Expected peak-demand savings from industrial energy-efficiency programs vary sharply across U.S. states. In the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2023 State Electricity Profiles slice for Industrial + Expected Life Cycle of Programs + Peak Demand Savings, Washington is highest at 68.4 MW. Idaho follows at 30.6 MW, Pennsylvania at 30.2 MW, Oregon at 24.4 MW, and Wisconsin at 23.6 MW. The 50 states and the District of Columbia sum to 372.2 MW.
The unit and time-period definition are essential. This is not electricity saved during 2023 in MWh. Megawatts measure the size of power demand at a point in time, while megawatthours measure energy over a period. The time-period facet is Expected Life Cycle of Programs, so the values describe expected peak-demand savings over the program life associated with the 2023 reporting slice. EIA also publishes reporting-year incremental savings, which answer a different question.
Table of Contents
Peak-demand savings in MW are different from energy savings in MWh
EIA Form EIA-861 reports several dimensions of energy-efficiency program performance. Energy savings are measured in megawatthours, while peak-demand savings are measured in megawatts. MWh records the quantity of electricity saved over time. MW records the reduction in power demand that can occur during a high-demand period. A 50 MW peak-demand reduction and a 50 MWh energy saving are therefore not interchangeable figures.
The sector filter here is Industrial. Residential, commercial, and transportation program savings are excluded from the state ranking. The metric is also not industrial electricity consumption, total state peak load, generating capacity, or a reliability score. It is a specific EIA measure of expected life-cycle peak-demand savings reported for industrial-sector energy-efficiency programs.
Washington leads at 68.4 MW and the top five account for 47.6%
Washington’s 68.4 MW represents 18.4% of the 51-jurisdiction sum. Idaho ranks second at 30.6 MW and Pennsylvania third at 30.2 MW. The top three together account for 34.7% of the sum. Adding Oregon and Wisconsin lifts the top-five total to 177.2 MW, or 47.6%.
The top ten jurisdictions sum to 262.3 MW, equivalent to 70.5% of all 51 observations. The top fifteen account for 83.8%. In other words, fewer than one-fifth of the jurisdictions produce more than 70% of the summed expected life-cycle industrial peak-demand savings. The pattern is highly concentrated rather than evenly distributed.
The 7.3 MW mean is far above the 2.2 MW median
The arithmetic mean is 7.3 MW, while the median is only 2.2 MW. The mean is about 3.3 times the median because a small upper group pulls the average upward. The first quartile is 0.25 MW and the third quartile is 9.75 MW. For a distribution this skewed, the median and fixed value bands provide a more representative picture of the typical state observation than the mean alone.
| Peak-demand savings band | Jurisdictions |
|---|---|
| 0 MW | 12 |
| Over 0 to 1 MW | 13 |
| Over 1 to 5 MW | 7 |
| Over 5 to 10 MW | 6 |
| Over 10 to 20 MW | 7 |
| Over 20 to 40 MW | 5 |
| Over 40 MW | 1 |
Exactly 12 jurisdictions report 0 MW in this slice. Those zeroes are numeric observations, not missing data: all 51 rows contain a value. A zero should not be expanded into the claim that a state had no energy-efficiency programs. It applies only to this Industrial + Expected Life Cycle of Programs + Peak Demand Savings combination. Other sectors, energy-savings fields, cost fields, or reporting-year measures can still have nonzero observations.
Complete 2023 ranking for all 51 jurisdictions
The table below sorts the same 2023 Industrial + Expected Life Cycle of Programs + Peak Demand Savings observations from highest to lowest. Shares use the direct 51-row sum of 372.2 MW as the denominator. No missing value is converted to zero and no value from another year is substituted.
| Rank | State or jurisdiction | Expected life-cycle peak demand savings (MW) | Share of 51-row sum |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Washington (WA) | 68.4 | 18.4% |
| 2 | Idaho (ID) | 30.6 | 8.2% |
| 3 | Pennsylvania (PA) | 30.2 | 8.1% |
| 4 | Oregon (OR) | 24.4 | 6.6% |
| 5 | Wisconsin (WI) | 23.6 | 6.3% |
| 6 | Michigan (MI) | 22.3 | 6.0% |
| 7 | Arizona (AZ) | 17.1 | 4.6% |
| 8 | New York (NY) | 16.0 | 4.3% |
| 9 | Arkansas (AR) | 15.0 | 4.0% |
| 10 | California (CA) | 14.7 | 3.9% |
| 11 | Colorado (CO) | 10.6 | 2.8% |
| 12 | Oklahoma (OK) | 10.5 | 2.8% |
| 13 | Minnesota (MN) | 10.3 | 2.8% |
| 14 | Iowa (IA) | 9.2 | 2.5% |
| 15 | Massachusetts (MA) | 8.9 | 2.4% |
| 16 | Connecticut (CT) | 8.6 | 2.3% |
| 17 | New Mexico (NM) | 7.5 | 2.0% |
| 18 | Texas (TX) | 7.3 | 2.0% |
| 19 | Indiana (IN) | 6.6 | 1.8% |
| 20 | Utah (UT) | 4.8 | 1.3% |
| 21 | Maryland (MD) | 3.8 | 1.0% |
| 22 | Missouri (MO) | 3.3 | 0.9% |
| 23 | Rhode Island (RI) | 3.2 | 0.9% |
| 24 | Tennessee (TN) | 2.7 | 0.7% |
| 25 | Wyoming (WY) | 2.5 | 0.7% |
| 26 | Nebraska (NE) | 2.2 | 0.6% |
| 27 | Illinois (IL) | 1.0 | 0.3% |
| 28 | New Jersey (NJ) | 1.0 | 0.3% |
| 29 | Alabama (AL) | 0.7 | 0.2% |
| 30 | New Hampshire (NH) | 0.7 | 0.2% |
| 31 | South Carolina (SC) | 0.7 | 0.2% |
| 32 | Georgia (GA) | 0.6 | 0.2% |
| 33 | Louisiana (LA) | 0.6 | 0.2% |
| 34 | Mississippi (MS) | 0.6 | 0.2% |
| 35 | Ohio (OH) | 0.6 | 0.2% |
| 36 | Florida (FL) | 0.5 | 0.1% |
| 37 | North Carolina (NC) | 0.4 | 0.1% |
| 38 | Virginia (VA) | 0.4 | 0.1% |
| 39 | South Dakota (SD) | 0.1 | 0.0% |
| 40 | Alaska (AK) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 41 | Delaware (DE) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 42 | District of Columbia (DC) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 43 | Hawaii (HI) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 44 | Kansas (KS) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 45 | Kentucky (KY) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 46 | Maine (ME) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 47 | Montana (MT) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 48 | Nevada (NV) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 49 | North Dakota (ND) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 50 | Vermont (VT) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 51 | West Virginia (WV) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
The state sum of 372.2 MW is very close to EIA’s 372 MW national figure
EIA Electric Power Annual Table 10.2 reports 372 MW for 2023 Industrial Life Cycle Savings – Peak Demand Savings. The direct sum of the 50 state and District of Columbia observations is 372.2 MW, a difference of only 0.2 MW. The gap is about 0.05%, so the two presentations provide a strong magnitude cross-check. The article does not force exact equality because the national table is displayed as an integer while the state data retain one decimal place.
In the same national table, 2023 life-cycle peak-demand savings are 2,069 MW for residential programs, 3,214 MW for commercial programs, 372 MW for industrial programs, and 0 MW for transportation, for a total of 5,655 MW. These national sector totals are useful context, but they should not be applied as fixed shares to individual states. The state ranking here uses only the Industrial series.
Why this ranking is not a scorecard of state policy performance
Absolute MW savings can be influenced by program size, the number and load profile of industrial customers, participation, the efficiency measures installed, expected program lives, and reporting coverage. A high state value therefore does not by itself establish that the state’s policy is more effective or more cost-efficient. A performance comparison would require additional denominators and matched data such as program costs, industrial electricity sales, industrial customer counts, participant counts, and energy savings in MWh.
- What this dataset can answer: the absolute size, ranking, distribution, and concentration of 2023 reported expected life-cycle industrial peak-demand savings by state.
- What it cannot answer alone: cost-effectiveness, savings per industrial customer, savings as a share of state peak load, policy quality, or reliability improvement.
- Useful follow-up data: industrial electricity sales, industrial customer counts, MWh energy savings, customer incentives and other program costs, and reporting-year peak-demand savings.
Source and calculation method
The statistical source is the U.S. Energy Information Administration Form EIA-861 detailed data and the State Electricity Profiles energy-efficiency program series. The selected slice is annual 2023 data with sector=IND, timePeriod=Expected Life Cycle of Programs, and the peak-demand-savings field. The source unit is megawatts. The national cross-check uses Electric Power Annual Table 10.2.
The 51 state and jurisdiction codes are unique, all observations are dated 2023, and there are no missing numeric values. There are 12 reported zeroes. The sum (372.2 MW), mean (7.3 MW), median (2.2 MW), quartiles, rankings, and concentration shares are calculated directly from those 51 observations. The representative chart displays the top 15 states using the same MW values.
Main takeaway
Washington has the largest 2023 reported expected life-cycle industrial peak-demand savings at 68.4 MW, followed by Idaho at 30.6 MW and Pennsylvania at 30.2 MW. The top ten account for 70.5% of the 51-jurisdiction sum, and the 7.3 MW mean is more than three times the 2.2 MW median. The data clearly show a concentrated state distribution, but explaining the differences or rating program performance requires additional matched variables.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which state had the largest 2023 expected life-cycle industrial peak-demand savings?
Washington ranked first at 68.4 MW, followed by Idaho at 30.6 MW and Pennsylvania at 30.2 MW.
Are peak-demand savings in MW the same as energy savings in MWh?
No. MW measures the size of a reduction in power demand at a point in time, while MWh measures electricity saved over a period.
Does Expected Life Cycle of Programs mean savings only during calendar year 2023?
No. The reporting year is 2023, but this series represents expected peak-demand savings over the life of the programs. Reporting-year incremental savings are a separate measure.
Do the 0 MW observations mean those states had no industrial energy-efficiency programs?
Not necessarily. Zero is the reported value for this exact industrial-sector, life-cycle, peak-demand-savings field; other EIA sectors or measures can still be nonzero.
Related Articles
- Which States Reported the Highest Industrial Energy-Efficiency Program Other Costs? (2023)
- Where Is U.S. Industrial and Commercial Electricity Generation Concentrated? (2024)
- Where U.S. Industrial Coal CO₂ Emissions Were Concentrated in 2021
Green Map creates custom-edited map images using open geographic data sources such as geoBoundaries, Natural Earth, OpenStreetMap, and government open data.
These maps are edited visual materials, not raw data files, and are provided for education, documents, presentations, and graphic reference.
