State Performance-Based
Environmental Leadership
Programs:
Trends, Models, and Results
Angela Vitulli
Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc)
National Environmental Partnership Summit
9 May 2006
The Growth and Evolution of
State Programs

What is a “performance-based environmental
leadership program?”

Half of states have an active or developing
program.

State programs change frequently.

More states are integrating performance
measurement into programs to demonstrate
results.
Programs Across States
NH
WA
VT
ME
ND
MT
MN
OR
MA
AK
ID
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
RI
PA
IA
CT
NE
NV
IL
UT
NJ
OH
IN
WV
CO
KS
MO
MD
KY
CA
NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM
AR
SC
AL
GA
MS
Key:
HI
TX
LA
Active Program
FL
No Active Program
Developing Program
DE
VA
States Vary in Targeting
Participants

Some states concentrate efforts on “on-ramp”
programs to encourage EMS development and
sustained compliance.

Many state programs have
multiple tiers to accommodate
facilities at different
performance levels.
On-Ramp
Tier
Leadership
Tier
Laggards
Compliance
Leaders
Programs Represented Today

Colorado ELP

Kentucky EXCEL

Virginia VEEP
Quantifying Members’ Superior Environmental
Performance is Increasingly Important

State budget pressures have created resources
pressures for “innovative” programs.

General trend toward outcome-oriented
measurement of government programs.

Quantifying environmental performance is key to
demonstrating program benefits and highlighting
how leadership programs contribute to media
program goals.
More States are Aggregating
Members’ Environmental Results

Michigan has been aggregating results since 1998.

Texas presents both environmental achievements and
cost savings among members in its 2004 Performance
Report.

Georgia measured first year performance of members in
2005 and is estimating prospective improvements from
member commitments.

Virginia will begin to analyze performance across
members in 2006.
Challenges of Performance Measurement

A prescribed reporting format is needed to yield data that
can be summed across members.

Data entry and information management can be
burdensome.

Factoring in the effects of economic activity on
environmental results is often tricky.

It is often difficult to evaluate the quality and completeness
of environmental data provided by members.