@misc{34066,
  author = {Mary Sutter and Jenn Mitchell-Jackson and Steven R Schiller and Lisa C Schwartz and Ian M Hoffman},
  title = {Applying Non-Energy Impacts from Other Jurisdictions in Cost-Benefit Analyses of Energy Efficiency Programs: Resources for States for Utility Customer-Funded Programs},
  abstract = {<p>Avoided energy and capacity costs are the primary yardstick utilities use to determine which energy efficiency programs are cost-effective for their customers. But sometimes "non-energy impacts" — not commonly recognized as <em>directly</em> associated with energy generation, transmission and distribution — represent substantial benefits, such as improving comfort, air quality and public health.</p><p>Considering whether and how to include non-energy impacts is an important part of cost-benefit analyses for these programs. This report offers practical considerations for deciding which non-energy impacts to include and how to apply values or methods from other jurisdictions.</p><p>Researchers reviewed studies quantifying non-energy impacts used in 30 states and applied a five-point system to indicate transferability of a value or method from each study for 16 categories of non-energy impacts:</p><ul><li>Water resource costs and benefits</li><li>Other fuels costs and benefits</li><li>Avoided environmental compliance costs</li><li>Environmental impacts</li><li>Productivity</li><li>Health and safety&nbsp;</li><li>Asset value</li><li>Energy and/or capacity price suppression effects</li><li>Avoided costs of compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements</li><li>Avoided credit and collection costs</li><li>Avoided ancillary services</li><li>Comfort</li><li>Economic development and job impacts</li><li>Public health impacts</li><li>Energy security impacts</li><li>Increased reliability</li></ul><p>The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work.</p>},
  year = {2020},
  month = {05/2020},
  language = {eng},
}