Utility report card: smart meters, time-based rates and efficiency programs
684 of 803 utilities with 10,000+ residential meters have smart meters on at least 90% of homes and 48 on under 10%. Utilities spent $124.2 per customer on efficiency programs and reported 77 watts of actual peak savings per customer through demand response. Four separate rankings follow; they are not combined into one grade.
1. Smart meters: share of residential meters that are AMI
AMI is the two-way type of smart meter. U.S. median utility: 100%, and 505 of 803 utilities are at 100%, so the top of this list is a tie and is ordered by size. A low AMI share does not mean no automatic reading: many utilities read meters automatically with older AMR meters, shown in the next column. By type, median share (utilities): cooperative 100% (433); municipal 100% (198); investor owned 99% (139); political subdivision 100% (30).
Largest 25 utilities at 100%
| Utility | State | Type | Residential meters | Smart (AMI), % | Smart or older automatic (AMI+AMR), % | Customers with daily digital access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PECO Energy Co | PA | Investor Owned | 1,550,968 | 100.0% | — | — |
| Alabama Power Co | AL | Investor Owned | 1,332,513 | 100.0% | — | 1,330,782 |
| PPL Electric Utilities Corp | PA | Investor Owned | 1,306,592 | 100.0% | — | 1,295,883 |
| Portland General Electric Co | OR | Investor Owned | 828,857 | 100.0% | — | — |
| Austin Energy | TX | Municipal | 507,291 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 507,291 |
| JEA | FL | Municipal | 470,564 | 100.0% | — | 470,564 |
| Nashville Electric Service | TN | Municipal | 417,640 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0 |
| Middle Tennessee E M C | TN | Cooperative | 307,370 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 207,765 |
| Lee County Electric Coop, Inc - (FL) | FL | Cooperative | 231,142 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 223,863 |
| City of Huntsville - (AL) | AL | Municipal | 197,537 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 197,537 |
| Knoxville Utilities Board | TN | Municipal | 193,707 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 193,707 |
| CORE Electric Cooperative | CO | Cooperative | 165,087 | 100.0% | — | — |
| City of Chattanooga - (TN) | TN | Municipal | 164,417 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0 |
| Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co | IN | Investor Owned | 140,114 | 100.0% | — | — |
| Walton Electric Member Corp | GA | Cooperative | 130,781 | 100.0% | — | 130,781 |
| Magic Valley Electric Coop Inc | TX | Cooperative | 126,402 | 100.0% | — | 126,402 |
| Great Lakes Energy Coop | MI | Cooperative | 120,645 | 100.0% | — | 120,645 |
| Berkeley Electric Coop Inc | SC | Cooperative | 117,706 | 100.0% | — | 115,117 |
| City of Tallahassee - (FL) | FL | Municipal | 105,267 | 100.0% | — | — |
| Snapping Shoals El Member Corp | GA | Cooperative | 105,253 | 100.0% | — | 105,253 |
| Volunteer Electric Coop | TN | Cooperative | 104,387 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 104,387 |
| Modesto Irrigation District | CA | Political Subdivision | 103,650 | 100.0% | — | — |
| Carroll Electric Coop Corp - (AR) | AR | Cooperative | 101,154 | 100.0% | — | 68,988 |
| Cumberland Elec Member Corp | TN | Cooperative | 100,585 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100,585 |
| First Electric Coop Corp | AR | Cooperative | 95,175 | 100.0% | — | 95,175 |
Lowest 25
| Utility | State | Type | Residential meters | Smart (AMI), % | Smart or older automatic (AMI+AMR), % | Customers with daily digital access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monongahela Power Co | WV | Investor Owned | 340,595 | 0.0% | 26.5% | 0 |
| The Potomac Edison Company | MD | Investor Owned | 259,128 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0 |
| The Potomac Edison Company | WV | Investor Owned | 138,275 | 0.0% | 19.6% | 0 |
| Lincoln Electric System | NE | Municipal | 134,634 | 0.0% | 100.0% | — |
| Kentucky Power Co | KY | Investor Owned | 131,234 | 0.0% | 99.9% | 0 |
| Avista Corp | ID | Investor Owned | 122,735 | 0.0% | 100.0% | — |
| Gainesville Regional Utilities | FL | Municipal | 92,968 | 0.0% | — | — |
| City of Cleveland - (OH) | OH | Municipal | 64,914 | 0.0% | 100.0% | — |
| UGI Utilities, Inc | PA | Investor Owned | 55,802 | 0.0% | 98.6% | — |
| Brownsville Public Utilities Board | TX | Municipal | 50,594 | 0.0% | 20.7% | — |
| Town of High Point | NC | Municipal | 38,079 | 0.0% | 100.0% | — |
| Cloverland Electric Co-op | MI | Cooperative | 36,124 | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0 |
| City of Farmington - (NM) | NM | Municipal | 35,990 | 0.0% | 51.2% | — |
| Ozark Border Electric Coop | MO | Cooperative | 33,229 | 0.0% | 100.0% | 33,229 |
| City of Greeneville - (TN) | TN | Municipal | 32,459 | 0.0% | 100.0% | 32,388 |
| Central Electric Power Assn - (MS) | MS | Cooperative | 30,905 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0 |
| Northcentral Mississippi E P A | MS | Cooperative | 29,136 | 0.0% | 100.0% | 29,136 |
| Florida Public Utilities Co | FL | Investor Owned | 28,875 | 0.0% | 51.3% | — |
| City of Moorhead - (MN) | MN | Municipal | 18,833 | 0.0% | 99.5% | 0 |
| Northern Lights, Inc | ID | Cooperative | 18,511 | 0.0% | 100.0% | — |
| City of Oak Ridge | TN | Municipal | 15,497 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0 |
| City of St Charles - (IL) | IL | Municipal | 14,181 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0 |
| City of Gillette - (WY) | WY | Municipal | 14,062 | 0.0% | 98.4% | — |
| Newberry Electric Coop, Inc | SC | Cooperative | 13,141 | 0.0% | 99.9% | — |
| Tri-State Electric Member Corp | GA | Cooperative | 13,123 | 0.0% | 100.0% | 13,123 |
Download all 803 utilities as CSV
Utilities with fewer than 10,000 residential meters are left out. Ties are ordered by the number of meters. A share over 100% in a filing is left blank.
2. Time-based pricing: who offers it and how many customers are on it
TOU is time-of-use; RTP real-time; VPP variable peak; CPP critical peak; CPR critical peak rebate. 286 of 890 utilities with 10,000+ residential customers report at least one residential program. 17 of the listed utilities show 100% enrolled, which usually means a time-of-use rate is the standard residential rate; EIA's count of enrolled customers is the utility's own.
| Utility type | Utilities (10,000+ residential) | Offer a program | Share offering |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooperative | 453 | 119 | 26% |
| Municipal | 243 | 44 | 18% |
| Investor Owned | 154 | 116 | 75% |
| Political Subdivision | 35 | 5 | 14% |
Highest enrolled share, 25 utilities
| Utility | State | Type | Residential customers | Programs reported | Enrolled residential customers | Enrolled, % of residential |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Service Co of Oklahoma | OK | Investor Owned | 501,093 | TOU | 501,093 | 100.0% |
| Southwestern Electric Power Co | TX | Investor Owned | 156,271 | TOU | 156,271 | 100.0% |
| Southwestern Electric Power Co | AR | Investor Owned | 108,102 | TOU | 108,102 | 100.0% |
| Fayetteville Public Works Commission | NC | Municipal | 75,987 | TOU | 75,987 | 100.0% |
| Hendricks County Rural E M C | IN | Cooperative | 37,638 | TOU | 37,638 | 100.0% |
| Linn County REC | IA | Cooperative | 30,323 | TOU | 30,323 | 100.0% |
| Eastern Iowa Light & Power Coop | IA | Cooperative | 20,749 | TOU | 20,749 | 100.0% |
| Capital Electric Coop, Inc | ND | Cooperative | 19,530 | TOU, CPP | 19,530 | 100.0% |
| NineStar Connect | IN | Cooperative | 17,770 | TOU | 17,770 | 100.0% |
| Grand Valley Power | CO | Cooperative | 17,268 | TOU | 17,268 | 100.0% |
| Lorain-Medina R E C, Inc | OH | Cooperative | 15,234 | TOU | 15,234 | 100.0% |
| Empire Electric Assn, Inc | CO | Cooperative | 12,899 | TOU | 12,899 | 100.0% |
| Maquoketa Valley Rrl Elec Coop | IA | Cooperative | 11,051 | TOU | 11,051 | 100.0% |
| Missoula Electric Coop, Inc | MT | Cooperative | 14,686 | TOU | 14,685 | 100.0% |
| Southwestern Electric Power Co | LA | Investor Owned | 207,011 | TOU | 206,897 | 99.9% |
| City of Fort Collins - (CO) | CO | Municipal | 70,803 | TOU | 70,656 | 99.8% |
| Flathead Electric Coop Inc | MT | Cooperative | 63,317 | TOU | 63,021 | 99.5% |
| Empire District Electric Co | MO | Investor Owned | 142,537 | TOU | 141,784 | 99.5% |
| Hancock-Wood Electric Coop Inc | OH | Cooperative | 11,307 | TOU | 11,231 | 99.3% |
| Consumers Energy Co - (MI) | MI | Investor Owned | 1,657,843 | TOU, CPP, CPR | 1,642,369 | 99.1% |
| Johnson County Rural E M C | IN | Cooperative | 28,279 | TOU | 27,538 | 97.4% |
| Sacramento Municipal Util Dist | CA | Political Subdivision | 592,557 | TOU, CPP | 576,477 | 97.3% |
| Baltimore Gas & Electric Co | MD | Investor Owned | 1,214,100 | CPR | 1,171,615 | 96.5% |
| City of Lansing - (MI) | MI | Municipal | 87,301 | TOU | 82,543 | 94.5% |
| Evergy Metro | MO | Investor Owned | 273,860 | TOU | 245,547 | 89.7% |
Download all 890 utilities as CSV
A utility that does not appear in EIA's dynamic-pricing sheet is counted as reporting no program; it may still have one it did not file. The state-level view is on the coverage ranking.
3. Efficiency programs: spending per customer
Customer incentives plus all other program costs reported for the year, over the utility's customers. 372 utilities with 10,000+ customers reported spending; median $17.5 per customer. Spending and savings are reported separately and may not describe the same programs, so read the two columns together.
Highest 25
| Utility | State | Type | Customers | Spending per customer, $ | Saved per customer, kWh | Spending, $ thousand |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West River Electric Assn Inc | SD | Cooperative | 20,674 | $747.1 | 1.8 | 15,446 |
| Public Service Elec & Gas Co | NJ | Investor Owned | 2,389,765 | $232.0 | 265.9 | 554,315 |
| NSTAR Electric Company | MA | Investor Owned | 1,526,558 | $223.6 | 122.9 | 341,388 |
| Fitchburg Gas & Elec Light Co | MA | Investor Owned | 30,884 | $162.8 | 121.9 | 5,028 |
| PacifiCorp | WA | Investor Owned | 137,263 | $161.3 | 296.9 | 22,135 |
| The Narragansett Electric Co | RI | Investor Owned | 514,663 | $157.7 | 142.6 | 81,187 |
| PUD No 1 of Chelan County | WA | Political Subdivision | 50,137 | $141.2 | 233.8 | 7,081 |
| Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co | AR | Investor Owned | 69,993 | $132.0 | 447.7 | 9,239 |
| Southern Maryland Elec Coop Inc | MD | Cooperative | 177,155 | $130.9 | 457.5 | 23,198 |
| Avista Corp | ID | Investor Owned | 148,019 | $130.1 | 224.1 | 19,254 |
| Baltimore Gas & Electric Co | MD | Investor Owned | 1,342,757 | $129.6 | 363.7 | 174,071 |
| Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electri | NH | Investor Owned | 46,797 | $129.1 | 175.2 | 6,042 |
| The Potomac Edison Company | MD | Investor Owned | 291,267 | $124.5 | 412.5 | 36,276 |
| Groton Dept of Utilities - (CT) | CT | Municipal | 13,889 | $123.6 | 48.9 | 1,717 |
| Delmarva Power | MD | Investor Owned | 215,111 | $121.1 | 231.6 | 26,056 |
| Jersey Central Power & Lt Co | NJ | Investor Owned | 1,171,837 | $118.4 | 136.1 | 138,722 |
| Potomac Electric Power Co | MD | Investor Owned | 603,429 | $117.3 | 274.1 | 70,798 |
| Avista Corp | WA | Investor Owned | 274,115 | $115.2 | 162.0 | 31,581 |
| Otter Tail Power Co | MN | Investor Owned | 63,326 | $109.8 | 677.6 | 6,956 |
| Consumers Energy Co - (MI) | MI | Investor Owned | 1,894,492 | $106.1 | 332.2 | 200,988 |
| Connecticut Light & Power Co | CT | Investor Owned | 1,290,878 | $102.4 | 101.5 | 132,224 |
| Ameren Illinois Company | IL | Investor Owned | 1,224,108 | $101.9 | 295.4 | 124,778 |
| United Illuminating Co | CT | Investor Owned | 345,877 | $99.9 | 96.7 | 34,569 |
| Southwestern Public Service Co | NM | Investor Owned | 127,672 | $98.0 | 662.7 | 12,509 |
| Puget Sound Energy Inc | WA | Investor Owned | 1,238,151 | $97.0 | 208.5 | 120,133 |
Download all 372 utilities as CSV
Savings are first-year energy savings from programs started in the reporting year. Utilities that reported no program are not in the table.
4. Demand response: peak demand actually cut
Demand response pays or asks customers to use less at peak times. 234 utilities with 10,000+ customers reported actual peak savings; median 75 watts per customer. Several of the highest are small cooperatives and public power districts, where one program with a few large customers weighs heavily.
Highest 25
| Utility | State | Type | Customers | Actual peak savings per customer, watts | Actual peak savings, MW | Potential peak savings, MW | Enrolled customers, all classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elkhorn Rural Public Pwr Dist | NE | Political Subdivision | 10,231 | 4,496 | 46.0 | 93.0 | 1,641 |
| Custer Public Power District | NE | Political Subdivision | 11,046 | 4,255 | 47.0 | 83.0 | 1,877 |
| Dawson Power District | NE | Political Subdivision | 23,461 | 3,381 | 79.3 | 101.1 | 4,737 |
| Nodak Electric Coop Inc | ND | Cooperative | 21,340 | 3,065 | 65.4 | 156.4 | 5,545 |
| Woodruff Electric Coop Corp | AR | Cooperative | 20,024 | 2,681 | 53.7 | 91.5 | 4,013 |
| Jackson Electric Coop, Inc - (TX) | TX | Cooperative | 17,402 | 2,414 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 12 |
| Wild Rice Electric Coop, Inc | MN | Cooperative | 14,801 | 2,381 | 35.2 | 130.0 | 6,706 |
| Otter Tail Power Co | ND | Investor Owned | 59,112 | 2,267 | 134.0 | 134.0 | 17,811 |
| Cass County Elec Coop Inc | ND | Cooperative | 59,687 | 2,017 | 120.4 | 445.9 | 9,225 |
| Cedar Falls Utilities | IA | Municipal | 20,246 | 1,833 | 37.1 | 37.1 | 4 |
| West River Electric Assn Inc | SD | Cooperative | 20,674 | 1,810 | 37.4 | 53.2 | 5,483 |
| Norris Public Power District | NE | Political Subdivision | 27,765 | 1,560 | 43.3 | 67.5 | 1,697 |
| PacifiCorp | ID | Investor Owned | 90,716 | 1,334 | 121.0 | 175.0 | 111 |
| Colquitt Electric Membership Corp | GA | Cooperative | 72,978 | 1,228 | 89.6 | 89.7 | 2,313 |
| Beltrami Electric Coop, Inc | MN | Cooperative | 22,364 | 1,219 | 27.3 | 219.2 | 7,519 |
| Menard Electric Coop | IL | Cooperative | 10,972 | 1,138 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 1,317 |
| City of Elk River | MN | Municipal | 13,466 | 1,042 | 14.0 | 16.6 | 8 |
| Loup River Public Power Dist | NE | Political Subdivision | 20,762 | 924 | 19.2 | 24.5 | 579 |
| Medina Electric Coop, Inc | TX | Cooperative | 37,645 | 898 | 33.8 | 79.0 | 744 |
| MPD Electric Cooperative | SC | Cooperative | 38,612 | 875 | 33.8 | 43.0 | 8 |
| City of Hamilton - (OH) | OH | Municipal | 29,891 | 846 | 25.3 | 25.3 | 16 |
| Crisp County Power Comm | GA | Political Subdivision | 12,095 | 827 | 10.0 | 12.0 | 2 |
| Choctawhatche Elec Coop, Inc | FL | Cooperative | 66,479 | 766 | 51.0 | 51.0 | 66,479 |
| Otter Tail Power Co | SD | Investor Owned | 11,959 | 753 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 4,013 |
| Shelby Electric Coop, Inc - (IL) | IL | Cooperative | 10,054 | 751 | 7.5 | 14.2 | 1,033 |
The four measures by state
| Alabama | 96% | 1 of 28 | 4% | $4.5 | 139 | 0.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | 88% | 2 of 5 | 40% | $0.0 | 0 | 9.4 |
| Arizona | 95% | 9 of 12 | 75% | $35.0 | 125 | 90.9 |
| Arkansas | 91% | 3 of 21 | 14% | $41.1 | 80 | 12.3 |
| California | 98% | 16 of 25 | 64% | $37.9 | 34 | 129.1 |
| Colorado | 94% | 13 of 20 | 65% | $40.5 | 205 | 64.3 |
| Connecticut | 92% | 2 of 5 | 40% | $97.6 | 65 | 61.4 |
| Delaware | 100% | 2 of 4 | 50% | $25,145.0 | 173 | 28.8 |
| District of Columbia | 100% | 0 of 1 | 0% | $30.7 | 58 | 84.7 |
| Florida | 96% | 12 of 36 | 33% | $8.2 | 9 | 25.1 |
| Georgia | 98% | 10 of 46 | 22% | $13.0 | 57 | 4.4 |
| Hawaii | 95% | 3 of 4 | 75% | $54.4 | 0 | 193.8 |
| Idaho | 83% | 2 of 7 | 29% | $55.1 | 359 | 24.2 |
| Illinois | 100% | 6 of 16 | 38% | $89.0 | 23 | 25.6 |
| Indiana | 98% | 15 of 32 | 47% | $32.7 | 26 | 3.8 |
| Iowa | 96% | 5 of 9 | 56% | $43.7 | 297 | 15.5 |
| Kansas | 100% | 4 of 11 | 36% | $6.6 | 24 | 7.6 |
| Kentucky | 84% | 9 of 32 | 28% | $9.2 | 142 | 4.5 |
| Louisiana | 95% | 2 of 15 | 13% | $19.2 | 4 | 14.6 |
| Maine | 99% | 1 of 3 | 33% | $45.5 | 14 | 97.1 |
| Maryland | 88% | 5 of 7 | 71% | $119.1 | 107 | 44.1 |
| Massachusetts | 13% | 1 of 17 | 6% | $128.5 | 28 | 58.9 |
| Michigan | 99% | 9 of 18 | 50% | $83.5 | 54 | 5.7 |
| Minnesota | 93% | 19 of 30 | 63% | $58.6 | 459 | 10.1 |
| Mississippi | 93% | 3 of 25 | 12% | $16.5 | 207 | 1.2 |
| Missouri | 98% | 5 of 32 | 16% | $28.1 | 31 | 11.4 |
| Montana | 100% | 2 of 6 | 33% | $22.0 | 42 | 17.6 |
| Nebraska | 53% | 1 of 11 | 9% | $8.7 | 552 | 4.4 |
| Nevada | 100% | 2 of 4 | 50% | $25.3 | 118 | 88.8 |
| New Hampshire | 78% | 4 of 4 | 100% | $79.9 | 21 | 31.5 |
| New Jersey | 91% | 1 of 5 | 20% | $188.5 | 5 | 48.6 |
| New Mexico | 57% | 6 of 10 | 60% | $42.0 | 63 | 61.5 |
| New York | 75% | 4 of 10 | 40% | $73.8 | 103 | 28.0 |
| North Carolina | 98% | 20 of 44 | 45% | $25.7 | 80 | 10.7 |
| North Dakota | 89% | 5 of 10 | 50% | $0.2 | 872 | 0.6 |
| Ohio | 64% | 9 of 27 | 33% | $3.3 | 120 | 5.3 |
| Oklahoma | 100% | 3 of 25 | 12% | $34.5 | 136 | 10.7 |
| Oregon | 99% | 3 of 19 | 16% | $66.8 | 9 | 27.0 |
| Pennsylvania | 99% | 4 of 13 | 31% | $39.6 | 7 | 13.7 |
| Rhode Island | 0% | 0 of 1 | 0% | $154.2 | 0 | 34.1 |
| South Carolina | 99% | 9 of 26 | 35% | $23.8 | 30 | 14.1 |
| South Dakota | 87% | 3 of 8 | 38% | $43.8 | 351 | 1.3 |
| Tennessee | 96% | 5 of 55 | 9% | $11.7 | 167 | 0.0 |
| Texas | 98% | 9 of 61 | 15% | $15.2 | 55 | 9.7 |
| Utah | 96% | 3 of 12 | 25% | $51.9 | 241 | 62.9 |
| Vermont | 97% | 3 of 3 | 100% | $116.7 | 21 | 29.9 |
| Virginia | 95% | 7 of 17 | 41% | $24.6 | 32 | 17.8 |
| Washington | 81% | 4 of 28 | 14% | $71.8 | 24 | 17.2 |
| West Virginia | 45% | 2 of 4 | 50% | $2.6 | 1 | 3.9 |
| Wisconsin | 94% | 15 of 19 | 79% | $31.2 | 39 | 7.1 |
| Wyoming | 86% | 3 of 7 | 43% | $28.9 | 0 | 10.8 |
State smart-meter share adds the meters of utilities with 10,000+ residential meters. Spending and demand response are all reported amounts over all customers the state has in EIA's sales file.
Look up your utility
Choose your state and the company on your bill to see its four measures against the national median.
- Loading.
What this means for you
- With a smart meter your utility can see an outage and bill you by time of day. If your utility reports a low share, asking when meters will be replaced is a fair question.
- Time-of-use rates charge different prices at different hours. Ask the utility for your own past usage by hour before switching.
- Efficiency and demand-response programs often come with rebates or bill credits. If your utility spent little per customer, your state or a federal program may still offer help.
- These are reported counts, not quality scores; a utility can rank low on one list and high on another.
Method, sources and dates
Source. EIA, Form EIA-861 annual electric power industry report, data year 2024, file eia861_2024.zip, retrieved 2026-10-01. Sheets used: Reliability, Sales to Ultimate Customers, Advanced Meters, Dynamic Pricing, Demand Response, Energy Efficiency, Net Metering, Operational Data. EIA publishes the utilities' own filings; we add nothing to a utility's figure.
State figures. A state figure is the average of the utilities' published numbers, weighted by the customers each utility reported next to them. Nothing is estimated. Only utilities that follow the IEEE 1366 standard are counted: EIA's form has a second block for utilities that use another method, and the two do not measure the same thing, so they are never added together. No utility reports in both blocks.
When a state gets a figure. The utilities that report under IEEE 1366 must serve at least 60% of the customers EIA lists for the state and at least 100,000 customers. Otherwise the state page shows the utilities and the reason, and the state is left out of rankings. Utility ranking floor: 10,000 customers; below that one bad day moves the average too far.
With and without major events. The comparison uses only utilities that published both numbers. One utility, Nashville Electric Service (Tennessee), published an all-events SAIDI of 0.0 against 86.6 minutes without major events, which cannot both be right; its all-events figure is dropped and its without-events figure kept. 82 of 102 state figures match EIA's own State Totals sheet within 1%. The rest differ, the largest being Tennessee and Mississippi; we have not traced which utilities EIA counted there, and we do not use that sheet.
Report card definitions. Utilities that sell without owning meters (third-party sellers) are left out. Smart meter share is residential AMI meters over all residential meters; time-based pricing is the residential flags and enrolled counts in the dynamic-pricing sheet; efficiency spending is customer incentives plus other costs over customers; demand response is actual peak savings over customers. Floors: 10,000 residential customers or meters, 10,000 customers.
Questions
Which utilities have the most smart meters?
803 utilities with 10,000+ residential meters are ranked. 684 have AMI on at least 90% of residential meters; the U.S. median is 100%.
How many utilities offer time-of-use pricing?
286 of the 890 utilities with 10,000+ residential customers report at least one time-based residential program. By type: cooperative 26% (119 of 453); municipal 18% (44 of 243); investor owned 75% (116 of 154).
Does a high efficiency spend mean lower bills?
Not by itself. The file reports spending and first-year savings, not bills.
Is there one overall grade?
No. The four measures describe different things and we do not weight them against each other.