Overview of State Policies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings

End-Use Efficiency (Y Wang, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on End-Use Efficiency


Purpose of Review

This paper introduces the major state-level regulations and policies for improving energy efficiency in buildings. The purpose of the review is to discuss the challenges and issues in policy implementation and the latest trend in adopting innovative instruments.

Recent Findings

The implementation of customer efficiency programs increasingly incorporates non-price instruments to encourage participation and deep savings. States pay attention to not only code adoption and update but also compliance and evaluation. Many states have adopted innovative policy instruments, including decoupling mechanisms and performance incentives to make energy efficiency a good business model for utilities, dynamic pricing to reduce consumption and peak load, flexible financing to provide incentives, and green labeling and benchmarking policies to increase information transparency.


State governments continue to be the primary decision-makers for improving energy efficiency in buildings. Combined efforts on code/standard compliance and innovative policies are the leading strategy to promote energy efficiency.


Energy efficiency State policies EERS Decoupling Dynamic pricing 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Yu Wang is a section editor for Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports. She declares no other conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Brown MA, Wang Y. Green savings: how policies and markets drive energy efficiency. Preager: Santa Barbara; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry F, Berry W. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. P. Sabatier and C. Weible, ed., Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press 2014. p. 307–38.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matisoff DC, Edwards J. Kindred spirits or intergovernmental competition ? The innovation and diffusion of energy policies in the American states ( 1990–2008 ). Environ Politics. 2014;4016(July 2016).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matisoff DC. The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: regional diffusion or internal determinants?. Rev Policy Res [Internet]. Blackwell Publishing Inc; 2008;25(6):527–46. Available from:
  5. 5.
    Iskin I, Daim TU. An assessment model for energy efficiency program planning in electric utilities: case of Northwest U.S. Sustain Energy Technol Assess [Internet]. 2016;15(Supplement C):42–59. Available from: Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandrashekeran S, Zuckerman J, Deason J. Raising the stakes for energy efficiency: a qualitative case study of California’s risk/reward incentive mechanism. Util Policy [Internet]. 2015;36(Supplement C):79–90. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craig CA, et al. Appl Energy [Internet]. 2016;165(Supplement C):660–9. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berg W, Nowak S, Kelly M, Vaidyanathan S, Shoemaker M, Chittum A, et al. The 2017 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Report Number U1710. Washington D.C.; 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berg W, Nowak S, Kelly M, Vaidyanathan S, Shoemaker M, Chittum A, et al. The 2016 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Report Number U1606. Washington D.C.; 2016.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilleo A, Nowak S, Kelly M, Vaidyanathan S, Shoemaker M, Anna Chittum, et al. The 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Report Number U1509. Washington D.C.; 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stern PC, Gardner GT, Vandenbergh MP, Dietz T, Gilligan JM. Design principles for carbon emissions reduction programs. Environm Sci Technol-Columbus. 2010;44(13):4847–8. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nowak S, Kushler M, Witte P, York D. Leaders of the pack: ACEEE ’ s third national review of exemplary energy efficiency programs. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Report Number U132. Washington D.C.; 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Energy Information Administration. Form 861 [Internet]. Washington D.C.: Energy Information Administration (EIA); 2017. Available from:
  14. 14.
    Kaufman N, Palmer KL. Energy efficiency program evaluations: opportunities for learning and inputs to incentive mechanisms. Energy Effic [Internet]. 2012;5(2):243–68. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freed M, Felder FA. Non-energy benefits: workhorse or unicorn of energy efficiency programs? Electr J [Internet]. 2017;30(1):43–6. Available from: Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoffman IM, Goldman CA, Rybka G, Leventis G, Schwartz L, Sanstad AH, et al. Estimating the cost of saving electricity through U.S. utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2017;104(Supplement C):1–12. Available from: Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arimura TH, Newell RG, Medina Z, Iwata K, Myers E, Mi J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of electricity energy efficiency programs. Cambridge, MA; 2011. Report No.: 17556.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Granderson J, Touzani S, Fernandes S, Taylor C. Application of automated measurement and verification to utility energy efficiency program data. Energy and Buildings [Internet]. 2017;142(Supplement C):191–9. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malm E. An Actions-Based estimate of the free rider fraction in electric utility DSM programs. Energy J [Internet]. Int Assoc Energy Econ. 1996;17(3):41–8. Available from: Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greening LA, Greene DL, Difiglio C. Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2000;28(6–7):389–401. Available from: Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nadel S. The potential for additional energy efficiency savings including how the rebound effect could affect this potential. Curr Sustain Renew Energy Rep [Internet]. 2016;3(1):35–41. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heinzle SL. Disclosure of energy operating cost information: a silver bullet for overcoming the energy-efficiency gap? J Consum Policy [Internet]. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Dordrecht; 2012;35(1):43–64. Available from:
  23. 23.
    Bertrand M, Karlan D, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zinman J. What’s advertising content worth? Evidence from a consumer credit marketing field experiment*. Q J Econ [Internet]. 2010;125(1):263–306. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T. The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. J Environ Psychol [Internet]. 2007;27(4):265–76. Available from: Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol [Internet]. 2005;25(3):273–91. Available from: Scholar
  26. 26.
    •• Allcott H, Mullainathan S. Behavior and energy policy. Science [Internet]. 2010;327(5970):1204 LP-1205. Available from: This article provides a brief review of the findings from behavioral research and the application (both pilot projects and large-scale projects) of behavioral nudges on energy efficiency.
  27. 27.
    NC Clean Energy Technology Center. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). 2017.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Palmer KL, Grausz S, Beasley B, Brennan TJ. Putting a floor on energy savings: comparing state energy efficiency resource standards. Util Policy [Internet]. 2013;25(Supplement C):43–57. Available from: This review summarizes the design of EERS policies and the challenges and issues with implementation.
  29. 29.
    Thoyre A. Energy efficiency as a resource in state portfolio standards: lessons for more expansive policies. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2015;86(Supplement C):625–34. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Molina M, Kushler M. Policies matter: creating a foundation for an energy-efficient utility of the future. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Washington D.C.; 2015.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Satchwell A, Cappers P, Goldman C. Carrots and sticks: a comprehensive business model for the successful achievement of energy efficiency resource standards. Util Policy [Internet]. 2011;19(4):218–25. Available from: Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baumol WJ, Klevorick AK. Input choices and rate-of-return regulation: an overview of the discussion. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science [Internet]. [Wiley, RAND Corporation]; 1970;1(2):162–90. Available from:
  33. 33.
    Kihm S. When revenue decoupling will work … and when it won’t. Electr J [Internet]. 2009;22(8):19–28. Available from: Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nowak S, Baatz B, Gilleo A, Kushler M, Molina M, York D. Beyond carrots for utilities: a national review of performance incentives for energy efficiency. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Report Number U1504. Washington D.C.; 2015.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nissen W, Williams S. The link between decoupling and success in utility-led energy efficiency. Electr J [Internet]. 2016;29(2):59–65. Available from: Scholar
  36. 36.
    • Brown MA, Staver B, Smith AM, Sibley J. Alternative business models for energy efficiency: emerging trends in the Southeast. Electr J [Internet]. 2015;28(4):103–17. Available from: This study examines the utility business model for energy efficiency in regulated market and the impacts on consumer benefits.
  37. 37.
    Karier T. Why some utilities hate energy efficiency. Electr J [Internet]. 2016;29(2):7–11. Available from: Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miller R, Golab L, Rosenberg C. Modelling weather effects for impact analysis of residential time-of-use electricity pricing. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2017;105(Supplement C):534–46. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Faruqui A, Sergici S. Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: a survey of 15 experiments. J Regul Econ [Internet]. 2010;38(2):193–225. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nilsson A, Stoll P, Brandt N. Assessing the impact of real-time price visualization on residential electricity consumption, costs, and carbon emissions. Resour Conserv Recycl [Internet]. 2017;124(Supplement C):152–61. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nezamoddini N, Wang Y. Real-time electricity pricing for industrial customers: survey and case studies in the United States. Appl Energy [Internet]. 2017;195(Supplement C):1023–37. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Salies E. Real-time pricing when some consumers resist in saving electricity. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2013;59(Supplement C):843–9. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Campillo J, Dahlquist E, Wallin F, Vassileva I. Is real-time electricity pricing suitable for residential users without demand-side management? Energy [Internet]. 2016;109(Supplement C):310–25. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Farrokhifar M, Momayyezi F, Sadoogi N, Safari A. Real-time based approach for intelligent building energy management using dynamic price policies. Sustain Cities Soc [Internet]. 2018;37(Supplement C):85–92. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brown MA, Zhou S. Smart-grid policies: an international review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Energy Environ. 2013;2(2):121–39. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Evans M, Roshchanka V, Graham P. An international survey of building energy codes and their implementation. J Cleaner Prod [Internet]. 2017;158(Supplement C):382–9. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nair G, Allard I, Åstrand A, Olofsson T. Building professionals’ views on energy efficiency compliance requirements. Energy Procedia [Internet]. 2017;132(Supplement C):988–93. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Macit İlal S, Günaydın HM. Computer representation of building codes for automated compliance checking. Autom Constr [Internet]. 2017;82(Supplement C):43–58. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mauer J, Dimascio M. States go first: how states can save consumers money , reduce energy and water waste , and protect the environment with new appliance standards. Appliance Standards Awareness Project and American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Report Number A1702. Washington D.C.; 2017.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fensel A, Tomic DK, Koller A. Contributing to appliances’ energy efficiency with Internet of Things, smart data and user engagement. Futur Gener Comput Syst [Internet]. 2017;76(Supplement C):329–38. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    AlFaris F, Juaidi A, Manzano-Agugliaro F. Intelligent homes’ technologies to optimize the energy performance for the net zero energy home. Energy Buildings [Internet]. 2017;153(Supplement C):262–74. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Johnson K, Willoughby G, Shimoda W, Volker M. Lessons learned from the field: key strategies for implementing successful on-the-bill financing programs. Energy Effic [Internet]. 2012;5(1):109–19. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bird S, Hernández D. Policy options for the split incentive: increasing energy efficiency for low-income renters. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2012;48(Supplement C):506–14. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pérez-Lombard L, Ortiz J, González R, Maestre IR. A review of benchmarking, rating and labelling concepts within the framework of building energy certification schemes. Energy Buildings [Internet]. 2009;41(3):272–8. Available from: Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mills E, Bourassa NJ, Rainer LI, Homan G, Merket N, Parker D, et al. Asset rating with the home energy scoring tool. Energy Buildings [Internet]. 2014;80(Supplement C):441–50. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Institute of Market Transformation. Building Energy Performance Policy. Available from: Accessed 12 Dec 2017.
  57. 57.
    Li H, Carrión-Flores CE. An analysis of the ENERGY STAR® program in Alachua County, Florida. Ecol Econ [Internet]. 2017;131(Supplement C):98–108. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhao D, McCoy A, Du J. An empirical study on the energy consumption in residential buildings after adopting green building standards. Procedia Eng [Internet]. 2016;145(Supplement C):766–73. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhang L, Li Y, Stephenson R, Ashuri B. Valuation of energy efficient certificates in buildings. Energy Buildings [Internet]. 2017; Available from:
  60. 60.
    Bruegge C, Carrión-Flores C, Pope JC. Does the housing market value energy efficient homes? Evidence from the energy star program. Reg Sci Urban Econ [Internet]. 2016;57(Supplement C):63–76. Available from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration. State Energy Data System [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Feb 1]. Available from:
  62. 62.
    Bell E, Blundell M, Ciccone A, Cummings T. California statewide critical peak pricing evaluation. Demand response measurement and evaluation committe (DRMEC) load impact workshop. California Public Utilities Commission; 2017. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    California Energy Commission. Energy Efficiency Comparison: California’s 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2013 [Internet]. 2017. Available from:
  64. 64.
    California Energy Commission. Energy Efficiency Comparison: California’s 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and International Energy Conservation Code - 2015. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.AmesUSA

Personalised recommendations