. @ACEEEdc released their annual state rankings for #energyefficiency. If we care about outcomes and data and public context, it needs to be acknowledged that these results are all about rewarding top-down policy preferences and not energy efficiency. A quick thread: https://twitter.com/ACEEEdc/status/1339224190910685184

1/ I really appreciate this long-term effort. Comparing states is important and helps to drive competition especially when there is a long-term methodology that allow comparisons over time. But it is more important than ever that we are not chasing the wrong rabbits.

2/ Each yr, I wait with baited breath for @EIAgov's CO2 data ( https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/) and energy rankings ( https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/51), @AAPCA_States' annual rpt ( https://cleanairact.org/2020-stats-report/), @EPAairmarkets' progress reports ( https://www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/reports/air_quality.html), & @EPA's Our Nation's Air Report

3/ This scorecard is one of several state ranking and comparative resources that are very useful. By choosing to adopt top-down policy metrics rather than a bottom-up engineering approach to evaluate energy efficiency improvements, I fear it misleads the public.

4/ To make sure I was not overinterpreting the 2020 scorecard, I checked annual rankings back to 2013. By my count, @ACEEEdc has recognized and celebrated seven states in their top 5 lists over that period (MA, CA, RI, VT, CT, NY, OR). A few problems with the methodology:

5/ All seven of those states have actually increased energy intensity (thousand BTUs per dollar of GDP) since 2013: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/excel/table6.xlsx. In other words, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has repeatedly honored states that have *reduced* energy efficiency.

6/ The states that have had the largest drop in energy intensity since 2013 (in approximate order): North Dakota, Louisiana, Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma. North Dakota, with the largest reduction in energy intensity since 2013, ranks #48 in their methodology.

7/ Maybe energy intensity change over time is not the perfect measure (partly becase it would disadvantage energy producing states: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/pdf/intro_key_concepts.pdf)

8/ Since 2013, a number of states (AL, AZ, IN, IA, KS, KY, NE, ND, OK, OR, PA, UT, WY) have individually reduced per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions more than those seven states combined: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/excel/table5.xlsx

9/ Vermont, a near-constant in ACEEE's rankings and #3 in this year's scorecard, has actually *increased* its energy intensity, carbon intensity (kilograms of energy-related CO2 per million BTUs), and per capita energy-related CO2 emissions since 2013.

10/ No state ranking is perfect and all represent a way to highlight and prioritize preferences of the authors. I have no issue with that dynamic.

11/ However, it is absolutely critical that experts, reporters, & #EnergyTwitter contextualize that this is a ranking of top-down energy policy without regard to energy or emissions results that matter

12/ As a future Administration looks to options to incent or mandate that states adopt top-down energy and climate policy (and with over a decade and a half of sub-national experience for the latter), it is critical that we truly assess the efficiacy of these programs