Co-Benefits with Energy Savings

There were more than 2.3 million U.S. jobs in energy efficiency in 2018, making up 40% of all traditional energy and energy efficiency jobs1 as defined by the 2019 U.S. Energy & Employment Report (USEER).2 Not only is energy efficiency a leading job-creator nationwide in the energy sector, energy efficiency jobs are also a key driver of our local economies: 70% of workers are employed by small businesses, and energy efficiency jobs exist in every state.3, 4, 5

These jobs also represent a wide range of skillsets, many of which cannot be outsourced: more than 50% of energy efficiency jobs are in construction, while professional services (including consulting, engineering, finance, legal, etc.) constitute about 20% of jobs.

In the power sector, greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by nearly 30% from 2005 to 2017 relative to baseline growth at a fixed carbon intensity. While a significant portion of these emissions reductions are derived from fuel switching from coal or petroleum to natural gas (25%) and renewable deployments (24%), more than half of the primary emissions reductions are due to reduced demand growth.

Energy efficiency also has positive impacts on public health, primarily by avoiding particulate matter emissions from additional energy generation.6 However, until recently, few methods existed to estimate the health impacts of energy efficiency. In 2019, the EPA published estimates for monetized health benefits per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity savings in 2017.7

The chart illustrates the estimated total monetary value of health benefits ($541 million) for one year of savings (also called incremental savings) from electricity ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs implemented in 20178, 9. This amounts to 40% of the estimated levelized total cost of the incremental electricity savings from the energy efficiency programs across all regions shown ($1.36 billion).10, 11

More than 60% of low-income households in the U.S. face a high energy burden, with some paying more than 20% of their income on utility bills.12 These consumers’ lower incomes, coupled with the fact that they often live in less energy-efficient housing, makes energy efficiency investments highly impactful to enhance quality of life and reduce energy expenditures.

Community action agencies have weatherized nearly 3 million homes since 2004 under DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Additional funding came from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), utility programs, and, for brief periods, the Petroleum Violation Escrow (PVE) Funds (2004-2009) and 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) appropriations (2010-2012).

Energy-efficient buildings have many advantages: they consume less energy, require less maintenance, have lower operating costs and higher asset values, and tend to be more comfortable, healthy, and productive work environments for occupants. The table above shows the range of impacts different studies found from deep energy retrofits.

The table of productivity values shows estimates from different studies of the range of impacts of specific energy efficiency measures on the productivity of office workers due to lower rates of absenteeism, employee turnover, and health symptoms, and enhanced job satisfaction and self-assessed performance. The wide ranges show the difficulty of measuring productivity impacts as well as the varying circumstances.

The “3-30-300” rule provides a scale-of-magnitude illustration of the impacts of productivity on a business, noting that a company typically pays $3 for utilities, $30 for rent, and $300 for payroll per square foot; saving 10% on utility costs saves 30 cents per square foot, but saving 10% on payroll costs as a result of increased worker productivity would cover the cost of the real estate.