This MEEA Policy Webinar, held on November 17, 2011, outlined the leading states in the Midwest, reviewed current trends, and highlighted programs in Illinois and Michigan, drawing from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy's 2011 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard and energy efficiency experts from the state energy offices. Michael Sciortino, from ACEEE, presented on the newly released ACEEE State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. He discussed the leading states in the Midwest and reasons for the recent gains. He further discussed the current trends in the Midwest that were used to quantify the ACEEE Scorecard rankings, and an explanation on why Michigan, Illinois and Nebraska were named the three most improved states. Best practices and programs were highlighted within the states. Agnes Mrozowski, from the Illinois Energy Office, presented on Illinois Energy Now, the Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity’s program that provides public sector customers with financial incentives to make energy improvements. Robert Ozar, from the Michigan Public Service Commission, presented on Michigan’s Public Act 295 which is a comprehensive energy package promoting private investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and highlighted some of the successful programs within the state.

1. The 2011 State Energy
Efficiency Scorecard
MEEA Webinar – November 17, 2011
Michael Sciortino

2. The American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
• Nonprofit 501(c)(3) dedicated to advancing energy efficiency
through research, communications, and conferences.
• ~40 staff in Washington DC, + field offices in DE, IL, MI, and WI.
• Focus on End-Use Efficiency in Industry, Buildings, Utilities, and
Transportation; Economic Analysis & Human Behavior; and State
& National Policy
• Funding:
• Foundations (34%)
• Federal & State Grants (7%)
• Specific Contract work (21%)
• Conferences and Publications (34%)
• Contributions and Other (4%)

3. Overview
• Methodology
• Results
• Major Developments in and outside the
Midwest
• Breaking down the Midwest Scores

4. Methodology, part 1
Policy Maximum Score
1. Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policies 20
Electricity Efficiency Program Budgets 5
Natural Gas Efficiency Program Budgets 3
Annual Savings from Electricity Efficiency Programs 5
Targets (Energy Efficiency Resource Standards) 4
Performance Incentives/Alternative Regulatory Business Models 3
2. Transportation Policies 9
Integration of Transportation and Land Use Planning; VMT
5
Targets; Complete Streets Legislation
GHG Tailpipe Emission Standards 2
Transit Funding 1
High-Efficiency Vehicle Consumer Incentives 1

5. Methodology, Continued
Policy Maximum Score
3. Building Energy Codes 7
Level of Stringency 5
Enforcement/Compliance 2
4. Combined Heat and Power 5
Interconnection Standards
Standby Rates
Incentives for CHP
Output-based Emissions Regulations
CHP in EERS or RPS
Net Metering
5. State Government Initiatives 7
Financial and Information Incentives 3
Lead by Example in State Facilities and Fleets 2
Research, Development, and Demonstration 2
6. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards
2
Maximum Total Score 50

6. The 2011 Scorecard Rankings

7. Most Improved States

8. Key Findings and Major Developments
• Massachusetts: #1
• General upward trend among all states
• ~30 states with stringent building codes
• EE remains a bi-partisan solution
• 24 states with an EERS
• States implementing EERS policies moving ahead
• Total utility budgets for EE at $5.5 billion
• Electricity savings of 13,147 GWh in 2009
• Major gap in states advancing efficient transportation
policies

9. Trends in Utility-Sector EE
Program Spending/Budgets

10. Electricity DSM Budgets
2009 vs. 2010
4.50%
4.00%
3.50%
2010 Budgets as % of Revenues
3.00%
Budgets as % of Revenues
2009 Budgets as % of Revenues
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%

11. Electricity Savings 2008 vs. 2009
2.50%
2.00%
Savings as % of Retail Sales
2009 Savings as % of Retail Sales
2008 Savings as % of Retail Sales
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%

12. Midwest States in the Scorecard
Utility and
Public
Benefits
Programs Building Combined State Appliance Change in Change in
and Transportation Energy Heat & Government Efficiency TOTAL rank from score From
Rank State Policies Policies Codes Power Initiatives Standards SCORE 2010 2010
Maximum Score 20 9 7 5 7 2 50
8 Minnesota 18 2 4 3 6 0 33 0 5
11 Iowa 14 1 5 2 5 0 27 1 2.5
16 Wisconsin 11.5 1 5 4 3.5 0 25 -5 -1
17 Illinois 9 3 5 4 3.5 0 24.5 8 6
17 Michigan 10 2 4.5 3 5 0 24.5 10 7
24 Ohio 8.5 0 4 5 4.5 0 22 3 4.5
32 Indiana 6.5 0 4 3 3.5 0 17 -1 0.5
37 Kentucky 3.5 0 4.5 1 3 0 12 -1 1.5
40 Nebraska 1.5 0 5 1 2.5 0 10 7 6
42 South Dakota 4.5 0 0 3 2 0 9.5 -3 0
44 Missouri 2.5 0 2 1 3 0 8.5 -1 2.5
48 Kansas 1 0 1.5 1 2 0 5.5 -2 0.5
51 North Dakota 0 1 0 1 0.5 0 2.5 0 1

13. Some other Best Practices -
Transportation
High-
Integration of Efficiency
GHG Tailpipe Transportation Complete Vehicle
Emissions and Land Use Streets Transit Consumer
State Standards Planning VMT Targets Legislation Funding Incentives Score
Maximum
Score 2 2 2 1 1 1 9
Maryland 2 2 1 0 1 1 7

14. Looking ahead to 2012
• Continued improvement in EERS states
• Sour economy’s impact on customer
participation
• Political climate

15. Thank you for joining!
Michael Sciortino
202-507-4028
msciortino@aceee.org

16. www.ilenergynow.org
Pat Quinn Warren Ribley
Governor Director

17. What is Illinois Energy Now?
 Illinois Energy Now, formerly known as the Energy Efficiency
Portfolio Standard, is the Department of Commerce &
Economic Opportunity’s program that provides public sector
customers with financial incentives to make energy
improvements.
 Millions of dollars in funding is available to public sector
organizations through Illinois Energy Now.
 Offers public sector organization financial incentives to
upgrade electric and natural gas systems, save energy and
help the environment.

18. How did Illinois Energy Now get started?
 2007: Legislation amended the Illinois Public Utilities Act and
required the State’s largest utility providers and the
Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity (DCEO)
to develop a portfolio of electric energy efficiency programs
to meet legislative goals that reduce energy demand.
 2009: Legislation was passed to include natural gas energy
efficiency programs to meet legislative reduction goals.

19. How is Illinois Energy Now structured?
Nicor
ComEd
Integrys
Ameren DCEO Ameren
Electric Efficiency Electric Efficiency Gas Efficiency
Gas Efficiency
Private Sector Low-income Private Sector
Businesses Public Sector Businesses
Residential Sector
Residential Governments Residential
Affordable housing
Non-profits K-12 schools Non-profits
PHAs
Community colleges
Implementation
Public universities
agencies

20. How is Illinois Energy Now structured?
PUBLIC SECTOR - DCEO ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITIES
 Local governments  Privately-owned businesses
• Municipalities
 Privately-owned industrial &
• Townships & county facilities
commercial facilities
 Special units of local government
 Private schools
• Library & park districts • Private K-12 schools
• Public safety • Private colleges
• Water reclamation districts • Private universities
 State and federal agencies  Not-for-profit
• Museums
 Public schools • Foundations
• K-12 Public schools • Trade Organizations
• Public community colleges
• Public universities  Residential

21. How is Illinois Energy Now funded?
 Funded by a System Benefits Charge on utility customers’
monthly utility bill. Not by tax dollars.
 Direct Benefit:
• Each $1 spent on energy efficiency saves $2-4
 Indirect Benefits:
• Downward pressure on energy prices
• Consumers have more money to spend in the economy
• Increased jobs to meet economic stimulation

22. What is the IEN estimated budget?
Year Electric Natural Gas
2011 $54 million $15 million
2012 $55 million $22 million
2013 $55 million $30 million

23. Who has received IEN incentives?
Community
K-12 Schools College
23% 5%
University
Local Govt. 16%
49%
State
1%
Federal
6%

24. Where do electric savings come from?
Standard
HVAC
3%
Custom HVAC
Custom 1%
Other
Standard
18% Custom
Lighting
66% Exterior
Lighting
1%
Custom
Lighting
11%

25. Public Sector Load Reduction
1.20%
1.05%
annual energy savings goal
1.00%
public sector gross savings
0.80%
0.80% public sector savings
0.60%
0.60% 0.51%
0.42% 0.40%
0.40%
0.20% 0.23%
0.20%
0.00%
2009 2010 2011
• DCEO continues to exceed the legislative goals with its
public sector programs
• Additional savings from Market Transformation

26. Energy Efficient Building Act
 Public Act 096-0778 was signed into law on August 28,
2009 amending the Energy Efficient Commercial
Building Act by including residential buildings which
became effective January 29, 2010.
 Requires all new commercial and residential
construction to follow a comprehensive statewide
energy conservation code. Renovations, alterations,
additions, and repairs to most existing commercial and
residential buildings must follow the Illinois Energy
Conservation Code.

27. Building Industry Training &
Education
 Programs to train students and the building
industry as well as to enhance the capacity of
efficiency service providers, in order to meet long-
term Program goals and includes:
1. Commercial & residential green building
practices
2. Building code and beyond code training
3. Building Operator Certification
(www.boccentral.org)
4. Illinois Home Performance with Energy Star
5. Trade Ally Network support and training

28. To Learn More about Illinois Energy Now
Contact
Agnes Mrozowski
Assistant Deputy Director
Illinois Energy Office
217.524.0933
agnes.mrozowski@illinois.gov
Or Visit
www.ilenergynow.org

29. Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
ACEEE State EE Scorecard Webinar
Michigan Public Service Commission
Robert G. Ozar, PE
Manager, Energy Efficiency
Electric Reliability Division
November 17, 2011

30. Overview of PA 295
• Michigan’s Public Act 295 was signed into law
on October 8, 2008.
• PA 295 is part of a comprehensive energy
package promoting private investment in
renewable energy and energy efficiency.
• “The overall goal of an energy optimization plan
shall be to reduce the future costs of provider
service to customers. In particular, an EO plan
shall be designed to delay the need for
constructing new electric generation facilities…”
• The Act sets very specific administrative
procedures and standards.

31. Overview of PA 295 (cont.)
• 65 utilities in Michigan are required to file energy
efficiency plans. The Act calls such plans
“Energy Optimization” (EO) plans.
• Targets are based on percentage reductions in
retail sales. The Act does not set standards for
electric peak reductions nor is power factor
recognized as contributing to electric generation
demand.
• Electric utility targets ramp to 1% of retail sales
in 2012, gas utility targets ramp to 0.5%.

32. EO Plan Design
• Most plans divide customers into two customer
groups: residential, and commercial/industrial
(C&I). In addition, about 10% of the total budget
is directed toward residential low-income
programs.
• C&I programs generally consist of two
foundational programs: (1) prescriptive rebates;
and (2) custom incentives, $/kWh.
• PA 295 limits education spending to 3% of
budget and pilot programs to 5% of budget.

33. Spending: The statewide three-year cumulative funding level for Energy
Optimization programs in Michigan is $410,541,330. The three-year cumulative
funding level can be divided into three categories: $161,597,672 for residential
(excluding low-income) programs, $171,362,521 for commercial and industrial
programs, and $58,158,540 for low income programs.

35. Financial Incentive Mechanism
Maximum at 115% of Target : 15% of Spending
Utility Incentive Amount % of Target Met
Consumers Energy (Electric) $5,076,731 141%
Consumers Energy (Gas)
$3,407,064 126%
Detroit Edison
$6,200,000 177%
Michigan Consolidated Gas
$2,400,000 196%

36. 2009-2011 Low Income Funds
$58,158,540
Low Income EO Funds
CE Electric $5,918,889
DTE $10,761,250
Electric IOUs $1,056,804
Cooperatives $921,044
Municipals 1,017,871
CE Gas 24,335,558
MichCon $12,110,000
IOU Gas 2,037,124
Total $58,158,540

37. Energy Efficiency
Financing Program
Loans Approved 402
Loan Approval Rate 56%
Loans Closed 168
Average Loan Size Approved $7,398
Average Credit Score Approved 747
Authorized Contractors State-wide 210
Total Loan Value Issues $1,143,341
Average Electric Savings* 808kWh/year
Average Natural Gas Savings* 230 CCf/year
Average Utility Bill Savings* $389/year

38. Michigan C&I Success Story:
Consumers Energy
• $8.6 million in incentives so far this year to help
nearly 1,700 Michigan businesses.
• Reducing energy costs by $9.1 million per year
over projects lifecycles.
• Saving 81,629,805 kWh of electricity and
121,239 Mcf of natural gas annually.
• That’s enough electricity to serve about 9,070
residential customers, and enough natural gas
to serve more than 1,080 residential customers.

39. C&I Split for Consumers Energy
Consumers Energy C & I Program 2009-2010
$7,610,000,
43% Commercial
$9,960,000, Industrial
57%

40. General Motors Corporation
Incentive from Consumers Energy
• Awarded $97,000 to Flint’s GM Plant for
Lighting Upgrades.

41. MICHIGAN TURKEY PRODUCERS CO-OP INC.
Incentive from Consumers Energy
• 4.5 Million birds
processed per year
• $180,000 in rebates from
Consumers
• Installed and replaced
lighting in building.
• Improved efficiency and
improved working
conditions and made it
easier for workers to spot
defects while working.

42. General Motors
Incentive from Detroit Edison
Jerry S. Mendoza/Associated Press
General Motors' Orion Assembly plant in Lake Orion, Mich.

43. General Motors/Orion Assembly
Incentive from Detroit Edison
The plant project involved replacing 2,610 high-intensity discharge 465
watt fixtures to a six lamp T8 fluorescent fixture using 235 watts. Following
installation of the lighting upgrades, DTE Energy presented the plant with
an incentive rebate of $150,000.

44. Industrial Sector EE
Shortcomings
• Persistent energy cost control is heavily
dependant upon whole system design, not
isolated components
– EE programs tend to focus on isolated
components e.g. lighting
• Issue analogous to residential “whole
house” approach vs. ala carte
• Program implementation adverse to ESCO
performance contracting model
• Deep energy savings lost: lighting pays for
everything else
• Difficult to go back

45. Industry Sector Perspectives
• Disconnect between industry lobbyists and plant
managers.
– Executive management insists that in order to be competitive
they aggressively pursue all economic EE measures, and
therefore do not need mandatory programs (public benefits
fund).
– Plant managers say they are not doing all economic EE
measures - have projects in mind but can’t get funding
• Severe financial pressure on industrial sector
– Unprecedented number of plant closings in Michigan
– Declining asset value
– Shrinking capital renewal allowances
– Expensive financial models to evaluate high-performing
technology
– Short ROI desired

46. Regulatory Compromise
• PA 295 compromise: Formal self-directed
energy efficiency program vis-à-vis pure opt out
– Assumes that industry does in fact pursue energy
efficiency on their own
– Self-directed customers exempt from paying public
benefits charge (except for low-income)
– Must file brief application and biennial report
– Limited enforcement, but PSC authority to order
penalties for non-compliance.
– Customer targets are identical to utility targets. For
example, the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 utility
targets are 1% each year.

47. Self-directed EO Program Results
2009 2010 2011
reported reported expected
2009 2010 2011
Provider load load load
Customers Customers Customers
reduction reduction reduction
(MWh) (MWh) (MWh)
Detroit Edison 26 26 13 12,486 18,488 7,834
Consumers 30 30 16 8,515 12,343 5,648
State
9 11 10 5,196 14,568 21,476
Administrator
Cooperative 3 3 4 899 1,498 562
Municipal 9 9 4 2,006 3,343 606
Total 77 79 47 29,102 50,240 36,126

48. Midwestern Energy Efficiency
Update
Increasing EE investment through
codes and energy efficiency
policies

49. Residential Building Energy Code
Adoption in the Midwest
As of September 2011
Code Level / Equivalence
No Mandatory
Statewide Code
Pre-2000 Code
2000 IECC
2003 IECC
2006 IECC
* * 2009 IECC
2009 Adopted by Major
Municipality
* In Process to 2009

50. Commercial Building Energy Code
Adoption in the Midwest
As of September 2011
Code Level / Equivalence
No Mandatory
Statewide Code
Pre-1999 Code
90.1-1999
90.-2001
90.1-2004
90.1-2007
90.1-2007 Adopted by
Major Municipality

51. Energy Efficiency Policies in the Midwest
2.0%
by 2015
2.5% 1.5%
2.0% 1.5% 2.0%
by 2017
by 2019 current by 2019
2.0%
1.4% 1.5%
current 1.0%
current
by 2012
1.5% 1.0% 0.63%
0.75%
current current
by 2012
1.0% 0.48%
current
0.5%
0.0%
Kentucky
Minnesota
North Dakota
Michigan
Wisconsin
Illinois
Missouri
Indiana
Kansas
Ohio
South Dakota
Nebraska
Iowa
Electricity Natural Gas
January 2011

52. Future Midwest Efficiency Targets and Funding
2010 $1.06 billion
2015 $1.58 billion
Minnesota Wisconsin
1.5% elec current
0.63% elec currently
1.5% gas current
0.48% gas currently Michigan
1% elec by 2012
0.75% gas by 2012
Iowa Ohio
1.4% elec currently 2% elec by 2019
1% gas currently gas in discussion
Illinois Indiana
2% elec by 2015 2% elec by 2019
1.5% gas by 2017 gas none yet
Kentucky
2010 EE funding Voluntary elec and gas
2015 EE funding Missouri
(projected) IRP process
Sept 2011

53. Discussion - Questions?
• What resources can MEEA or ACEEE provide
to assist other states?
• Are there programs that you want to learn
more about?
• We will be highlighting many programs – utility
and statewide – at the 2012 Midwest Energy
Solutions conference
– MEEAs Board has set aside travel funds for SEOs,
legislators & staff, Commissioner & staff and
nonprofit organizations to attend

54. Thank you!
Stacey Paradis, Deputy Director
312-784-7267
sparadis@mwalliance.org
www.mwalliance.org