A variety of public and private incentives are currently used to encourage the adoption of conservation measures and practices. One economic justification for these programs is that the marginal cost of conserving energy through these incentives is lower than the corresponding incremental cost of providing energy through conventional means. Naturally, the marginal cost of conserving energy is critically dependent on the actual, or realized, energy savings associated with the adoption of specific measures and practices. Our contention is that the standard approach to estimating these savings is inadequate.
BurnettT. (1982). “Measuring Weatherization Effectiveness: Portland General Electric Experience.” Workshop Proceedings: Measuring the Effects of Weath-erization Conservation Programs. Electric Power Research Institute.
2.
HirstE.WhiteD.GoeltzR. (1983). “Comparison of Actual Electricity Savings with Audit Predictions in the BPA Residential Weatherization Pilot Program.” Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
3.
KhazzoomD.MuellerS. (1982). “Response tQ Benson and Johnson: Comment on the Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency Standards for Household Appliances.” Energy Journal1 (January).
4.
O’NeillD. (1982). “Can the Effects of Residential Conservation Be Estimated from a Customer Survey?” Workshop Proceedings: Measuring the Effects of Weatherization Conservation Programs. Electric Power Research Institute.
5.
Woo C.Johnson D.(1982). “Energy Efficiency Standards for Household Appliances: A Rejoinder.” Staff Working Paper. Sacramento, Calif.: Energy Commission.
