Cape Light Compact 

Annual Report on 

Energy Efficiency Activities 

in 2006 

Submitted to the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities 

and the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources 

July 3, 2007 
This page intentionally blank. 
Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 4

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4 

B. Report Organization ........................................................................................... 6 

C. Summary of Results ........................................................................................... 7 

D. Summary of Results by Sector........................................................................... 9 

II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology..................................................................... 18

III. Impacts by BCR Activity........................................................................................ 22

A. Residential........................................................................................................ 22 

B. Low-Income ..................................................................................................... 28 

C. Commercial & Industrial.................................................................................. 32 

Appendices....................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations......................................................... 37 

Appendix 2. 2006 Evaluation Impact Parameters............................................................ 41 

Appendix 3. Post Program Savings Attributed to Selected 2006 Market Transformation 

Initiatives........................................................................................................................... 46 

Appendix 4. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive.......................................................... 47 

Appendix 5. Summary of 2006 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Reports.......................... 48 
I. Executive Summary 

A. Introduction 

Since July 2001, the Cape Light Compact has delivered energy efficiency programs to 

electric consumers in all member towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. This 

Annual Report provides detailed information on the Compact’s energy efficiency 

activities and savings during the course of calendar year 2006. 

In 2006, the Compact implemented the following set of efficiency programs: 

• The Residential ENERGY STAR® New Construction Program, which provides 

home buyers, home builders, and construction trade allies with technical assistance 

and financial incentives to increase the efficiency of homes that are newly built or

undergo major renovations. Results of this program are shown in the Residential 

Lost Opportunity row of Table 2 and in Section III. 

• The Residential MassSAVE Program, which provides all interested residential 

customers with energy savings education, the opportunity for a home energy audit 

and financial incentives for numerous electric and non-electric efficiency measures, 

including financial support to switch electric space heating systems to more 

efficient systems that use alternative fuels. Results of this program are shown in 

the Residential Retrofit 1-4 row of Table 2 and in Section III. 

• The Residential ENERGY STAR Products and Services Program, which seeks to 

increase the availability and use of ENERGY STAR qualified lighting and 

appliances, including: clothes washers, room air conditioners, dehumidifiers and 

refrigerators. This program is used to implement the Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnership (“NEEP”) initiatives and other regional market transformation efforts. 

Results of this program are divided appropriately between the Residential Lighting 

and Residential Appliances rows of Table 2 and in Section III. 

• Residential High Efficiency Central Air Conditioning Program (“MA COOL 

SMART” with ENERGY STAR), was introduced in the Spring of 2004, promotes 

the purchase and installation of ENERGY STAR qualified central air conditioning 

systems in new construction and market conversion of older heating, ventilation 

and air conditioning (“HVAC”) units. The program also is designed to increase the 

number of trained technicians in the state and to improve the quality of 

installations. In March 2006, the Compact closed participation in this standalone 

program due to budget constraints; however, significant rebate and other program

costs and related energy savings are reported in 2006 due to prior commitments. 

Results of this program are shown in the Residential HVAC row of Table 2 and in 

Section III. 

• The Low-Income Single Family Program, which provides low-income customers in 

single-family dwellings with assistance in purchasing and installing efficient 

lighting, appliances, and weatherization measures. These services are similar to, 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 4
but more extensive in ability to leverage program benefits and offer higher 

incentives to eligible customers, than in the MassSAVE program. Results of this 

program are shown in the Low Income Retrofit 1-4 row of Table 3 and in Section 

III. 

• The Low-Income Multi-Family Program, which provides owners and managers of 

low-income multi-family dwellings with assistance in purchasing and installing 

efficient lighting, appliances and space heating measures, similar to those offered 

under the Low-Income Single Family Program on a facility-wide basis. Results of 

this program are shown in the Low Income Retrofit Multifamily row of Table 3 and 

in Section III. 

• The Low-Income New Construction Program, which provides low-income housing 

development agencies, weatherization assistance program (“WAP”) providers, and 

residential construction trade allies with incentives to increase the home energy 

rating of new low-income housing. Results of this program are shown in the Low 

Income Lost Opportunity row of Table 3 and in Section III. 

• The Commercial and Industrial New Construction Program, which provides 

technical assistance and financial incentives to increase the efficiency in the 

construction, renovation, and/or remodeling of all commercial, industrial, 

government and multi-family housing facilities. Results of this program are 

included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row of Table 4 and in Section III. 

• The Medium and Large Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program, which 

provides technical and financial assistance to medium and large commercial and 

industrial (“C&I”) customers seeking to do discretionary replacements of existing 

operating equipment and processes in their facilities with high-efficiency 

alternatives. Results of this program are included in the C&I Large Retrofit row of

Table 4 and in Section III. 

• The Small Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program, which provides technical 

assistance, financial incentives and direct installation to small C&I customers to 

replace existing operating equipment and systems with high-efficiency equipment. 

Results of this program are included in the C&I Small Retrofit row of Table 4 and 

in Section III. 

• The Government Agencies Program, which provides technical assistance and 

financial incentives

1

 to all government facilities, including municipal, state and 

federal facilities. For the purposes of reporting the results of this program in this 

Annual Report, in Table 4 and in Section III, the results of efficiency activities with 

small government customers are included in the C&I Small Retrofit row, while the 

results of efficiency activities with large government customers are included in the 

C&I Large Retrofit row. The results of government new construction activities are 

included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row. 

 

1

 Unlike the Compact’s other C&I Programs, where a customer co-pay is required, the Government

program covers the entire cost of energy efficiency services resulting from an audit up to a cap of 

$75,000 per project. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 5
• The Commercial and Industrial Products and Services Program, which seeks to 

increase the availability and use of more efficient motors, lighting designs, and 

HVAC systems. This program is used to implement NEEP and other regional 

market transformation initiatives. The results of this program are included in the 

C&I Lost Opportunity row of Table 4 and in Section III. 

B. Report Organization 

This Executive Summary provides an overview of the Compact’s energy efficiency 

programs’ (referred to as BCR Activities) benefits and costs. For each sector there are 

tables summarizing the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, the non-energy 

benefits (“NEBs”), the dollar values of the total benefits2

 and the total costs. 

The savings data are presented in terms of both “preliminary” and “evaluated” data. 

• The preliminary data refers to savings estimates that are based on the evaluation 

impact factors that were used in the 2005 – 2007 Energy Efficiency Plan (“EEP”). 

Using this data allows for a direct comparison with the estimated savings from the 

EEP. 

• The evaluated data refers to savings results that are based on evaluation impact 

factors from all of the program evaluations that have been prepared since the EEP 

was filed. Thus, the evaluated data presents our best estimate of the efficiency 

savings, based on all the evaluation information available at this time. Appendix 2 

presents the impact factors that were used to prepare the evaluated results.

Section II of this Annual Report provides a discussion of the methodology that is used for 

program monitoring and evaluation. It presents a brief summary of the types of 

evaluations that are used, and a description of the methodology for estimated net energy 

savings. It also includes a list of the evaluation studies that were used to prepare the 2006 

evaluated efficiency savings results. These evaluation studies are also used to inform

program design and delivery. 

Section III of this Annual Report provides more detailed results of the program activities. 

The tables in this section include information regarding the number of program

participants, the annual efficiency savings and non-electric benefits, the benefit-cost ratio 

of the program, and the savings impacts by type of end-use (lighting, HVAC, motors, 

refrigeration, hot water, and end-user behavior). This section also summarizes recent 

evaluation report findings where relevant. Finally, the appendices provide more detail 

regarding the monitoring and evaluation results and the program savings. Of particular 

interest in this Annual Report, Appendix 3 provides greater detail of program budgets (by 

category) and savings (by type). 

 

2

 The Compact is submitting, consistent with other Program Administrators practice and statewide 

guidance from the Department of Energy Resources, its benefit-cost ratios for its 2006 energy

efficiency programs with the additional capacity benefit in the form of a demand reduction induced 

price effect (“DRIPE”). The Compact notes that the BCRs prior to incorporating DRIPE would all be

cost-effective with a value greater than one. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 6
C. Summary of Results 

Table 1a provides a summary of the program expenses and savings. It also presents the 

percent change between the final evaluated results and (a) the preliminary evaluated 

results, and (b) the estimates of expenses and savings targets in the Compact’s EEP. The 

values in the “Amount” column are the 2006 results, based on all evaluations available at 

this time. 

Preliminary Filed Target

Prorgram Implementation Expenses $5 $ - Millions 0% 6%

Total Expenses $6 $ - Millions 0% -22%

Annual Energy Savings 17 GWh -1% 40%

Annual Summer Demand Savings 3.49 MW -1% 52%

Annual Winter Demand Savings 4.23 MW -1% 42%

Lifetime Energy Savings 213 GWh -1% 50%

Lifetime Demand Savings 44.95 MW-Years -1% 56%

Total Resource Cost Test 5.82 Benefit / Cost -1% 41%

Performance Incentive - After Taxes $0.00 $ - Millions 0% 0%

SAVINGS AND EXPENSES FOR 2006

TABLE 1a - w/ DRIPE

Measurement Amount Percent Change Comparison Units

Program implementation expenses include all of the costs incurred by the Compact, except for monitoring 

and verification costs. Total expenses include program implementation costs, monitoring and verification 

costs, and customer contributions. 

The Compact’s 2006 program implementation expenses were roughly 6% higher than the 

2006 budgets in the EEP. This was due primarily to lower administrative costs allowing 

for greater funding of energy efficiency measures. 

The 2006 program results include the use of supplemental funding of approximately 

$65,000 made available to support energy efficiency activities from Barnstable County 

appropriations and the Compact’s competitive power supplier, ConEdison Solutions. 

The annual energy savings achieved in 2006 were roughly 40% higher than those 

estimated in the 2006 EEP. This difference is primarily due to relatively high savings in 

the Residential Lighting and Appliances, Residential MassSAVE, and the C&I Large 

Retrofit Programs. 

The demand savings achieved in 2006 were significantly higher than those estimated in 

the 2006 EEP. This increase is primarily because the 2006 actual results are based on (a) 

much better data regarding demand savings, and (b) better coincidence factors used to

estimate summer and winter demand from total maximum demand. 

The benefit-cost ratio of the 2006 programs in total was 5.82, a marked increase over the 

2005 program benefit-cost ratio of 2.36. This indicates that the Compact’s programs in 

total are highly cost-effective, where every $1.00 spent reduces the net cost of electricity 

by $5.82. 

All of the evaluated savings results are slightly lower than the preliminary savings results. 

This is primarily because most of the updates to impact factors used in creating the 

evaluated results (i.e., free-ridership and realization rates) reduced the energy savings 

estimates. The difference between evaluated and preliminary lifetime energy and 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 7
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 8

Preliminary Filed Target

Prorgram Implementation Expenses $5 $ - Millions 0% NA

Total Expenses $6 $ - Millions 0% NA

Annual Energy Savings 17 GWh -1% NA

Annual Summer Demand Savings 3.49 MW -1% NA

Annual Winter Demand Savings 4.23 MW -1% NA

Lifetime Energy Savings 213 GWh -1% NA

Lifetime Dema 95 MW-Years -1% NA

Total Resource .78 Benefit / Cost -1% NA

Performance In .00 $ - Millions 0% NA

TABLE 1b - w/o DRIPE

SAVINGS AND EXPENSES FOR 2006

Measurement Amount Units

Percent Change Comparison

nd Savings 44.

 Cost Test 3

centive - After Taxes $0

Table 1b, Savings and Expenses for 2006 without DRIPE, is included for reference 

purposes only.

demand savings is also partly due to using improved measure life assumptions for the 

evaluated results.
t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 9

Figures 1 through 4 present the same information as Table 2. They indicate that most of the residential energy safrom the Residential Retrofit 1-4 and Residential Lighting programs; that most of the capacity savings come from Appliance and Residential HVAC programs; that most of the non-electric benefits come from the Residential Apprimarily from clothes washer benefits; and that all residential programs are cost effective. 

Table 2 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime non-electric benefits for each programs. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2006 present value dollars. These total benused to determine whether each program is cost-effective, based on the total resource cost (TRC) test. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activity Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Benefits 

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 2,051 2,051 527 527 $410,237 $410,237 $766,82A02b Residential HVAC 1,952 1,952 3,123 3,123 $0 $0 $1,668,96A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 43,824 43,824 1,066 1,066 $538,971 $538,971 $3,621,77

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily NA NA NA NA NA NA NA03c Residential Load Response NA NA NA NA NA NA NA04a Residential Lighting 17,790 17,790 1,066 1,066 $150,577 $150,577 $1,968,50

A04b Residential Appliances 6,201 6,201 2,816 2,816 $2,962,155 $2,962,155 $4,756,86Total 71,818 71,818 8,598 8,598 $4,061,940 $4,061,940 $12,782,93

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB TRC 

D. Summary of Results by Sector 1. Residential Programs Cape Ligh
FIGURE 1

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

M

E M

W

H

A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit

Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 2

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME kW

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETIME kW

A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit

Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 10
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 11

 

FIGURE 4

RESIDENTIAL TRC VALU

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS

$ T

R

C V

ALUE

ES

A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 3

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME $ NEB

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

LIFETIME $ NE

$0

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

B

A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity
Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activity Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity 2,129 2,129 53 53 $184,116 $184,116 $

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 2,153 2,153 219 219 $280,706 $280,706 $

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 1,871 1,871 60 60 $1,644,599 $1,644,599 $1,

Total 6,153 6,153 332 332 $2,109,421 $2,109,421 $2,

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF LOW-INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB 

t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 12

Figures 5 through 8 present the same information graphically as listed in Table 3. They indicate that all of the preffective. Most of the low-income energy and capacity savings are obtained from the Low Income Lost Opportu

programs. Most NEB savings are obtained from the Low Income Retrofit Multifamily programs, for which NEB fossil fuel savings, were added in 2006. 

Table 3 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime non-electric benefits for each programs. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2006 present value dollars. These total benused to determine whether each program is cost-effective, based on the total resource cost test. 2. Low-Income Programs Cape Ligh
FIGURE 5

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME MWH

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

ME M

W

H

B03b Low-Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 6

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME kW

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

ME kW

B03b Low-Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 13
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 14

FIGURE 7

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME $ NEB

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

LIFETI

ME $ NE

$0

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

B

B03b Low-Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 8

LOW-INCOME TRC VALUE

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS

$ TRC 

V

ALUE

S

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity
t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 15

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activity Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Bene

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 7,313 7,313 2,026 2,026 $11 $11 $1,33C03a Large C&I Retrofit 88,736 87,808 25,757 25,504 $640 $635 $16,85

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 40,658 39,718 8,703 8,486 $10,918 $10,301 $6,17

Total 136,706 134,839 36,486 $11, 36,016 569 $10,947 $24,36

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF C&I BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB 

Table 4 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime non-electric benefits for each 

& Industrial programs. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2006 present value dollars. Thcosts are used to determine whether each program is cost-effective, based on the total resource cost test. 

Figures 9 through 12 present the same information as Table 4. They indicate that most of the Compact’s C&I safrom the two Retrofit programs. 

3. Commercial & Industrial Programs Cape Ligh
FIGURE 9

C&I LIFETIME MWH

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

M

E M

W

H

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 10

C&I LIFETIME kW

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETIM

E k

W

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 16
FIGURE 11

 C&I LIFETIME $ NEB

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

ME $ NEB

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 12

C&I TRC VALUES

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENFITS VERSUS COSTS

$ TR

C V

ALUE

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 17
II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology 

Preliminary Versus Evaluated Results 

As noted above, the savings data in this report are presented in terms of both 

“preliminary” and “evaluated” data. 

• The preliminary data refers to savings estimates that are based on the evaluation 

impact factors that were used in the 2006 Energy Efficiency Plan.3

 Using this data 

allows for a direct comparison with the estimated savings from the 2006 EEP. 

• The evaluated data refers to savings results that are based on evaluation impact 

factors from all of the program evaluations that have been prepared since the 2006 

EEP was filed. Thus, the evaluated data presents our best estimate of the efficiency 

savings, based on all the evaluation information available at this time. Appendix 2 

presents the impact factors that were used to prepare the evaluated results.

Evaluation Studies Used in Preparing 2006 Evaluated Results 

Since its inception in July 2001, the Compact has participated in many state-wide and 

regional monitoring and evaluation studies, along with other energy efficiency Program 

Administrators. The Compact has also conducted several evaluation studies specific to 

its own programs. 

The evaluation studies completed in 2006 or near completion and used to update impact 

factors or to inform the process of program delivery are listed below. In 2005 many 

program impact parameters were updated based on evaluation studies. By comparison, in 

2006, the majority of studies focused on process evaluation. It is common for energy 

efficiency program evaluators to update parameters on a multi-year cycle, unless 

significant program changes warrant more frequent study. The executive summaries of 

these reports are included in Appendix 5. 

• The Cape Light Compact Small Government Retrofit Program – Evaluation 

Report - Final, by PA Consulting Group, May 31, 20074

. 

• Evaluation of the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Homes Program: Findings and 

Analysis, by NMR and Dorothy Conant, May 2007. 

• MEMORANDUM RE: Results of the Appliance Model Availability Analysis, from:

Lynn Hoefgen and Tim Pettit, Nexus Market Research, April 20, 2007 

 

3

 The primary evaluation impact factors that are relevant here are free-ridership rates, spillover rates, 

realization rates, persistence rates, and measure lives. 

4

 Results of this report were used in updating the estimate of government lighting free-ridership, 

spillover, and in-service rates for the Compact. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 18
• MEMORANDUM RE: Final Evaluation of 2006 HEAT Loan Program, from: 

Dorothy Conant, Consultant and Tom Ledyard, RLW Analytics, January 15, 

2007 

• 2006 Massachusetts and Rhode Island CoolSmart Evaluation Report, by 

Wirtshafter Associates, Inc., Kreitler Research and Consulting, Performance 

Systems Development, Inc. and International Communications Research, Inc., 

April 17, 2007 

In addition, some program evaluation studies are currently in development. Final reports 

from the following studies are expected in summer 2007. These draft materials have also 

been included in Appendix 5. 

• MEMORANDUM Re: Memorandum on Energy-efficient Room Air Conditioner 

Promotion Effectiveness, From: Betty Tolkin, Tom Mauldin, and Lynn Hoefgen, 

NMR, June 4, 2007 

• MEMORANDUM RE: Estimates of Net Impact of the 2006 Massachusetts 

ENERGY STAR Appliances Program, Clothes Washer component, FROM: Lynn 

Hoefgen, Lisa Wilson-Wright, Thomas Mauldin, and Tim Pettit, NMR, June 25, 

2007 

• Market Progress and Evaluation Report (MPER) For the 2006 Massachusetts 

ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program DRAFT by: Nexus Market Research, Inc., 

RLW Analytics, Inc., Shel Feldman Management Consulting and Dorothy 

Conant, June 22, 2007 

Types of Evaluations 

The evaluation of 2006 energy efficiency program impacts reflects the Compact’s efforts 

to apply appropriate methodologies and adjust them for individual program 

characteristics. The diverse nature of the programs, including the magnitude of 

preliminary kW and kWh impacts, the number of customers served, and the end uses 

affected, calls for the adoption of different evaluation approaches. Evaluations of some

programs use several methodologies to develop overall impact results and provide 

meaningful feedback on program delivery and direction. Some of these methodologies 

are briefly described below. 

Survey-Based Impact Parameter Studies. Survey-based impact parameter studies focus 

on the analysis of information collected through customer surveys. They are generally 

used to measure free-ridership and spillover. These studies provide timely feedback to 

program managers as well as input to the impact evaluations. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 19
• In 2006, the Cape Light Compact commissioned a survey- based and field 

verification study to assess impacts from its Small Government Retrofit Program. 

The results of the study are included in Appendix 5 

Billing Analyses. Billing analyses involve the analysis of billing data, combined in some

cases with survey data, to determine impacts for programs where a large number of 

participants install similar measures. Since billing data are available for all customers, 

billing analysis techniques may include representative samples of both participants and

non-participants in an evaluation. 

Site Specific Measurement Analysis. Impact evaluations for many of the end uses and 

programs covered in this report rely on engineering estimates that are based on sitespecific metering and on-site telephone assessments of measure performance and 

persistence. 

Process and Market Progress Evaluation Studies. Process evaluations review energy 

efficiency program design and implementation, and recommend modifications to 

program delivery. The scope of these evaluations includes all aspects of the program

including administrative efficiency, the quality of service provided, and the databases 

used for program tracking and reporting. Process evaluations assess the early stages of 

energy efficiency programs. They specifically provide an assessment of (a) whether 

actual operations resemble the intended program design and operation plan, and 

(b) whether real-world experience shows that the original program design and 

implementation plan are appropriate given the existing field conditions. 

Appendix 5 includes summaries of several studies that characterize current market 

conditions or report on market progress and aid in informing implementation of marketoriented energy efficiency programs implemented by the Compact, such as the residential 

new construction program, residential lighting, appliance, and HVAC programs. 

Economic Modeling and Analysis Studies. The benefits and cost-effectiveness of energy 

efficiency programs are based on modeling and analysis that values energy efficiency in 

relation to the avoided costs of energy supply projected over the life of the programs and 

measures installed. Avoided costs are typically projected based on forecasting models. 

The cost-effectiveness results presented in this report – both preliminary and evaluated – 

are all based on the avoided cost estimates that were used in preparing the 2006 EEP. 

This approach allows for a more direct comparison of the economic results between the 

2006 EEP and the 2006 Annual Report. The avoided cost estimates used for both of 

these studies are taken from the following report: ICF Consulting, Avoided Energy 

Supply Costs in New England, prepared for the Avoided Energy Supply Component 

(AESC) Study Group, December 23, 2005. 

Generic Impact Equations 

The general form of the impact equation for most of the measures installed is: 

Net Impacts = Gross Impacts * Realization Rate*(1-Free-Ridership + Spillover) * 

Persistence Factor. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 20
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 21

Realization Rates are study- specific parameters, which typically compare the energy or 

demand performance of installed equipment to initial estimates of performance. They are 

typically based on engineering or billing analysis. 

Free-ridership includes both partial and pure free-ridership, where such information is 

available, as required by D.T.E 98-100. 

Free-ridership, spillover rates and in-service rates for lighting measures in the Compact’s 

Government Retrofit Program were determined as part of the study conducted by the 

Compact and summarized in Appendix 5. Unlike its other Commercial and Industrial 

programs, the Compact covers total project costs up to $75,000 per project per year. The 

study was commissioned in order to assess energy savings from this program. The 

impacts were assessed through a survey of a sample of program participants. The 

number of survey completions for non-lighting measures was very low because these 

measures, such as custom, variable speed drives and refrigeration, had relatively few 

installations in 2004-2005. Thus, although a high percentage of the program customers 

were sampled, the results for non-lighting measures were used to verify savings estimates 

rather than to update impact parameters. 

In energy efficiency programs, spillover may occur among both participants and nonparticipants. Both participant and non-participant spillover were used in the calculation 

of savings for these programs, consistent with D.T.E. 98-100. The non-participant 

spillover impact used in this report is based on the combined results of National Grid and 

Compact surveys. 

Persistence indicates the continued presence of savings over time as indicated by followup surveys that confirm the measure remains installed, and verify it is operating as 

intended. As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study5

, “Savings persistence is the 

percent change in expected savings due to changed operating hours, changed process 

operation, and/or degradation in equipment efficiency relative to the baseline efficiency 

option”. 

Measure lives are applied to net annual kW and kWh to calculate lifetime kW and kWh. 

As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study, measure life is 

“The median number of years that a measure is installed and operational. 

This definition implicitly includes equipment life and measure persistence, 

but not savings persistence....In addition, this definition conforms in letter 

or in spirit with the definition of measure life used by most national 

utilities.” 

Performance Metrics 

As a not-for-profit inter-governmental organization, the Compact does not require 

shareholder performance incentives, and thus does not need to monitor or track any form 

of performance metrics.

 

5

 Measure Life Study Report prepared for the Massachusetts Joint Utilities by Energy Resource Solutions 

(ers), October 10, 2005. 
Benefit-Cost Ratio 

Activity kWh kWh per Cust kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB A

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 122 179,450 1,471 26.94 $17,351 2,051 527 $410,237 $

A02b Residential HVAC 170 130,130 765 208.21 $0 1,952 3,123 $0 $

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 1,999 3,037,000 1,519 79.16 $33,105 43,824 1,066 $538,971 $1,A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A03c Residential Load Response NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A04a Residential Lighting 3,234 2,903,260 898 174.00 $24,873 17,790 1,066 $150,577 $

A04b Residential Appliances 2,974 486,850 164 254.03 $247,482 6,201 2,816 $2,962,155 $

Total 8,499 6,736,690 793 742.34 $322,811 71,818 8,598 $4,061,940 $2

TABLE 5

IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime 

Participant

t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 22

Table 5 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the 

residential programs. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. The costs and b

this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 2. Because residential impact factors were not updated, there a

between preliminary and reported results. Please note that some updates to the clothes washer impacts (Appliancpending finalized evaluation results. The HVAC, Lighting and Appliances Programs are particularly cost-effective. The Residential Lost Opportunity effectiveness is much improved over prior years due to the introduction of more options for participation. This pbecause of the long-term lost opportunities that it addresses. The Residential Retrofit 1-4 (MassSAVE) program 

also higher than prior years. 

III. Impacts by BCR Activity 1. By BCR ActivityA. Residential Cape Ligh
2. By End Uses 

Table 6 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the residential programs. 

Lighting and HVAC provide the majority of energy savings from the residential 

programs. 

TABLE 6 

IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL END-USES

End Use Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB 

 Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report

Lighting 26,248 26,248 1,573 1,573 $193,808 $193,808

HVAC 37,137 37,137 3,914 3,914 $1,395,956 $1,395,956

Refrigeration 4,512 4,512 618 618 $0 $0

Hot Water 3,922 3,922 2,493 2,493 $2,472,176 $2,472,176 

Motors 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 71,818 71,818 8,598 8,598 $4,061,940 $4,061,940 

Figures 13 through 15 present the same information as Table 6. 

The residential demand savings come primarily from HVAC and hot water. Lighting 

savings make up a relatively small portion of the demand savings, because only a small 

portion of the lighting measures are assumed to be operational during the peak demand 

period. Many of the residential non-electric benefits are from hot water savings, as a 

result of the saved water from ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers. 

FIGURE 13

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Preliminary Report

Lifetime MWH

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

ME M

WH

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 23
FIGURE 14

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME kW - END-USE

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Preliminary Report

Lifetime kW

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

FIGURE 15

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME $ NEB - END- USE

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

Preliminary Report

Lifetime $ NEB

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS

LIFETIME $ NEB

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 24
3. Program Evaluation 

The Residential ENERGY STAR® New Construction Program 

In May 2007, the Joint Management Committee (“JMC”) completed a market progress 

report on evaluation work conducted in 2006. The evaluation included: a survey of new 

home-buyers; interviews with builders; a process evaluation of efforts to address EPA 

ENERGY STAR® Homes duct leakage standards; an assessment of opportunities for 

program expansion; and interviews to assess the Program’s multifamily component. 

None of these studies generated changes to impact assumptions. 

Conclusions from the market progress report found that indicators show that the market 

as a whole has “regressed or stalled” and that this is tied to a shift to a resource 

acquisition program focus. 

The baseline study is one of several evaluation activities of the JMC relating to the MultiYear Program Evaluation and Market Progress Reporting Plan (“MPER”) beginning in 

2005. A homeowner survey was also conducted to obtain additional information such as 

awareness and interest in energy efficiency from the owners of the 150 homes inspected 

in the 2005 Baseline Study. 

MassSAVE

In January 2007, the Final Evaluation of the 2006 HEAT Loan Program was released as a 

memo (Appendix 5). This study assessed the current statewide HEAT Loan program so 

that a Sponsor that might want to continue to provide financing for energy efficiency can 

learn from experiences in this program. 

Key findings included: 

• Include a consistent subsidized loan program to finance recommended energyefficient measures as part of a portfolio of residential program offerings. 

• Minimize delays in loan approval. 

• Improve marketing. 

• Simplify the program and increase consistency of what is offered. 

The Residential ENERGY STAR Products and Services Program

In 2006 an analysis of energy-efficient room air conditioner promotion effectiveness was 

conducted, based on interviews with industry stakeholders. Key conclusions include: 

• Different pros and cons are associated with turn-ins and rebates; turn-ins are most 

effective in saving energy, but sponsors often need help to finance these. Rebates 

are also easier to track. 

• Timing is a critical issue for promotion of room air conditioners. 

• Incremental costs of energy efficient products are a barrier for many consumers. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 25
In 2007, results of an analysis of ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washer product 

availability were reported. The objective of this research was to assess the availability of 

clothes washer models at different Consortium for Energy Efficiency (“CEE”) Tier levels 

and to use availability as a proxy for market share by CEE Tier, since data from

contractor D&R based on national retailers does not distinguish between CEE Tier levels. 

Findings from this study show that the availability of clothes washer models in 

Massachusetts is similar to Connecticut and Virginia (30%). Further, the data do not 

show any clear relationship by retailer. 

In June 2007, draft results of an analysis of net impacts from clothes washers were 

provided. This study compares results of consumer and retailer estimates of free 

ridership and spillover with market-level estimates of net impacts. While the methods all 

generate different estimates of net impacts, they all support the finding that the program 

has influenced the market. When results of this study are finalized (expected in July 

2007), we expect that impact parameters to adjust the clothes washer savings estimates 

will become available. 

In June 2007, a draft report on the evaluation activities was completed as part of the 2006 

Market Progress and Evaluation Report for the ENERGY STAR Lighting Program. Key 

findings include: 

• The multiple program components – catalog, retail coupons, and Negotiated 

Cooperative Promotions (“NCPs”) – appear to provide complementary 

opportunities for retailers and consumers. 

• The program appears to be highly cost-effective. 

• NCPs dominate the distribution of lighting products through this program. 

• Product quality appears relatively high, particularly for the standard compact 

fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”); independent testing is contributing to quality 

assurance. 

• The residential lighting market, particularly with respect to CFL bulbs, is 

changing rapidly, nationwide as well as in Massachusetts. 

• The market for CFL fixtures is dependent on program support for survival. 

Residential HVAC

In 2006, an evaluation of the CoolSmart Program was completed. The Compact 

sponsored this study along with other program administrators, although it did not offer 

rebates in 2006. This study analyzed the tracking and quality installation verification 

(“QIV”) databases, the on-site data collected from a sample of 34 homes, and simulations 

of energy and demand savings from various energy efficiency practices. Key findings 

from this study include: 

• In New England the net effective capacity of many systems is undersized for peak 

conditions. Because of this, the efficiency measures that are strongly supported in 

CoolSmart may not produce many peak reduction benefits. While this study does 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 26
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 27

not provide definitive proof of this, it recommends further study to further explore 

this finding. 

• Participation in this program helps program administrators develop the 

infrastructure needed to take advantage of benefits of the Forward Capacity 

Market that will incent peak savings delivered through energy efficiency 

programs. In addition, it avoids lost opportunities of the energy and demand 

benefits from relatively long term (15 year) efficient measures. 
Benefit-Cost Ratio 

Activity kWh kWh per Cust kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB Act

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity 45 133,730 2,972 4.93 $13,811 2,129 53 $184,116 $21

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 279 150,010 538 14.07 $15,763 2,153 219 $280,706 $24

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 193 153,220 794 7.11 $82,497 1,871 60 $1,644,599 $20

TOTAL 517 436,960 845 26.11 $112,071 6,153 332 $2,109,421 $6

TABLE 7

IMPACT BY LOW-INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime 

Participant

t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 28

Table 7 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the 

low-income programs. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. The costs and derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 3. While the Low Income Retrofit 1-4 (Single Family) and Multi-Family Retrofit Programs are clearly cost-effectivOpportunity Program (New Construction) is less so. We believe that the benefit-cost ratio for the Lost Opportunespecially low this year as a result of relatively low activity in 2006. 

1. By BCR ActivityB. Low-Income Cape Ligh
2. By End Uses 

Table 8 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the low-income programs. 

Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report

Lighting 1,971 1,971 118 118 $57,637 $57,637

HVAC 2,692 2,692 7 7 $1,936,201 $1,936,201

Refrigeration 1,346 1,346 184 184 $43,483 $43,483

Hot Water 68 68 23 23 $70,304 $70,304

Motors 76 76 0 0 $1,797 $1,797

End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,153 6,153 332 332 $2,109,421 $2,109,421

TABLE 8

IMPACT BY LOW-INCOME END-USES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB End Use

Figures 16 through 18 present the same information as Table 8. They indicate that most 

of the energy and demand savings are from the refrigeration and HVAC end uses. 

Most of the low-income non-electric benefits come from the HVAC measures. This is 

because the home energy audits result in benefits associated with (a) improved property 

values, (b) reduced fire, illness and moving costs, and (c) fossil-fuel savings. All of the 

low-income programs also have non-electric benefits as a result of reduced usage of the 

low-income discount rate. The low income programs also have non-electric benefits that 

are experienced by non-low-income residential customers, such as lighting operations 

and maintenance (“O&M”) savings and reduced water usage. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 29
FIGURE 16

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETIME M

WH

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

FIGURE 17

 LOW-INCOME LIFETIME kW - END-USE

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

ME kW

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 30
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 31

The Compact conducted no new evaluation activities since the 2004 process evaluation of

the low income program. In 2006, the Compact added low-income non-electric benefits 

to the estimates of low-income multifamily program impacts. The NEBs are the same as

are applied to the low-income single-family retrofit program.

3. Program Evaluation 

FIGURE 18

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME $ NEB - END-USE

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

rt

LIFE

TIME $ NE

$0

$500,000

Preliminary Repo

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

B

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting
Benefit-Cost Ratio 

Activity kWh kWh per Customer kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB Activity 

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 68 486,450 7,154 135.76 $1 7,313 2,026 $11 $340,6

C03a Large C&I Retrofit 19 6,661,710 350,616 1,927.50 $48 87,808 25,504 $635 $1,560,3

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 278 3,142,740 11,305 662.52 $816 39,718 8,486 $10,301 $1,936,1

TOTAL 365 10,290,900 28,194 2,725.78 $865 134,839 36,016 $10,947 $3,837,2

TABLE 9

IMPACT BY C&I BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime 

Participant

t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 32

Table 9 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the 

commercial & industrial programs. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. Tused to derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 4. 

C. Commercial & Industrial 1. By BCR ActivityCape Ligh
2. By End Uses 

Table 10 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the commercial & industrial 

programs. 

TABLE 10 

IMPACT BY C&I END-USES 

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB End Use 

Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report

Lighting 106,807 104,940 27,955 27,485 $9,693 $9,071

HVAC 3,773 3,773 1,874 1,874 $343 $343

Motors / Drives 18,391 18,391 5,685 5,685 $487 $487 

Refrigeration 6,706 6,706 737 737 $928 $928

Hot Water 0 0 0 0 $58 $58 

Compressed Air 1,030 1,030 235 235 $60 $60 

Process NA NA NA NA NA NA

End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 136,706 134,839 36,486 36,016 $11,569 $10,947

Figures 19 through 21 present the same information as Table 10. They indicate that the 

energy and capacity savings are obtained primarily from lighting measures and, to a 

lesser extent, from motors/drives and refrigeration measures. 

The slight decrease in lighting savings is from updated free-ridership, spillover and inservice rates for the Compact’s Government Retrofit program evaluation. Other 

commercial and industrial programs were not evaluated in 2006, since many evaluations 

were completed in 2005 and there have been no significant changes in program design in 

this year. 

The non-energy benefits in the C&I sector are primarily from reduced O&M costs as a 

result of efficient light bulbs with longer operating lives. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 33
FIGURE 19

C&I LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETIME M

W

H

End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting

FIGURE 20

C&I LIFETIME kW - END USE

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 34
FIGURE 21

C&I LIFETIME $ NEB - END-USE

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATED

LIFETI

ME $ NEB

End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting

3. Program Evaluation 

In 2006, the Cape Light Compact commissioned an evaluation of its Small Government 

Retrofit Program. This was based on several sources of data, including survey results 

from the population of 2004 and 2005 program participants. This was accomplished by 

combining relevant results from participants included in the Compact’s sample of the 

previous, 2005, free-ridership and spillover study with a 2006 survey of the remaining set 

of participants. In addition, database review and on-site inspections of a sample of 20 

projects were conducted. Results pertaining to the lighting measures in this sample were 

used in updating free-ridership, participant spillover and in-service rate parameters for 

government retrofit program impacts. 

Key findings included: 

• The program appears to be effective in meeting government customer needs for 

energy-efficient measures offered by the Program. 

• The vast majority of participants are quite satisfied. 

• The measure information and baseline assumptions used in the savings 

calculations are reasonable. 

• For 2004-2005, net savings were 82 percent of those reported in the Program 

tracking data. Most of the reduction was due to changes in engineering inputs 

identified based on file reviews and on-site data collection. These results are not 

directly transferable to 2006 program impacts, due to the very small number of 

participants in the study that make statistical data difficult to report. 

• Participant spillover more than offset the very low levels of free-ridership

identified in this study. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 35
Appendices 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 36
Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

Annual kWh Reduction Expected net annual energy savings after all impact factors 

have been taken into consideration. 

AMP Appliance Management Program

BBRS Board of Building Regulations and Standards 

CAP Community Action Program

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency 

CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamps 

Coincident Peak Demand Demand for electricity at the time of the Company’s peak 

demand. 

Delta Watts The difference in the wattage between pre-existing or 

baseline lighting equipment and energy efficient lighting 

equipment. 

Demand The amount of electric energy used by a customer or a piece 

of equipment at a specific time, expressed in kilowatts. 

Demand Adjustment Factor This factor is a combination of one or more evaluation 

impact parameters applied to gross demand savings in the 

calculation of net demand savings. 

Diversity That characteristic of a variety of electric loads whereby 

individual maximum demands usually occur at different 

times. 

Diversity Factor Percent of savings available at the time of the Company’s 

peak demand. 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOER Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources 

D&R D&R International, the contractor to DOE and EPA that 

monitors sales of ENERGY STAR® appliances. 

DSM Demand Side Management 

DPU Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (formerly 

Department of Telecommunications and Energy) 

EFLH Equivalent Full Load Hours 

Energy Adjustment Factor A factor made up of one or more evaluation impact 

parameters applied to gross kWh savings in the calculation 

of net kWh savings. 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPACT Energy Policy Act 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 37
ENERGY STAR® Brand name for the voluntary energy efficiency labeling 

initiative sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and Department of Energy. 

Free Riders Customers who participate in an energy efficiency program

but would have installed the same measure(s) on their own if 

the program had not been available. 

Free-Ridership Rate The percent of savings attributable to Free Riders.

Gross kW Expected demand reduction based on a comparison of 

standard or replaced equipment, and equipment installed 

through an energy efficiency program. 

Gross kWh Expected kWh reduction based on a comparison of standard 

or replaced equipment, and equipment installed through an 

energy efficiency program. 

GWh Gigawatt-hour – a measure of electricity usage over time

equal to 1,000 megawatt-hours or 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours. 

HEAT Loan No-interest or low-interest financing offer under the 

Residential MassSAVE program to help consumers install 

measures to increase the energy efficiency of their homes. 

Hours of Use The estimated number of hours per year that a measure 

operates. 

Hours of Use Realization 

Rate 

Ratio of actual metered hours of use data to estimated hours 

of use data. 

HP Horsepower 

HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning 

Impact Factor Generic term for persistence, realization rates, in-service 

rates, non-coincident connected demand factors, etc., 

developed during the evaluation of energy efficiency 

programs and used to calculate net savings. 

JMC The Joint Management Committee of utility and non-utility

parties that manages the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program. 

kWh Kilowatt-hour – The basic unit of electric energy usage over 

time. One kWh is equal to one kW of power supplied to a 

circuit for a period of one hour. 

kW Kilowatt – A measure of electric demand – 1000 watts 

kW – Years See: Lifetime kW

Lifetime The expected length of time, in years, that an installed 

measure will be in service and producing savings. 

Lifetime kW The expected demand savings over the lifetime of an 

installed measure, calculated by multiplying the annual peak 

kW reduction associated with a measure by the expected 

lifetime of that measure. It is expressed in units of kWCape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 38
years. 

Lifetime MWh The expected energy savings over the lifetime of an installed 

measure, calculated by multiplying the annual MWh 

reduction associated with a measure by the expected lifetime 

of that measure. 

LIHEAP Low Income Heating Assistance Program 

Maximum Annual kW 

Savings 

Peak annual demand savings of a measure. At the program

level, this equals the sum of the annual peak demand savings 

across all measures. 

Measure Specific technology or practice that produces energy and/or 

demand savings for which the company provides financial 

incentives. 

MPER Multi-Year Program Evaluation and Market Progress 

Reporting, or Market Progress and Evaluation Report, 

developed for various residential programs. 

MW Megawatt – a measure of electric demand equal to 1,000 

kilowatts. 

MWh Megawatt-hour – a measure of energy use over time equal to 

1,000 kilowatt-hours. 

NATE North American Technician Excellence Program

NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

Off-Peak energy kWh The kWh reduction that occurs during the Company’s offpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. and 

all day of weekends and holidays) 

On-Peak Energy kWh The kWh reduction that occurs during the Company’s onpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., 

except holidays) 

Persistence Rate Percentage of first year energy or demand savings expected 

to persist over the life of the installed energy efficiency 

equipment; developed by conducting surveys of installed 

equipment several years after installation to determine 

presence and operational capability of the equipment. 

RCS Residential Conservation Services. Formerly Energy 

Conservation Services or ECS 

Seasonal (Winter/Summer) 

kW 

The net demand reduction during either the Winter or 

Summer seasons. 

Spillover Additional energy efficient equipment installed by customers 

that were influenced by the Company’s sponsored program, 

but without direct financial or technical assistance from the 

program. Spillover is separated into Participant and NonCape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 39
participant factors. Non-participating customers may be 

influenced by product availability, publicity, education, and 

other factors that are affected by the program. 

Spillover Rate Estimate of energy savings attributable to spillover effects 

expressed as a percent of savings installed by participants 

through an energy efficiency program. 

VSD Variable Speed Drive 

WAP Weatherization Assistance Program 

Watt The basic electrical unit of power. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 40
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 41

Appendix 2. 2006 Evaluation Impact Parameters 

The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated 

savings for the commercial and industrial programs in 2006. Impact parameters for the 

Compact’s Government Large and Small Retrofit programs were updated based on the 

evaluation study completed by the Compact in 2006. Other impact factors were not 

evaluated in 2006. 
Table A2.1 Commercial & Industrial Program Evaluation Impact Factors 

BCR Activity Program

End 

Use 

FreeRidership 

Rate

Spillover 

[Participant] 

Rate

Spillover 

[NonParticipant] 

Rate

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity CO2a C&I New Construction ALght 31% 6% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction BHVAC 33% 9% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction FComA 29% 2% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction ALght 0% 0% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction BHVAC 0% 0% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction CMoDr 0% 0% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction DRefr 0% 0% 3% 

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit ALght 6% 3% 3% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit BHVAC 43% 0% 3% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit CMoDr 26% 10% 3% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit DRefr 4% 0% 3% 

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit ALght 6% 3% 3% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit BHVAC 43% 0% 3% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit DRefr 4% 0% 3% 

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large ALght 0.60% 3.40% 3% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large BHVAC 0% 0% 3% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large CMoDr 0% 0% 3% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large DRefr 0% 0% 3% 

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small ALght 0.60% 3.40% 3% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small BHVAC 0% 0% 3% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small CMoDr 0% 0% 3% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small DRefr 0% 0% 3% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small EHoWa 0% 0% 3% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small FComA 0% 0% 3% 

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services ALght 31% 6% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services BHVAC 68% 2% 3% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services CMoDr 8% 0% 3% 

Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% nor 0%.Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 42
The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated savings for residential progr

Cape Light Compact in 2006. Impact factors shown below for most programs represent the common assumptionMassachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information on measures in statewide Compact’s Residential and Low Income program impact factors were not updated in 2006. Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 43
Table A2.2 Residential Program Evaluation Impact Factors 

BCR Activity Measure

FreeRidership 

Rate

Spillover 

[Participant] 

Rate

Spillover [NonParticipant] Rate 

Se

R

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity CFL 2% 0% 0% 9A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERS 0% 0% 0% 10A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSC 0% 0% 0% 10A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSD 0% 0% 0% 10A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSS 0% 0% 0% 10

A02b Residential HVAC HVAC 0% 0% 0% 10

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 BOILRWATER 0% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 CFL 0% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 FIXTUREIN 0% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 HOTWATER 0% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 INDIRECTDH 0% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 REFRIG 10% 36% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 SWITCH 0% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 TORCHIERE 0% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 T-STAT 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL - electric 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL - oil 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL - gas 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL - other 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION - electric 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION - other 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION - gas 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION - oil 2% 0% 0% 10A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 FURNACE 0% 0% 0% 10

A04a Residential Lighting CFL 6% 25% 0% 8A04a Residential Lighting FIXTUREIN 8% 4% 0% 9A04a Residential Lighting FIXTUREOUT 12% 7% 0% 8A04a Residential Lighting TORCHIERE 6% 3% 0% 8

A04b Residential Appliances CLOTHESWAS 0% 0% 0% 10A04b Residential Appliances DEHUMIDIFI 0% 0% 0% 10A04b Residential Appliances ECMHEAT 0% 0% 0% 10A04b Residential Appliances ROOMAC 0% 0% 0% 10

Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% nor 0%Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 44
t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 45

Sector BCR Activity Measure Free-Ridership Rate Spillover [Participant] Rate Spillove

Partici

Rat

Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity AIRSEAL 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity CFL 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity FIXTUREOUT 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity HEATSYSTEM 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity HOTWATER 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity INDIRECTDH 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity INSULATION 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity REFRIG 0% 0% Low Income B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity T-STAT 0% 0% Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL 0% 0% Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 CFL 0% 0% Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 DEHUMIDIFI 0% 0% Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 HEATSYSTEM 0% 0% Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 HOTWATER 0% 0% Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION 0% 0% Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 REFRIG 0% 0% Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily AIRSEAL 0% 0% Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily CFL 0% 0% Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily FIXTUREIN 0% 0% Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily HOTWATER 0% 0% Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily HVAC 0% 0% Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily INSULATION 0% 0% 

Table A2.3 Low Income Program Evaluation Impact Factors Cape Ligh
Appendix 3. Post Program Savings Attributed to Selected 2006 

Market Transformation Initiatives 

The Compact has not developed estimates of post program savings associated with 

market transformation initiatives. It is our understanding that this issue has not been 

considered a high priority for DOER or other Program Administrators. To the extent that 

such savings exist, the actual savings and benefits of the 2006 activities will be greater 

than those reported here. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 46
Appendix 4. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive 

The Cape Light Compact does not require shareholder incentives to implement its energy 

efficiency programs. Therefore, this section is not relevant to the Compact. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 47
Appendix 5. Summary of 2006 Energy Efficiency Evaluation 

Reports

The following studies were used in preparing the evaluated results presented in this 

Annual Report. The executive summaries of these reports are attached. The full copies 

of these reports are available from the Compact upon request. 

• Appendix 5-1 The Cape Light Compact Small Government Retrofit Program – 

Evaluation Report - Final, by PA Consulting Group, May 31, 2007. 

• Appendix 5-2 Evaluation of the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Homes 

Program: Findings and Analysis, by NMR and Dorothy Conant, May 2007. 

• Appendix 5-3 MEMORANDUM RE: Results of the Appliance Model Availability 

Analysis, from: Lynn Hoefgen and Tim Pettit, Nexus Market Research, April 20, 

2007 

• Appendix 5-4 MEMORANDUM RE: Final Evaluation of 2006 HEAT Loan 

Program, from: Dorothy Conant, Consultant and Tom Ledyard, RLW Analytics, 

January 15, 2007 

• Appendix 5-5 2006 Massachusetts and Rhode Island CoolSmart Evaluation 

Report, by Wirtshafter Associates, Inc., Kreitler Research and Consulting, 

Performance Systems Development, Inc. and International Communications 

Research, Inc., April 17, 2007 

• Appendix 5-6 MEMORANDUM Re: Memorandum on Energy-efficient Room Air 

Conditioner Promotion Effectiveness, DRAFT, From: Betty Tolkin, Tom Mauldin, 

and Lynn Hoefgen, NMR, June 4, 2007 

• Appendix 5-7 MEMORANDUM RE: Estimates of Net Impact of the 2006 

Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Appliances Program, Clothes Washer component, 

DRAFT, FROM: Lynn Hoefgen, Lisa Wilson-Wright, Thomas Mauldin, and Tim

Pettit, NMR, June 25, 2007 

• Appendix 5-8 Market Progress and Evaluation Report (MPER) For the 2006 

Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program DRAFT by: Nexus Market 

Research, Inc., RLW Analytics, Inc., Shel Feldman Management Consulting and 

Dorothy Conant, June 22, 2007. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 48