test, with the exception of low-income programs which may be implemented without passing the TRC. Maryland’s TRC accounts for non-energy benefits of productivity, increased comfort, water savings, and alternative fuel benefits. Maryland also accounts for avoided air emission costs.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Maryland is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none 

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. Updates to rules were made in DPU 11-120, a supplement to 08-50. 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 except for PA-specific pilots. The state maintains an electronic Technical Reference Manual (eTRM) for information on methods, formulas, and default assumptions for estimating energy, peak demand, and other resource impacts from energy efficiency measures. 

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Massachusetts relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test as 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. Massachusetts’ test accounts for avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations and participant health benefits resulting from installed measures. Massachusetts’ TRC accounts for non-energy costs and benefits associated with asset value, productivity, economic well-being (reduced arrearages, terminations and reconnections), comfort, other fuels (natural gas, oil, propane, wood), and water savings. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Massachusetts is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used:  utility cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost, ratepayer impact measure, participant cost test 

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Michigan relies on legislative mandates under Act 242. Evaluations are administered by the utilities, and Michigan has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation. The state maintains the Michigan Energy Measures Database (MEMD) as a basis for the development of energy efficiency savings calculations. 

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), the primary measure used in Michigan to determine cost effectiveness is the Utility Cost Test (UCT. Secondary tests are TRC, RIM, and PCT. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in PA 342.  

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Michigan is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). 

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, and ratepayer impact measure test 

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. The state maintains the Minnesota Technical Reference Manual as a set of standard methodologies and inputs for calculating the savings impacts and cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs.

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Minnesota specifies the SCT to be its primary test for decision making. The primary assessment level is the segment.  The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in MN Statutes 261B.241 and Rule 7690.0550. Minnesota’s SCT test accounts for environmental benefits from reduced emissions. Minnesota’s SCT also includes non-energy costs and benefits associated with asset value and productivity. 

The National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP) recently conducted a study  for Minnesota to examine how it might consider development of a cost-effectiveness framework for efficiency that incorporates the key principles in the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM).  

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Minnesota is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost, utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test 

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 and estimated savings. Cost effectiveness testing was not initially required for Quick Start programs. However, the Quick Start phase was later extended through 2020, and the Commission required utilities to submit cost-effectiveness test results. Section 105 of Rule 29 includes guidance on cost inputs, which include program design; implementation; delivery; customer incentives; customer education and marketing; measurement of benefits; and administration. Cost-benefit results are presented for both an individual program and portfolio levels. Utilities may use either an evaluation period of ten years (a natural gas utility may use an evaluation period of fifteen years) or the actual lives for each measure in a program to evaluate a program or portfolio. Utilities may submit additional economic analyses information in support of a proposed program or portfolio.

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: participant cost test, societal cost test, ratepayer impact measure 

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 its 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. 

MEEIA Cycle 2 technical reference manuals (TRM) were approved as part of the stipulation and agreements approved for Ameren Missouri in Case No. EO-2015-0055, and for KCP&L and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company in Case Nos. EO-2015-0240 and EO-2015-0241, respectively. A statewide TRM was created in early 2017 for gas and electric measures through a collaborative process funded by a grant awarded to the Missouri Division of Energy of the Department of Economic Development. The statewide TRM has not yet been approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission. 

Natural gas utilities use all five cost effectiveness tests as governed by 4 CSR 240-22.070(8) and 4CSR 240-20.093(8). 

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test 

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/Program Administrator (UCT), Participant (PCT), and Social Cost (SCT) test. Montana specifies the TRC as 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: January 2019

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost, utility cost test, ratepayer impact measure test 

Evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs is not mandated at the state level but rather is conducted by each of the local public power regulating entities. Utilities use TRC, UCT, RIM, or a combination to select programs that cost-effectively meet energy efficiency goals. Generally, benefit-cost tests are applied to the portfolio level, rather than individual measure, for screening.

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, and ratepayer impact measure

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Nevada relies on statute (NRS 704.785(1)) and regulatory orders (NAC 704). The statute states that the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUCN) shall adopt regulations authorizing an electric utility to recover an amount based on the measurable and verifiable effects of the implementation by the electric utility of energy efficiency and conservation programs approved by the Commission. The Commission has taken this language to mean that M&V is mandated for energy efficiency programs. Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities and are conducted for each program.

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). According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Nevada no longer uses a primary cost-effectiveness test, requiring utilities to choose a standard test that accounts for non-energy benefits. Utilities must submit a demand side plan that is cost effective as a whole. However, the TRC is the most commonly cost-effectiveness test used by utilities according to the DSESP,. . The TRC is called the NTRC when non-energy benefits are accounted for.

 

Nevada accounts for avoided environmental compliance costs, alternative fuel benefits, and water savings. Nevada accounts for economic development and jobs created by program. Nevada also includes other non-energy benefits such as increased customer asset value, productivity, economic well-being, comfort, health and safety, satisfaction, and low-income programs as non-energy benefit riders. These riders are included in the NTRC test and calculated with a proxy. Non- low-income programs, low-income programs, and combined programs use 10%, 25%, and 15% multipliers respectively.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Nevada is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none 

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in New Hampshire relies on legislative mandates (SB 323) and on regulatory orders, such as Order No. 25,976 for 2017 programs. 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.  

The adoption of the EERS expanded EM&V activities. These include: hiring an independent expert in 2018 to assist in EM&V efforts; developing a New Hampshire-specific technical resource manual by 2020; performing impact evaluations on a number of specific programs; and adding a representative from the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Energy (EESE) board to the EM&V working group established in DE 15-137.  

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), the Total Resource Cost (TRC) is used as 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. New Hampshire’s TRC test accounts for avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations, and benefits associated with improved public health, participant health and environmental benefits. New Hampshire’s TRC includes multiple non-energy costs and benefits not specified as part of a 10% adder, in addition to impacts of other fuels (natural gas, oil, propane, wood, and kerosene), job creation, and water savings. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for New Hampshire is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.  

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, and ratepayer impact measure

The NJBPU’s Clean Energy Program evaluation plan is developed and approved annually as part of the establishment of the NJBPU’s Clean Energy Program’s funding level and annual budget (see NJ evaluation plan 2017, on the NJCEP Home page under Public Reports).

The Protocols to Measure Resource Savings (and Generation) were revised in FY16 and 17. This was approved by the Board at its June 29, 2016, agenda meeting Docket No QO16040353 and QO16060525 “In the Matter of the Clean Energy Programs and Budget for Fiscal Year 2017.” The protocols are available on the NJCEP Home page under Public Reports.

The NJBPU’s Clean Energy Program is evaluated through a third party contract with Rutgers University Center of Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy (CEEEP) in order to keep the evaluation independent from the direct oversight of the NJBPU and the Program.

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), New Jersey relies on the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. Nominally, New Jersey’s TRC accounts for non-energy benefits such as other energy fuel savings and water savings and quality benefits, but values do not appear to be included in practice. Low-income programs are not required to pass cost-effectiveness tests.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for New Jersey is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none 

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.  

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), New Mexico uses the Utility Cost Test (UCT) as the primary test for decision making and evaluating program cost-effectiveness. The benefit-cost tests are required for total program level screening. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for New Mexico is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).  

 

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test
  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, ratepayer impact measure

Both utilities and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) administer program evaluations, statewide evaluations, and evaluations for each utility. A technical reference manual, which provides formulas and input and many input values for savings, is in use (Technical Reference Manual). See the Order Authorizing Utility-Administered Energy Efficiency Portfolio Budgets and Targets for 2019-2020 (Issued and effective March 15, 2018) for updates on TRM use.

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in New York relies on Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Guidance issued November 1, 2016. According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP),  the societal cost test (SCT) is used in New York as the primary test for decision making. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in case 14-M-0101, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision.  The primary assessment level is the portfolio. New York’s SCT test accounts for avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations and environmental benefits from reduced emissions. NY’s SCT accounts for non-energy costs and benefits associated with water.

To evaluate its Clean Energy Fund, NYSERDA will measure direct impacts (i.e., impacts expected from pilots and projects directly funded by NYSERDA) as well as indirect impacts (i.e., longer-term market effects from follow-on market activity).

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for New York is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

Last updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test  

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test 

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 Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), North Carolina specifies the TRC to be its primary test for decision making. The primary assessment level is the measure, and secondary is program level. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Rule R8-68

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for North Carolina is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).  

Last Updated: January 2019

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 2017

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test  

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 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) tests, with the TRC used as the primary test according to the Ohio administrative code (4091:1-39-01 (Y). The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio and customer project level screening and are stated in Case No. 09-512-GE-UNC.

Ohio’s TRC accounts for productivity as a participant non-energy benefit. Additionally, Ohio includes water and fossil fuel savings. While it is expected that most programs pass the TRC, Ohio utilities can run programs that do not pass the TRC if they demonstrate high non-energy benefits. These non-energy benefits include participant asset value, economic well-being, comfort, health and safety, and satisfaction as well as environmental impacts, public health, economic development and jobs, and energy. While low-income programs do not have to pass the TRC, Ohio mandates a low-income specific program.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Ohio is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, ratepayer impact measure 

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/Program Administrator (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. Gas Utilities are subject to the same rules (See OAC k165:45-23-7). 

 

 

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test  

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Oregon 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 Total Resource Cost test (TRC) and the Utility Cost Test (UCT). According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), 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, although exceptions can be made under certain circumstances, such as for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Docket UM 551, Order 94-590. Oregon’s TRC test accounts for avoided costs of compliance with future emissions regulations. Oregon’s TRC may also account for costs and benefits associated with non-energy benefits through a 10% adder or utility calculation, in cases in which the value is quantifiable, such as water or operations and maintenance savings.  

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; or  
g. Are required by law or are consistent with Commission policy or direction  

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Oregon is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

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 as 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. The state uses a Technical Reference Manual to measure and verify applicable energy efficiency measures. 

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: State-specific test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none 

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. 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. 

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Rhode Island relies on its own state-specific test as its primary cost-effectiveness test, which was developed using principles consistent with the National Standard Practice Manual. It is applied primarily at the portfolio level, but Rhode Island also uses it at the program and measure level.  Rhode Island’s test accounts for avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations, participant health benefits and environmental benefits from reduced emissions. Rhode Island’s test accounts for non-energy costs and benefits associated with economic well-being, comfort, health and safety, other fuels, water savings, the social cost of carbon not embedded in energy market prices, economic development, and energy security from reduced use of fuel oil. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Rhode Island is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: ratepayer impact measure, utility cost test, total resource cost 

The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in South Carolina relies on legislative mandates (SC Code Ann. Section 58-37-30), as well as regulatory orders.. 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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: ratepayer impact measure test 

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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, ratepayer impact measure test 

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/Program Administrator (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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test
  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none

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). The state maintains a Technical Reference Manual, which includes deemed savings values for energy efficiency measures.

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Texas relies on the utility cost test (UCT) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. Texas accounts for low-income programs, technologies, and pilots in a different cost-effectiveness test. A savings-to-investment ratio is used to assess low-income efficiency programs and component measures, and a societal discount rate of 3% is used. Only incentive costs are included and customer avoided energy costs are used as benefits.

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Texas is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP).

Last updated: May 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test
  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure

 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Utah is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

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. 09-035-27, Docket 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). According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Utah relies on the Utility Cost Test (UCT) and considers it to be its primary cost-effectiveness test. Environmental impacts are not accounted for in the primary test, but they are included in Utah’s TRC test. PacifiCorp sometimes accounts for unquantified environmental and transmission and distribution impacts with a 10% adder to benefits. Low-income impacts are not directly included in Utah’s cost-effectiveness tests. 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. See also Docket No. 17-035-04 for formal requirements for evaluation.

Last Updated: May 2019

  • Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none 

  • Uses a deemed savings database: yes (Technical Reference Manual) 

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 specifies the societal cost test (SCT) to be its primary test for decision making. The benefit-cost test is applied primarily at the portfolio level. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in 30 V.S.A. §203 and 218b and Docket No. 5980. Vermont has a DSS (Development and Support Services) category that designates funding for activities that are worthwhile but do not necessarily return quantifiable savings. According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Vermont’s SCT accounts for other fuel (natural gas, oil propane, kerosene, wood) and water savings, as well as avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations and renewable energy standard requirements through monetized estimates. Vermont’s SCT also accounts for costs and benefits associated with improved public health, participant health, environmental benefits, participant comfort, economic development and jobs, energy security and others in a 15% adder.   

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Vermont is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test, utility cost test, participant cost test, and ratepayer impact measure test 

  • 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 adopted new rules in 2018 that a program or portfolio of programs shall be approved if the net present value of the benefits exceeds the net present value of the costs as determined by not less than any three of the four aforementioned tests. 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: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test  

The Regional Technical Forum (RTF), 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. The RTF continually updates the database. 

Evaluation of ratepayer-funded electric energy efficiency programs in Washington is required in the state administrative code WAC 480-109-120(4) (v) and relies on regulatory orders. Evaluations are conducted by the independent third-party consultants selected by the utilities. Each electric utility files, 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 Cost Test (UCT). According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), 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. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in the Energy Independence Act of 2006. Information on the TRC is in the 2018 State Working Group TRC Methodology Matrix. Washington’s test accounts for avoided costs of compliance with emissions regulations and participant health benefits. Washington’s TRC may account for costs and benefits associated with safety, water, or other fuels.  

The Commission's 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-effectiveness 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. 

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Washington is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

Appalachian Power is required to have a third-party program evaluator. All energy efficiency programs have process and impact evaluations. Gross and net savings are reported for each program. 

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: modified total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, ratepayer impact measure test, societal cost test  

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.  The state maintains a Technical Reference Manual (TRM) to summarize the consensus calculations of the electric and natural gas energy savings achieved from installing energy efficiency measures that are supported by Focus on Energy programs. 

According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Wisconsin specifies a modified TRC to be its primary test for decision making. Wisconsin’s modified TRC accounts for environmental benefits from reduced emissions.  A benefit-cost test is required for overall portfolio level screening. Starting in 2019, Focus on Energy will be conducting a Societal Test as well as continuing to conduct TRC, UCT, and RIM tests.  

Further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Wisconsin is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency

Last Updated: January 2019

  • Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test 

  • Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, ratepayer impact measure test.  

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 Cost, (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: January 2019