The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Does a Negawatt Really Cost? Evidence from Utility Conservation Programs
Abstract
We use information reported by ten utilities about their electricity conservation programs to calculate the life-cycle cost per kWh saved - the cost of a "negawatt " -- associated with these programs. These computations indicate that the cost associated with utilities "purchasing" negawatthours is substantially higher than implied by standard sources such as Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) and EPRI. The costs calculated for residential programs, in particular, are much higher than conservation advocates have suggested. However, 80% of the expected savings from these programs are attributed to commercial and industrial customers rather than residential customers. We find substantial variation in costs between utilities for similar programs as well as significant intra-utility variation in the cost associated with various sub-programs. We proceed to examine whether or not there are any systematic biases in the reporting of costs and energy savings by the utilities in our sample. In many cases, utilities fail to report all relevant costs, rely on engineering projections of savings rather than applying methods to measure savings based on actual experience, and fail to make appropriate adjustments for free riders. Further biases may result firorn adopting measure lives that are too long. As a result, on average the cost of a negawatthour computed from utility reports significantly underestimates the true societal cost of conservation achieved this way. Mile it is difficult to compute the underestimate with any precision, the evidence that we have suggests that computations based on utility expectations could be underestimating the actual societal cost by a factor of two or more on average. Better utility cost accounting procedures and the application of more sophisticated methods to estimate actual energy savings achieved are clearly necessary before large sums of money can be expended wisely on these programs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables
Hausman, J. A. (1979) · The Bell Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3003318 · Cited by 1,372
Cited by
Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy
Gillingham, K., Newell, R. G., & Palmer, K. (2009) · Annual Review of Resource Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev.resource.102308.124234 · Cited by 871
Do Energy Efficiency Investments Deliver? Evidence from the Weatherization Assistance Program*
Fowlie, M., Greenstone, M., & Wolfram, C. (2018) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjy005 · Cited by 432
The impact of consumer behavior on residential energy demand for space heating
Haas, R., Auer, H., & Biermayr, P. (1998) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/s0378-7788(97)00034-0 · Cited by 274
Energy efficiency: economics and policy
Linares, P., & Labandeira, X. (2010) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00609.x · Cited by 230
Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy
Gillingham, K., Newell, R., & Palmer, K. (2009) · doi:10.3386/w15031 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Joskow, P. L., & Marron, D. B.
- Venue
- The Energy Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1992-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 41-74
- ISSN
- 0195-6574 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-9089
- OpenAlex
- W1991956192
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Does a Negawatt Really Cost? Evidence from Utility Conservation Programs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol13-no4-3
- The paper
- Joskow, P. L., & Marron, D. B. (1992). What Does a Negawatt Really Cost? Evidence from Utility Conservation Programs. The Energy Journal. https://doi.org/10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol13-no4-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.