By Cassandra Kubes, Research Manager.. There’s a wider push to increase energy efficiency. So 19 states are incorporating health and environmental benefits into the cost effectiveness testing. That’s of utility-run efficiency programs.
More importantly, it seems that quantifying these advantages is a step towards increased funding. As well and more noteworthy, broader program offerings. It’s cause most importantly, ACEEE’s new profiles these states. Thereby they focus on the unique ways of which they are accounting. All in the effort and for showing all the diverse benefits of efficiency.
So therefore States vary in how they calculate these health and environmental benefits. Cause some of which result from reducing energy use and air pollutants.
Therefore, ACEEE looks at four types of benefits. Thereby which are avoided cost of compliance and with environmental regulations. Then you have improved air quality and other benefits to the environment. Followed up by public health gains
and finally therefore improved health of program participants.
So most of the 19 states monetize the value. That’s the value of at least one of these benefits. That’s based on jurisdiction-specific studies or estimates from other utilities or areas. Other states use substitute methods.
States that account for health and environmental benefits in cost-effectiveness tests
Many states incorporate these benefits using a traditional cost-effectiveness test such as the Total Resource Cost Test or the Societal Cost Test, as described in the California Standard Practice Manual. Other states have begun using the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM). This describes a new, policy-focused approach to cost-effectiveness analysis. The NSPM allows states to incorporate their own policy objectives into testing. That’s including efficiency’s health and environmental benefits…
So, continue reading the blog post, visit:
Finally, To download the topic brief, visit: http://www2.aceee.org/e/310911/topic-brief-he-in-ce-testing/581wcb/264274491