Assessing the Electric Productivity Gap and the U.S. Efficiency Opportunity

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report identifies a significant disparity in electric productivity (GDP per kWh) across U.S. states. After normalizing for climate and economic composition, RMI finds a remaining gap of 1.2 million GWh annually. Closing this gap could reduce projected 2020 electricity demand by 34% compared to business-as-usual scenarios while maintaining economic growth.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • There is a substantial disparity in electric productivity between the top ten performing states and the rest of the United States. In 2005, the population-weighted national average electric productivity was $3.76 of GDP per kilowatt-hour, whereas the top ten states averaged $6.10 of GDP per kilowatt-hour.
  • After adjusting for exogenous factors such as climate and economic composition, a normalized electric productivity gap of approximately 1.2 million gigawatt-hours (GWh) remains. This gap represents roughly 31 percent of 2005 retail electricity sales and is equivalent to 62 percent of the nation's coal-fired electrical power.
  • Climate and economic mix are not the primary drivers of the productivity gap; adjustments for these factors only account for about 25 percent of the total gap. RMI's analysis of Alabama demonstrates that even after climate and economic adjustments, a large productivity gap persists.
  • Closing the electric productivity gap by 2020 could result in a 34 percent reduction in projected electricity demand compared to 'Business as Usual' (BAU) forecasts, while still supporting an annual economic growth rate of 2.5 percent.
  • RMI asserts that the gap can be closed within ten years using existing technology and policy solutions. Recommended 'physical levers' include CFLs, weatherization, and efficient appliances, while 'policy levers' include stricter building energy codes and utility compensation for efficiency.

Cite the original document

APA
Mims, N., Bell, M., & Doig, S. (n.d.). Assessing the Electric Productivity Gap and the U.S. Efficiency Opportunity. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_CGU.RMI_.pdf
Chicago
Mims, Natalie, Mathias Bell, and Stephen Doig. Assessing the Electric Productivity Gap and the U.S. Efficiency Opportunity. RMI, n.d. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_CGU.RMI_.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Mims |first1=Natalie |last2=Bell |first2=Mathias |last3=Doig |first3=Stephen |title=Assessing the Electric Productivity Gap and the U.S. Efficiency Opportunity |publisher=RMI |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_CGU.RMI_.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{mimsndassessing, author = {Mims, Natalie and Bell, Mathias and Doig, Stephen}, title = {{Assessing the Electric Productivity Gap and the U.S. Efficiency Opportunity}}, institution = {RMI}, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_CGU.RMI_.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated