Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

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

Joskow, Paul L., Marron, Donald B.·1992·The Energy Journal

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol13-no4-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Joskow, P. L., & Marron, D. B.
Venue
The Energy Journal
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.