The objective of this study is to describe the energy-efficiency programs being operated by utilities for low-income customers. The study focuses, in particular, on programs that install major residential weatherization measures free-of-charge to low-income households. A survey was mailed to a targeted list of 600 utility program managers. Follow-up telephone calls were made to key non- respondents, and a random sample of other non-respondents also was contacted. Completed surveys were received from 180 utilities, 95 of which provided information on one or more of their 1992 low-income energy-efficiency programs for a total of 132 individual programs. These 132 utility programs spent a total of $140.6 million in 1992. This represents 27% of the total program resources available to weatherize the dwellings of low-income households in that year. Both the total funding and the number of programs has grown by 29% since 1989. A majority of the 132 programs are concentrated in a few regions of the country (California, the Pacific Northwest, the Upper Midwest, and the Northeast). Although a majority of the programs are funded by electric utilities, gas utilities have a significantly greater average expenditure per participant ($864 vs. $307 per participant). The most common primary goal of low-income energy-efficiency programs operating in 1992 was {open_quotes}to make energy services more affordable to low-income customers{close_quotes}. Only 44% of the programs were operated primarily to provide a cost-effective energy resource. Based on a review of household and measure selection criteria, equity and not the efficiency of resource acquisition appears to dominate the design of these programs.

While the utilization of energy efficiency has grown in recent years, it has not been distributed evenly across the country. In some states, over 2 of a utility's budget is spent on energy efficiency; in other states that number is 0. Much of the growth in energy efficiency has been due to state policies and the development utility-level energy efficiency programs. Yet, all utility programs are not created equal. Because they are often exempt from state regulation (and therefore state energy efficiency policy), publicly-owned utilities have traditionally lagged behind IOUs when it comes to EE programs. This research quantifies energy efficiency programs in four Midwestern states: Iowa, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. The first part of the thesis evaluates 474 electric utilities as to whether they had an energy efficiency program in 2010. The second part of the thesis evaluates each utility's EE program spending in terms of energy and utility specific factors, as well as socio-economic, housing stock and political variables. Through descriptive statistical analysis and the creation of a predictable linear regression model, this thesis identifies relationships between the dependent variable (EE program spending as a % of a utility's total revenue) and commonly cited barriers to EE program development. Through the analysis, this study finds widespread EE program coverage in Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin. Also, it finds states are the greatest predictor of utility energy efficiency program spending. A utility's ownership type and the share of homes that heat with electricity are also significant predictors of program spending.

This evaluation assesses the performance of IFC s energy efficiency finance program in China aimed at stimulating energy efficiency investments through bank guarantees and technical assistance. The difference made by the program is traced along the chain of interventions: (i) at the level of banks, the program is narrowly based on one of the two partner banks, which, with the help of the program, expanded its energy efficiency lending as a new business line; (ii) at the level of energy management companies, the program s technical assistance improved the program participants access to finance; and (iii) at the end-user level, it promoted the use of energy efficiency investments that achieved reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The utilization of IFC s program has been rapid compared with other similar programs. The energy efficiency investments supported by the program have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 14 million CO2 tons per year, slightly in excess of the target set at the beginning of the program. However, there is only a weak differentiation in behavior surrounding energy efficiency investment between end users supported by the program and other similar companies that were not. It is important to note that the performance of the program was heavily influenced by the government s policy actions and the earlier efforts of other players: The Chinese government and other players such as the World Bank. The CHUEE program, relying mainly on commercial funding through IFC s guarantees, builds on these efforts