Publicly-funded energy efficiency programs have grown in number, size, and scope in the past two decades. The focus of many of these programs is the commercial buildings sector, which purchases approximately one-third of all the electricity produced in the United States. Using a fixed effects panel model, this study analyzes commercial sector electricity intensity across 42 states from 1989 to 2001; in aggregate, these states account for between 90 and 95 percent of U.S. commercial sector electricity sales. The analysis separates market effects from public program effects, finding that electric utility demand side management programs were responsible for reducing commercial sector electricity intensity in 2001 by 1.9 percent relative to the 1989 level. Further, rapidly expanding market transformation programs were responsible for reducing electricity intensity in this sector by 5.8 percent relative to the 1989 level. The findings suggest that in 2001 the combined effects of these public programs reduced commercial sector retail electricity sales by 77.1 million MWh, representing about 2.3 percent of total U.S. retail electricity sales.
[BEA] Bureau of Economic Analysis (1988-2001). Gross domestic product and regional economic accounts databases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
2.
BerndtErnst R. (1996). “The Demand for Electricity: Structural and Time Series Approaches” in The Practice of Econometrics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, MA.
3.
BohiDouglas R. (1981). Analyzing Demand Behavior. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore, MD.
4.
BohiDouglas R. and Mary Beth Zimmerman (1984). “An Update on Econometric Studies of Energy Demand Behavior.” Annual Review of Energy9: 105-154.
5.
BuschC.B.AtkinsonB.A.EtoJ.H.TurielI.McMahonJ.E. (2000). Utility DSM Rebates for Electronic Ballasts: National Estimates and Market Impacts (1992-1997). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Berkeley, CA. [Census] U.S. Census Bureau (1989-2001). Current Industrial Reports (product MQ335C). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
6.
DahlCarol (1993). A Survey of Energy Demand Elasticities in Support of the Development of the NEMS. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
7.
DukeR.KammenM. (1999). “The Economics of Market Transformation Programs.” The Energy Journal20(4): 15-64.
8.
[EIA] Energy Information Administration (1997). U.S. Electric Utility Demand Side Management 1996. D0E/EIA-0589(96). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
9.
[EIA] Energy Information Administration (1988-2001). Form EIA-861, Form EIA-906 and Annual Energy Review databases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
10.
[EREN] Energy Efficiency &Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research and Standards (2000). Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products-Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Proposed Rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
11.
EtoJosephVineE.ShownL.SonnenblickR.PayneC. (1996). “The Total Cost and Measured Performance of Utility-Sponsored Energy Efficiency Programs.” The Energy Journal17(1): 31-51.
12.
EtoJosephKitoS.ShownL.SonnenblickR. (2000). “Where Did the Money Go? The Cost and Performance of the Largest Commercial Sector DSM Programs.” The Energy Journal21(2): 23-49.
13.
[FERC] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1989-2001). Form No. 423 database. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
14.
[FRB] Federal Reserve Board (1989-2001). Industrial Production Index for NAIC B52120, Information processing and related equipment. Washington, DC.
HorowitzMarvin J. (2001). “Economic Indicators of Market Transformation: Energy Efficient Lighting and EPA's Green Lights.” The Energy Journal22(4): 95-122.
17.
KushlerMartinWittePatti (2001). A Revised 50-State Status Report on Electric Restructuring and Public Benefits. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC: Report Number U005.
18.
LoughranDavid S. and Jonathan Kulick (2004). “Demand Side Management and Energy Efficiency in the United States.” The Energy Journal25(1): 19-43.
19.
NadelSteven M. and Kenneth Keating (1991). “Engineering Estimates Versus Impact Evaluation Results: How Do They Compare and Why?” in Proceedings of the 1991 Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Chicago, IL.
20.
[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center (1989-2001). HCS 5-1, HCS 5-2 databases. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
21.
[NEPDG] National Energy Policy Development Group (2001). National Energy Policy: Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future. The White House, Washington, DC.
22.
[NRC] National Research Council (2001). Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
23.
ParfomakPaul W. and Lester B. Lave (1996). “How Many Kilowatts are in a Negawatt? Verifying Ex Post Estimates of Utility Conservation Impacts at the Regional Level.” The Energy Journal17( 4): 59-87.
24.
TaylorLester D. (1975). “The Demand for Electricity: A Survey.” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 6(1): pp. 74-110.
25.
TaylorLester D.BlattenbergerG. R.RennhackR.K. (1984). “Residential Energy Demand in the United States: Introduction and Overview of Alternative Models” in Advances in the Economics of Energy and Resources, Vol. 5, pp. 85-105.
26.
TrainK.HerrigesJ.WindleR. (1985). “Statistically Adjusted Engineering (SAE) Models of End-Use Load Curves,” Energy: The International Journal10(10): 1103-1111.
27.
WatkinsG. C. (1992). “The Economic Analysis of Energy Demand: Perspectives of a Practitioner.” in Energy Demand: Evidence and Expectations, edited by HawdonDavidSurrey University Press, London.
28.
YorkDanKushlerMartin (2002). State Scorecard on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs: An Update. American Council for Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC: Report Number U023.
