# Cape Light Compact

Annual Report on

Energy Efficiency Activities

in 2006

Submitted to the

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

and the Massachusetts Division of Energ y Resources

July 3, 2007

## This page intentionally blank.

# Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

..................................................................................................... 4

A. Introduction

........................................................................................................ 4

B. Report Organization

........................................................................................... 6

C. Summ ar y of Results

........................................................................................... 7

D. Summary of Results by Sector

........................................................................... 9

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

III. Impacts by BCR Activ i ty

........................................................................................ 22

A. Residential

........................................................................................................ 22

B. Low-Incom e

..................................................................................................... 28

C. Commercial & Industrial

.................................................................................. 32

Appendices

..................................................................................................................... .. 36

Appendix 1. Glossary of Ter m s and Abbreviations

......................................................... 37

Appendix 2. 2006 Evaluation Im pact Param e ters

............................................................ 41

Appendix 3. Post Program Savings Attributed to Selected 2006 Market Transform a tion

Initiatives....................................................................................................................

....... 46

Appendix 4. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive

.......................................................... 47

Appendix 5. Summ ary of 2006 Ene r gy E fficiency Evaluation Reports

.......................... 48

# I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction

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

electric cons um ers in all m e mber towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. This

Annual Report provides detailed inform a tion on the Com p act’s energy efficiency

activities and savings during the course of calendar year 2006.

In 2006, the Com p act implem ented the follo wing set of efficiency program s:

• 

## The Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

## New Construction Program , which provides

hom e buyers, hom e builders, and construction trade allies with technical assistance

and f i nancia l incen tive s to incre a se th e ef f i ciency of hom e s that ar e newly built o r

undergo m a jor renovations. Results of this program are shown in the Residential

Lost Opportunity row of Table 2 and in Section III.

• 

## The Residen tial MassSA V E Program , which prov ides a ll in ter e sted r e sid e ntia l

custom ers with energy savings education, the opportunity for a hom e energy audit

and financial incentives for num e rous electr ic and non-electric efficiency m easures,

including financial support to switch electric spa ce heating s y stem s to more

efficient sys t em s that us e alternative fuels. Results of this program are shown in

the Residen t ial Retrofit 1

- 4 row of Table 2 and in Section III.

• 

## The Residential ENERGY STAR Products and Services P r ogram , which seeks to

increase th e availability and use of ENERGY STAR qualified lighting and

appliances, including: clothes washers, room air conditioners, dehum idifi e rs and

refrigerators. This program is used to im ple m ent the Northeast Energy Efficiency

Partner s hip (“NEEP”) in itiativ es and other regional m a rket transfor m a tion efforts.

Results of this program a r e divided appr opria te ly between the Residential Lighting

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

• 

## Residential Hi gh Ef f i ciency Centra l Air Conditio ning Progra m (“MA COOL

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

the purch ase and installation of ENERGY STAR qualif ied c e n tra l air con d ition i ng

system s in new construction and m a rket conversion of older heating, ventilation

and air cond ition i ng (“H VAC”) units. The progr am also is designed to in creas e the

num b er of trained technicians in the state and to improve the quality of

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

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

costs and related energy savings are repor ted in 2006 due to prior comm itm ents.

Results of this program a r e shown in th e Residential HVAC row of Table 2 and in

Section III.

• 

## The Low-Incom e Single Fam ily Pro g ram , which provides low-incom e custom ers in

single-fam ily dwellings with assistance in purchasing and in stalling ef f i c i ent

lighting, appliances, and weat herization m easures. These services are sim i lar to,

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 4

## but m o re extensive in ability to lev e ra ge program benef its and of f

e r higher

incentives to elig ible cu stom ers, than in the MassSAVE program . Results of this

program are shown in the Low Income Retr ofit 1-4 row of Ta ble 3 and in Section

III.

• 

## The Low-Incom e Multi- Fam ily Prog ram , which provides ow ners and m a nagers of

low-incom e multi-f a m ily dwellings w ith ass i stanc e in purch asing and installing

efficient lighting, appliances and space h eating measures, simila r to those offered

under the Low-Incom e Single Fam ily Program on a facility-wide basis. Results of

this program are shown in the Low Incom e Retrofit Multifam ily row of Table 3 and

in Section III.

• 

## The Low-Incom e New Construction Program , which provides low-incom e housing

developm ent agencies, weatherization assi stance program (“WAP”) providers, and

residential construction trade allies w ith in centives to inc r eas e the hom e energy

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

Incom e Lost Opportunity row of Ta ble 3 and in Section III.

• 

## The Comm ercial and Ind u stri al New Construction Program , which provides

technical ass i stan ce and financial in centiv es to increase the efficien cy in th e

construction, renovation, and/or rem o de ling of all commerc ial, industrial,

governm e nt and m u lti-fam ily housing facili ties. Results of th is program are

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

• 

## The Medium and Large Comm ercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which

provides technical and financ ial ass i s t ance to m e dium and large comm ercial and

industrial (“C&I”) custo m ers seeking to do discretionary rep l acem ents of existing

operating equipm ent and processes in th eir facilities with high -efficiency

alte rnatives. Results of th is progr am are in cluded in the C&I Large Retro f it row of

Table 4 and in Section III.

• 

## The Sm all Comm ercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which provides technical

assis t ance, f i nancia l ince ntiv es and direct installation to sm all C&I custom ers to

replace existing operating equipm ent and syst em s with high-efficiency equipm ent.

Results of this program a r e included in the C&I S m all Retrofit row of Table 4 and

in Section III.

• 

## The Governm e nt Agenc i es Program , which provides techn i ca l assistan ce and

f i nancial inc e ntive s 1 

## to all governm e nt facilities, including m unicipal, state and

federal facilities. For the purposes of repor ting the results of this program in this

Annual Report, in Tab l e 4 and in Section III, the results of efficiency activities with

sm all governm e nt custom ers are included in the C&I Sm all Retrofit row

, while the

results of efficiency activities with large government custom e r s are included in the

C&I Large Retrofit row

. The results of governm e nt new construction activities are

included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row.

1 

### Unlike the Com p act’s other C&I Program s , where a c u st o m er co- p ay i s r e qui red

, t h e G ove r n m e nt

program cove rs the e n tire c o s t of ene r gy e ffi ciency services res u lting from an a u dit up t o a cap of

$7 5, 0 0 0 pe r pr oject

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 5

### • 

## The Comm ercial and Ind u strial Products and Services Program , which seeks to

increase th e availability and use of more efficient m o tors, lighting designs, and

HVAC system s. This program is used to im ple m ent NEEP and other regional

m a rket trans f orm a tion in itiativ es. Th e resu lts of this program are included in the

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



# B. Report Organization

This Executive Summ ary provides an overvie w of the Com p act’s energy ef ficiency

program s’ (referred to as BCR Activities) bene fits and costs. For each sector there are

tables summarizing the lifetim e energy savi ngs, lifetim e capacity savings, the non-energy

benef its ( “ NEBs”), the d o lla r value s of the tota l b e nef its 2 

## and the total costs.

The savings data are presented in term s of both “prelim i nary” and “evaluated” data.

• 

## The prelim i n ary data ref e rs to savings estim ates that are based on the evaluation

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

Using this d a ta a llows f o r a dir ect co mparison with the e s tim ated sav i ngs f r om the

EEP.

• 

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

factors from all of the program evaluations that h a ve been prepared sin ce the EEP

was filed. Thus, the evaluated data presen ts our b e st es tim ate of the efficiency

savings, based on all the evaluation infor m a tion available at this tim e. Appendix 2

presents the im pact factors that were used to prep are th e evalu a ted results.

Section II of this Annual Report provides a di scussion of the m e thodology that is used for

program m o nitoring and evalua tion. It presents a brief summ a r y of the types of

evaluations that are used, and a descripti on of the m e thodology for estim ated net energy

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

evaluated efficiency sav i ngs results. These evaluation studies are also used to inform

program design and delivery.

Section III o f this Annual Report p r o v ides m o re detailed resu lts of the p r o g ram activities.

The table s in this se ctio n include inf o rm ation regarding the num b er of program

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

of the program , and the savings im pacts by type of end-use (lighting, HVAC, m o tors,

refrigeration, hot water, and end-user behavior). This se c tion also summ arizes rec e nt

evaluation report findings where relevant. Finally, the appendices provide m o re detail

regarding the m onitoring and evaluation result s and the program savings. Of particular

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

category) and savings (by type).

2 

### Th e C o m p act is sub m it tin g

, co n s isten t with o t he r Program Adm i nistrators practice and st atewide

gui dance f r om t h e De pa rt m e n t of Ene r gy R e sou r ces , i t s be n e fi t

- cost rat i o s fo r i t s 20 0 6 e n ergy

efficien cy p r ogram s with th e ad d ition a l cap a city b e n e fit in the fo rm o f a d e man d redu ction indu ced

p r ice effect (“DRIPE”). Th e Co m p act n o t es th at th e BCRs prior to in co rp orating DRIPE wou l d all b e

co st-effectiv e with a v a lue greater tha n one

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 6

# C. Summary of Result s

Table 1a provides a sum m a ry of the program e xpenses and savings. It also presents the

percen t chan ge between the final evaluated results and (a) the prelim inary evaluated

results, and (b) the estimates of expenses a nd savings targets in the Com p a c t’s EEP. T h e

values in the “Am ount” colum n are the 2006 resu lts, based on all eval uations available at

this tim e

.

P r e lim in a r y F ile d T a r g e t

P r orgram I m pl em ent at i o n Ex pens e s $ 5 $ - M illio n s 0 % 6 %

To t a l E x p e n s e s $ 6 $

- M illio n s 0 %

- 2 2 %

A n nual E n ergy S a v i ngs 1 7 GW h

- 1 % 4 0 %

A n nual S u m m er De m a n d S a v i ngs 3

. 4 9 MW

- 1 % 5 2 %

A n nual W i nt er Dem and Sav i ng s 4

. 2 3 MW

- 1 % 4 2 %

Li f e t i m e E n ergy S a v i ng s 2 1 3 GW h

- 1 % 5 0 %

L i f e t i m e D e m a nd S a v i ng s 4 4. 95 MW -Ye a r s

- 1 % 5 6 %

T o t a l R e so u r c e C o st T e st 5

. 8 2 B e n e f i t / C o st

- 1 % 4 1 %

P e r f o r m a n c e I n c e n t iv e - A f t e r Ta x e s $ 0

. 0 0 $

- M illio n s 0 % 0 % S A V I N G S A N D EXPE N SES FO R 2 0 0 6 T A BL E 1a - w / DRI P E

M e a s u r e m e n t A m ou nt P e r cen t Ch an g e Co mp ari s o n Un i t s



### Program i m ple m ent a tion ex pe nses i n clude all of the c o sts i n curre d by the Compac t, exce pt for monitoring

a n d verifica tio n co sts. To ta l exp enses in cl ud e p r o g r am imp l emen ta tion co sts, mo n itoring a n d verifica tio n

costs, and customer c ontribut i ons

.



## The Com p a c t’s 2006 program i m plem entation e xpenses were roughly 6% higher than the

2006 budgets in the EEP . This was due prim ar ily to lower adm i nist rative costs allowing

for greater funding of energy efficiency m easures.

The 2006 program results include the use of supplem ental funding of approxim a tely

$65,000 m a de available to support energy effici ency activities from Barnstable County

appropriatio n s and the C o m p act’s co mpetitiv e po wer supplier, ConEdison Solutions

.

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

estim ated in the 2006 EEP. This difference is prim arily due to relatively high savings in

the Residential Lighting and Applian ces, Residen tia l Ma ssSA V E, and the C&I Large

Retrof it Pro g ram s

.

The dem a nd savings achieved in 2006 were si gnificantly higher than those estim ated in

the 2006 EEP. This increase is p r im arily because the 2006 actual resu lts are based on (a)

much better data regarding dem a nd s a vings, a nd (b) better coincide n ce factors us ed to

estim ate summer and winter dem a nd from total m a xi m u m dem a nd.

The benefit-cost ratio of the 2006 program s in total was 5.82, a m a rked increase over the

2005 program benefit-cost ratio of 2.36. This indicates that the Com p act’s program s 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 resu lts are slightly lower than the prelim inary savings results.

This is primarily because m o st of the update s to im pact factors used in creating the

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

estim ates. T h e difference between evaluated and prelim inary lifetim e ene r gy and

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 7

### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 8 P r e lim in a r y F ile d T a r g e t

P r orgram I m pl em ent at i o n Ex pens e s $ 5 $ - M illio n s 0 % N A

To t a l E x p e n s e s $ 6 $

- M illio n s 0 % N A

A n nual E n ergy S a v i ngs 1 7 GW h

- 1 % N A

A n nual S u m m er De m a n d S a v i ngs 3

. 4 9 MW

- 1 % N A

A n nual W i nt er Dem and Sav i ng s 4

. 2 3 MW

- 1 % N A

Li f e t i m e E n ergy S a v i ng s 2 1 3 GW h

- 1 % N A

L i f e t i m e D e m a 95 MW -Ye a r s

- 1 % N A

T o t a l R e so u r c e

. 7 8 B e n e f i t / C o st

- 1 % N A

P e r f o r m a n c e I n

. 0 0 $

- M illio n s 0 % N A T A BL E 1 b - w / o DRI P E

S A V I N G S A N D EXPE N SES FO R 2 0 0 6

M e a s u r e m e n t A m ou nt U n i t s P e r cen t Ch an g e Co mp ari s o n

nd S a v i ng s 4 4.

C o st T e st 3

c e n t iv e - A f t e r Ta x e s $ 0 

## T a b l e 1 b

, S a v i n g s a n d E xpenses for 2006 wit hout DRIPE, is included for reference

p u r p o s e s o n l y

. d e m a nd savings is also partly due to using im proved m easure life assum p tions for the

e v a l u a t e d r e s u l t s

.tCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 9Figures 1 through 4 present the sameinformation as Table 2. Theyindicate that most of theresidential energy savings are obtainedfromthe Residential Retrofit 1-4 and Residential Lighting programs; that most ofthecapacity savings comefromthe ResidentialAppliance and Residential HVAC programs; thatmost of the non-electric benefits comefromthe Residential Appliances program,primarily fromclothes washer benefits; and thatall residential programs are costeffective.Table 2 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetimecapacity savings, and lifetime non-electric benefits for each of the residentialprograms. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2006 presentvalue dollars. Thesetotal benefits and costs areused to determine whether each programis cost-effective, based on the total resource cost (TRC) test.Benefit-CostRatioActivityPreliminaryReportPreliminaryReportPreliminaryReport$-Benefits$-CostsA02aResidentialLostOpportunity2,0512,051527527$410,237$410,237$766,821$217,018A02bResidentialHVAC1,9521,9523,1233,123$0$0$1,668,968$123,381A03aResidentialRetrofit1-443,82443,8241,0661,066$538,971$538,971$3,621,778$1,289,735A03b ResidentialRetrofitMultifamilyNANANANANANANANAA03cResidentialLoadResponseNANANANANANANANAA04aResidentialLighting17,79017,7901,0661,066$150,577$150,577$1,968,503$257,823A04bResidentialAppliances6,2016,2012,8162,816$2,962,155$2,962,155$4,756,867$443,735Total71,81871,8188,5988,598$4,061,940$4,061,940$12,782,937$2,331,692TABLE2SUMMARYOFRESIDENTIALBCRACTIVITIESLifetimeMWHLifetimekWTRC ValuesLifetime$ NEBD. SummaryofResults bySector1. Residential ProgramsCape Ligh

### F I G URE 1

R E S I D E N T I A L LI FETI M E M W H

- 10, 000 20, 000 30, 000 40, 000 50, 000 60, 000 70, 000 80, 000

P r el i m i nary R ep or t

P R EL I M I N A R Y V E R S U S EV A L U A T EDLIFETIMEMWH A 0 4 b R e s i dent i a l A p p l i anc es

A 0 4 a R e s i dent i a l Li ght i n g

A 0 3 c R e s i dent i a l Load R e s pons e

A 0 3 b R e s i dent i a l R e t r of i t

Mu l t if a m ily

A 0 3 a R e s i dent i a l R e t r of i t 1- 4

A 0 2 b R e s i dent i a l H V A C

A 0 2 a R e s i dent i a l Los t O ppo r t u n i t y



### F I G URE 2

R E S I D E N T I A L LI FETI M E kW

- 1, 000 2, 000 3, 000 4, 000 5, 000 6, 000 7, 000 8, 000 9, 000 10, 000

P r el i m i nary R ep or t

P R EL I M I N A R Y V E R S U S EV A L U A T EDLIFETIMEkW A 0 4 b R e s i dent i a l A p p l i anc es

A 0 4 a R e s i dent i a l Li ght i n g

A 0 3 c R e s i dent i a l Load R e s pons e

A 0 3 b R e s i dent i a l R e t r of i t

Mu l t if a m ily

A 0 3 a R e s i dent i a l R e t r of i t 1- 4

A 0 2 b R e s i dent i a l H V A C

A 0 2 a R e s i dent i a l Los t O ppo r t u n i t y



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 10

### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 11 FI G U R E 4

RE S I DE NT I A L T R C V A L U

$0 $ 2

, 0 00, 000 $ 4

, 0 00, 000 $ 6

, 0 00, 000 $ 8

, 0 00, 000 $1 0, 0 00, 0 0 0 $1 2, 0 00, 0 0 0 $1 4, 0 00, 0 0 0

$- B e n e f i t s $- C o s t s

BE NE F I T S V E R S US CO S T S$ TRCVALUE 

### E S

A 04b R e s i de nt i a l A ppl i anc es

A 04a R e s i de nt i a l Li ght i n g

A 03c R e s i de nt i a l Lo ad R e s p o n s e

A 0 3 b R e s i d e n t ia l R e t r o f it M u lt if a m ily

A 03a R e s i de nt i a l R e t r o f i t 1

- 4

A 02b R e s i de nt i a l H V A C

A 02a R e s i de nt i a l Lo s t O p p o r t u n i t y 

### FI G U R E 3

RES I DENT I A L L I F E T I M E $ NEB

$50 0, 00 0 $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 3 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0LIFETIME$NE

$0

P r e l i m i n ar y R ep or t

P R E L I M I N AR Y V E R S US E V AL UA T E DB A 04b R e s i de nt i a l A ppl i anc es

A 04a R e s i de nt i a l Li ght i n g

A 03c R e s i de nt i a l Lo ad R e s p o n s e

A 0 3 b R e s i d e n t ia l R e t r o f it M u lt if a m ily

A 03a R e s i de nt i a l R e t r o f i t 1

- 4

A 02b R e s i de nt i a l H V A C

A 02a R e s i de nt i a l Lo s t O p p o r t u n i t yBenefit-CostRatioActivityPreliminaryReportPreliminaryReportPreliminaryReport$-Benefits$-CostsB02aLow-IncomeLostOpportunity2,1292,1295353$184,116$184,116$333,485$214,864B03aLow-IncomeRetrofit1-42,1532,153219219$280,706$280,706$506,540$247,955B03bLow-IncomeRetrofitMultifamily1,8711,8716060$1,644,599$1,644,599$1,787,136$203,292Total6,1536,153332332$2,109,421$2,109,421$2,627,161$666,112TABLE3SUMMARYOFLOW-INCOMEBCR ACTIVITIESLifetimeMWHLifetimekWTRCValuesLifetime$NEBtCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 12Figures 5 through 8 present the sameinformation graphically as listed inTable 3. They indicate that all of the programs arecosteffective. Most of the low-incomeenergyand capacity savings are obtained fromtheLow Income Lost Opportunity and Retrofit 1-4programs. Most NEB savings are obtained from the Low IncomeRetrofit Multifamily programs, for which NEB impacts, includingfossil fuel savings, were added in 2006.Table 3 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetimecapacity savings, and lifetime non-electric benefits for each of the low-incomeprograms. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2006 presentvalue dollars. Thesetotal benefits and costs areused to determine whether each programis cost-effective, based on the total resource cost test.2. Low-Income ProgramsCape Ligh

### F I G URE 5

LO W

- IN C O M E LIFE T I M E M W H

- 1, 000 2, 000 3, 000 4, 000 5, 000 6, 000 7, 000

P r el i m i n ar y R ep or t

P R E L I M I NAR Y V E RS U S E V AL U A T E DLIFETIMEMWH B 0 3 b L o w-I n c o m e Re t r o f i t

M u l t if a m il y

B 03a L o w

- I n c o m e R e t r o f i t 1- 4

B 02a L o w

- I n c o m e L o s t O p por t uni t y



### F I G URE 6

LO W

- IN C O M E LIFE T I M E k W

- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

P r el i m i nar y R epo rt

P R E L I M I NARY V E RS US E V AL UAT E DLIFETIMEkW B 0 3 b L o w-I n c o m e Re t r o f i t

M u l t if a m il y

B 03a L o w

- I n c o m e R e t r o f i t 1- 4

B 02a L o w

- I n c o m e L o s t O p por t uni t y



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 13

### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 14 F I G URE 7

LO W

- I N C O M E LI FETI M E $ N E B

$50 0, 00 0 $1

, 0 00

, 0 00 $1

, 5 00

, 0 00 $2

, 0 00

, 0 00 $2

, 5 00

, 0 00LIFETIME$NE

$0

P r el i m i nar y R epo r t

P R E L I M I NARY V E RS US E V AL UAT E DB B 0 3 b L o w

- I n co m e R e tr o f i t

M u lt i f a m ily

B 0 3a L o w

- I n c o m e R e t r of i t 1-4

B 0 2 a Lo w

- I n c o m e Lo s t Opp o r t un i t y



### FI G U R E 8

LO W

- I N C O M E TR C V A LU E

$0 $50 0, 0 0 0 $1

, 0 00

, 0 0 0 $1

, 5 00

, 0 0 0 $2

, 0 00

, 0 0 0 $2

, 5 00

, 0 0 0 $3

, 0 00

, 0 0 0

$- B e nef i t s $

- C o s t s

BE NE F I T S V E RS US CO S T S$TRCVALUE 

### S

B 0 3b Low -I nc om e R e t r of i t M u l t i f am i l y

B 0 3a Low -I nc om e R e t r of i t 1- 4

B 0 2a Low -I nc om e Los t O p p o r t uni t ytCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 15Benefit-Cost RatioActivityPreliminaryReportPreliminaryReportPreliminaryReport$-Benefits$-CostsC02a C&ILostOpportunity7,3137,3132,0262,026$11$11$1,331,335$340,675C03a Large C&IRetrofit88,73687,80825,75725,504$640$635$16,859,931$1,560,390C03b SmallC&IRetrofit40,65839,7188,7038,486$10,918$10,301$6,172,596$1,936,191Total136,706134,83936,48636,016$11,569$10,947$24,363,862$3,837,256TABLE4SUMMARYOFC&IBCR ACTIVITIESLifetime MWHLifetimekWTRC ValuesLifetime$NEBTable 4 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetimecapacity savings, and lifetime non-electric benefits for each of the Commercial& Industrial programs. It also presentsthe total cumulative benefits and costs, in2006 present value dollars. These total benefits andcosts are used to determine whether each program iscost-effective, based onthe total resource costtest.Figures 9 through 12 present the same information as Table 4. Theyindicate that most of the Compact’s C&I savings are obtainedfromthe two Retrofit programs.3. Commercial & Industrial ProgramsCape Ligh

## FIG U R E 9

C & I LIFE T I M E M W H

- 20, 0 0 0 40, 0 0 0 60, 0 0 0 80, 0 0 0 1 00, 0 0 0 1 20, 0 0 0 1 40, 0 0 0 1 60, 0 0 0

P r eli m ina r y Repor t

P R E L I M I NAR Y

V E R S US E V AL U A T E DLIFETIMEMWH

C0 3b S m al l C& I Re t r of i t

C0 3a Lar ge C& I Re t r of i t

C0 2a C& I Lo s t O ppor t unit y



## F I G URE 1 0

C & I LIFE T I M E k W

- 5, 00 0 10

, 0 00 15

, 0 00 20

, 0 00 25

, 0 00 30

, 0 00 35

, 0 00 40

, 0 00

P r e lim inar y R epor t

P R E L I M I NAR Y

V E RS US E V AL UA T E DLIFETIMEkW

C0 3b S m al l C& I Re t r of i t

C0 3a Lar ge C& I Re t r of i t

C0 2a C& I Lo s t O ppor t unit y



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 16

### FI G U R E 11

C & I L I FETI M E $ N E B

$0 $2, 000 $4, 000 $6, 000 $8, 000 $10, 0 0 0 $12, 0 0 0 $14, 0 0 0

P r e lim in a r y R e p o r t

P R E L I M I NAR Y V E RS US E V AL UAT E DLIFETIME$NEB

C 03b S m a l l C & I R e t r of i t

C 03a Lar g e C & I R e t r of i t

C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t u n i t y



### FI G U R E 12

C& I T R C VA L U ES

$0 $5, 000, 000 $10, 0 00, 0 0 0 $15, 0 00, 0 0 0 $20, 0 00, 0 0 0 $25, 0 00, 0 0 0 $30, 0 00, 0 0 0

$- B e nef i t s $

- C o s t s

B E NF I T S V E RS US C O S T S$TRCVALUE

C 03b S m a l l C & I R e t r of i t

C 03a Lar g e C & I R e t r of i t

C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t u n i t y



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 17

# II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology

Preliminary Versus Evaluated Results

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

“prelim i nary” and “evaluated” data.

• 

## The prelim i n ary data ref e rs to savings estim ates that are based on the evaluation

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

## Using this data

allows for a direct com p arison with th e estim a ted 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 eval uated data presents our best es tim ate of the efficiency

savings, based on all the evaluation infor m a tion available at this tim e. Appendix 2

presents the im pact factors that were used to prep are th e evalu a ted results.

Evaluation Studies Used in Pr eparing 2006 Evaluated Results

Since its inception in July 2001, the Com p act has participated in m a ny state-wide and

regional m o nitoring and evaluation studies, al ong with other energy efficiency Program

Adm i nistrators. The Compact has also conduc ted several evaluation studies specific to

its own program s

.

The evaluation studies com p lete d in 2006 or near com p letion and used to update im pact

factors or to inform the process of progr am delivery are listed below. In 2005 m a ny

program i m pact param e ters were updated ba sed on evaluation studies. B y com p arison, in

2006, the majority of studies focused on proce ss evaluation. It is comm on for energy

efficiency program evaluators to upd ate param e ters on a m u lti-year cycle, unless

significant program changes wa rrant more frequent study. The executive summaries of

these reports are included in Appendix 5.

• The Cape Light Compact Small Gov e rnment Retrofit Prog ra m – Evaluation

Report - Final , by PA Consulting Group, May 31, 2007 4



## .

• Evaluation of the Massa chusetts ENERGY STAR ® 

## Homes Pr ogram: Findings and

Analysis , by NMR and Dorothy Conant, May 2007.

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

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

3 

### The prim ary evaluation im pact fact or s t h at a r e rel e vant he r e are free -ri der s hi p rat e s, spi l l ove r rat e s,

realizatio n rates, persisten c e rates, and m easu r e liv es.

4 

### Resu lts of th is repo rt were u s ed in upd ating th e estim a t e o f g o v e rn m e n t lig h tin g free-rid e rsh i p,

spillove r, a n d i n -se r vice rates fo r the Com p act.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 18

## • MEMORANDUM RE: Final Evalua tion of 2006 HEAT Loan Program , from :

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

2007

• 2006 Massachusetts and Rhode Isla nd CoolSmart Evaluation Report , by

W i rtshaf ter Associate s , I n c., Kreitler Research an d Consultin g, Perf orm a nce

System s De velopm ent, Inc. and International Communications Research, Inc.,

April 17, 2007

In addition, som e program evaluation studies ar e currently in developm ent. Final reports

from the following studies are expected in summer 2007. These draft m a terials have also

been included in Appendix 5.

• MEMORANDUM Re: Memorandum on Energy -efficien t Room Air Conditioner

Promotion Effec tiv enes s , From : Betty Tolkin, T o m 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 W ilson-W r ight, Thom as Ma uldin, and Tim Pettit, NMR, June 25,

2007

• Market Progress and E v aluation Report (MPER) For the 2006 Massachusetts

ENERGY STAR ® 

## Lighting Program DRAFT by: Nexus Market Research, Inc.,

RLW Analytics, Inc., Shel Feldm a n Managem e nt Consulting and Dorothy

Conant, June 22, 2007

Ty pes of Evaluations

The evaluation of 2006 energy efficiency progr am im pacts reflects the Compact’s efforts

to apply appropriate m e thodologies and adjust them for individual program

characteristics. The diverse nature of the programs, includi ng the m a gnitude of

prelim inary kW and kWh im pacts, the num be r of custom ers served, and the end uses

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

program s use several m e thodologies to deve lop overall im pact results and provide

m eaningful feedback on program delivery a nd direction. Som e of these methodologies

are briefly described below.

Survey-Base d Im pact Param e ter Studies . Survey-based im pact param e ter studies focu s

on the analysis of information collected th rough custom er surveys. They are generally

used to m easure f r ee- rid e rship and s p illov e r. Th ese stud ies p r ovide tim ely f eedback to

program m a nagers as well as input to the im pact evaluations.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 19

## • In 2006, the Cape Light Com p act commi ssioned a survey- based and field

verification study to assess im pacts from its Sm all Governm e nt Retrofit P r ogram

. The results of the study ar e included in Appendix 5

Billing Ana l yses . Billin g analyses involve the analys is of billing d a ta, com b ined in som e

cases with survey data, to determ ine im p acts for program s where a large num b er of

participan ts insta ll s i m ilar m easures. Since billin g data a r e av ailab l e f o r all custom ers,

billing analysis techniques m a y include repr esentative sam p les of both par tic ipants and

non-participants in an evaluation.

Site Specific Measurem ent Analysis . Im pact evaluations for m a ny of the end uses and

program s covered in this report rely on engi neering estim ates that are based on sitespecific m e tering and on-site telephone a ssessm ents of m easure perform a nce and

persistence.

Process and Market P r ogress Evaluation Studies . Process evaluations review energy

efficiency program design and im plem en tation, and recomm e nd m odifications to

program delivery. The scope of these evalua tions includes all aspects of the program

includ ing ad m i nistrativ e efficiency, the quali ty of service provided, and the databases

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

energy efficiency program s. They specifica lly provide an assessm ent of ( a ) whether

actual operations resem b le the intended program design and operation plan, and

(b) whethe r real-world e xperien ce sh ows that the original program design and

im ple m entation plan are appropriate given the existing field conditions.

Appendix 5 includes summaries of several st ud ies that characterize cu rrent m a rket

conditions or report on m a rket progress and ai d in inform ing im ple m entation of m a rketorien t ed energy efficiency program s implem ented by the Compact, such as the res i den t ial

new construction program, residential li ghting, appliance, and HVAC program s.

Econom ic Modeling and Analysis S t udies. The benefits and cost -effectiv eness of energy

efficiency program s are based on m o deling and an alysis that values en erg y efficiency in

relation to the avoided costs of energy supply projected ove r the life of the program s and

m easures installed. Avoided costs are typica lly projected based on forecasting m odels.

The cost- e f f

ectiv eness r e sults p r ese n ted in th is report – both prelim inary and evaluated –

are all based on the avoided cost estim a tes that were used in preparing the 2006 EEP.

This approach allows for a m o re direct co m p arison of the econom i c resu lts between the

2006 EEP and the 2006 Annual Report. The avoi ded cost estim a tes used for both of

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

Supply Costs in New England , prepared for the Avoide d Energy Supply Com ponent

(AESC) Study Group, Decem ber 23, 2005.

Generic Impact Equations

The general for m of the impact equation fo r m o st of the m easures ins t a lle d is:

Net Im pacts = Gross Im pacts * Realizati on Rate*(1-Free-Ridership + Spillover) *

Persis tence Factor.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 20

### Cape Ligh t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 21 

## Realization Rates are study- specific parameters, whic h typically compare the energy or

demand performance of installed equipment to in itial estimates of performance. They are

typically based on engineeri ng or billing analysis.

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

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

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

Government Retrofit Program were determin ed as part of the study conducted by the

Compact and summarized in Appendix 5. Un like 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-ligh ting measures was very low because these

measures, such as custom, variable speed dr ives 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-partic ipant 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 sa vings over time as indicated by followup surveys that confirm the measure remain s installed, and verify it is operating as

intended. As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study 5 

## , “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 kW h to calculate lifetime kW and kWh.

As defined by the 2005 Measure Li fe Study, measure life is

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

This definition implicitly includes equi pment 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 monito r 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 RatioBenefit-CostActivitykWhkWh perCustkW$-NEBMWHkW$-NEBActivityperCustTRCA02aResidentialLostOpportunity122179,4501,47126.94$17,3512,051527$410,237$217,018$1,7793.53A02bResidentialHVAC170130,130765208.21$01,9523,123$0$123,381$72613.53A03aResidentialRetrofit1-41,9993,037,0001,51979.16$33,10543,8241,066$538,971$1,289,735$6452.81A03bResidentialRetrofitMultifamilyNANANANANANANANANANANAA03cResidentialLoadResponseNANANANANANANANANANANAA04aResidentialLighting3,2342,903,260898174.00$24,87317,7901,066$150,577$257,823$807.64A04bResidentialAppliances2,974486,850164254.03$247,4826,2012,816$2,962,155$443,735$14910.72Total8,4996,736,690793742.34$322,81171,8188,598$4,061,940$2,331,692$2745.48TABLE5IMPACTBYRESIDENTIALBCR ACTIVITIESAnnualLifetimeCost

P a r t ic ip a n ttCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 22Table 5 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the costs incurredfor theresidential programs. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio, based onthe total resourcecost test. The costs and benefitsused to derivethis ratio are the sameas those presented in Table 2. Becauseresidential impact factors were not updated, there are no differencesbetween preliminary and reported results. Please note that someupdates to the clothes washer impacts (Appliances Program) arepending finalized evaluation results.The HVAC, Lighting and Appliances Programsare particularly cost-effective. The Residential Lost Opportunity Program costeffectiveness is much improved over prior years due to the introduction of more optionsfor participation. This programis importantbecause of the long-term lost opportunitiesthat it addresses.The Residential Retrofit 1-4 (MassSAVE) programcost-effectiveness isalso higher than prior years.III. Impacts by BCRActivity1. ByBCR ActivityA. ResidentialCape Ligh

## 2. By End Uses

Table 6 presents a summary of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the residential program s

. Lighting and HVAC provide the m a jority of energy savings from the residential

program s.

TABLE 6

IMPACT BY RESIDENTI A L END

- USES

End Use Lifetim e M W H Lifetim e k W Lifetim e $ N E B

Preliminar y R e p o r t P r e l i m i n a r y Repor t Preliminar y Repor t



### L i g h t i n g 2 6

, 2 4 8 26,248 1,573 1,573 $193,8 0 8 $193,8 0 8

H V A C 3 7

, 1 3 7 37,137 3,914 3,914 $1,395,9 5 6 $1,395,9 5 6

Refri geration 4

, 5 1 2 4,512 618 618 $ 0 $ 0

Hot Wate r 3,922 3,922 2,493 2,493 $2,472,1 76 $2,472,1 76

M o t o r s 0 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0

End U s er Be hav ior NA NA NA NA NA NA

T o t a l 7 1

, 8 1 8 71,818 8,598 8, 598 $4,061,9 40 $4,061,9 40



## Figures 13 through 15 present the sam e infor m at ion as Table 6.

The residential dem a nd savings com e prim ar ily from HVAC a nd hot water. Lighting

savings m a ke up a relatively sm all portion of the dem a nd savings, becaus e only a sm all

portion of the lighting measures are assum e d to be operati onal during the peak dem a nd

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.

F I G URE 1 3

RE S I DE NT I A L L I F E T I M E M W H - E ND- US E

0 10, 000 20, 000 30, 000 40, 000 50, 000 60, 000 70, 000 80, 000

P r elim in ar y R epor t

L i f e ti m e M W H

P R E L I M I NARY V E RS US E V AL UA T E DLIFETIMEMWH E nd Us er B ehav ior

Mo t o r s

H o t Wa te r

Ref r iger at io n

H VAC

Lig h t i ng



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 23

### F I G URE 1 4

RE S I DE NT I A L L I F E T I M E k W

- E N D

- U S E

0 1, 000 2, 000 3, 000 4, 000 5, 000 6, 000 7, 000 8, 000 9, 000 10, 000

P r elim in ar y R epor t

L i fe ti m e k W

P R E L I M I NARY V E RS US E V AL UA T E DLIFETIMEkW E nd Us er B ehav ior

Mo t o r s

H o t Wa te r

Ref r iger at io n

H VAC

Lig h t i ng



### F I G URE 1 5

R E S I D E N T I A L L I F E T I M E $ NE B - E ND- US E

$0 $50 0, 000 $1

, 0 00

, 0 0 0 $1

, 5 00

, 0 0 0 $2

, 0 00

, 0 0 0 $2

, 5 00

, 0 0 0 $3

, 0 00

, 0 0 0 $3

, 5 00

, 0 0 0 $4

, 0 00

, 0 0 0 $4

, 5 00

, 0 0 0

P r el i m i nary R ep ort

Li f e t i m e $ NE B

BE NE F I T S V E RS U S CO S T SLIFETIME$NEB E nd U s er B e h a v i or

Mo t o r s

H o t W a te r

Ref r i gera t i o n

H VAC

L i gh t i ng



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 24

## 3. Program Evaluation

The Reside ntial ENERGY STAR ® 

## New Construction Progr am



## In May 200 7, the Join t Managem e nt Comm ittee (“JMC”) co mpleted a market p r ogre ss

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

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

E NERGY 

## S TA R 

## ® Homes duct leakage standards; an assessm ent of opportunities for

program expansion; and interv iews to a ssess the P r ogram ’s multifam ily com ponent.

None of these studies generated changes to im pact assum p tions.

Conclusions from the market progress report f ound that indicators show that the m a rket

as a whole has “regressed or stalled” and th at this is tied to a shif t to a res ource

acquisition program foc u s.

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

2005. A hom eowner survey was als o conducted to obtain ad dition a l info rm ation such as

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

in the 2005 Baseline S t udy.

MassSAVE



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

m e mo (Appendix 5). T h is study assessed the current statewide HEAT Loan program so

that a Sponsor that m i ght want to continue to provide financing for energy efficiency can

learn from experiences in this program.

Key findings included:

• 

## Include a co nsisten t subs idized loan programto finance recommended energyefficient m e asures as part of a portf olio of residentia l program offerings.

• 

## Minim i ze delays in loan approval.

• 

## Im prove m a rketing.

• 

## Sim p lify the program and increase consistency of what is offered.

The Reside ntial ENERGY STAR Products and Services Program



## In 2006 an analysis of energy-efficient room air conditioner prom otion effectiveness was

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

• Different pros and cons are a ssociated with turn-ins and rebates; turn-ins are m o st

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

are also eas ier to track.

• Tim i ng is a critical issue for prom otion of room air conditioners.

• Increm ental costs of energy efficient pr oducts are a barrier for m a ny consum ers.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 25

## In 2007, results of an analysis of ENER GY STAR qualified clothes washer product

availability were reported. The objective of th is research was to asse ss the availability of

clothes washer m odels at different C onsortiu m for Energy E fficiency (“ CEE”) Tier levels

and to use availability as a proxy for m a rket 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 av ailability of clothes washer m o dels in

Massachusetts is sim ilar to Connecticut and Virg inia (30%). Furt her, 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. T h is study compares results of consumer and retailer estim a tes of free

ridership an d spillov e r with m a rket-level es tim ates of net impacts. W h ile the m e thods all

generate different estim a tes of net im pacts, they all support the finding that the program

has influenced the m a rket. W h en results of this study are finalized (expected in July

2007), we expect that impact param e ters to ad just the clothes washer savings estim ates

will becom e available.

In June 2007, a draft report on the evaluation ac tivities was com p leted as part of the 2006

Market P r ogress and Evaluation Report for the E N ERGY STAR Lighting Program . Key

findings include:

• The m u ltiple program com ponents – catalog, retail coupons, and Negotiated

Cooperative Prom otions (“NCPs”) – appear to provide com p lem e ntary

opportunities for retailers and consum ers.

• The program appears to be highly cost-effective.

• NCPs dom i nate the distribution of ligh ting products through this program.

• Product quality appears relatively high, particularly for the standard com p act

fluorescen t lam p s (“CFLs”); indepen d en t te sting is contri buting to quality

assurance.

• The residential lighting m a rket, particul ar ly with respec t to C F L bulbs, is

changing rapidly, nationwide as well as in Massachusetts.

• The m a rket for CFL fixtures is dependent on program support for survival.

Residential HVAC



## In 2006, an evaluation of the CoolSm art Program was com p leted. The Com p act

sponsored this study along w ith other program adm i nistra tors, although it did not offer

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

(“QIV”) databases, the on-site data collected from a sam p le of 34 hom e s

, and sim u lations

of energy and dem a nd sa vings from various en erg y efficiency practices. K e y findings

from this study include:

• In New England the net effective capacity of m a ny system s is undersized for peak

conditions. Because of this, the efficiency m easures that are strongly supp orted in

CoolSm art m a y not produce m a ny peak reduc tion benefits. While this study does

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 26

### Cape Ligh t Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2006 Page 27 

## not provide definitive proof of this, it r ecommends further study to further explore

this finding.

• Participation in this program helps program administrators develop the

infrastructure needed to take advantag e of benefits of the Forward Capacity

Market that will incent peak savings delivered through energy efficiency

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

benefits from relatively long te rm (15 year) efficient measures.Benefit-Cost RatioBenefit-CostActivitykWhkWh perCustkW$-NEBMWHkW$-NEBActivityperCustTRCB02aLow-IncomeLostOpportunity45133,7302,9724.93$13,8112,12953$184,116$214,864$4,7751.55B03aLow-IncomeRetrofit1-4279150,01053814.07$15,7632,153219$280,706$247,955$8892.04B03bLow-IncomeRetrofitMultifamily193153,2207947.11$82,4971,87160$1,644,599$203,292$1,0538.79TOTAL517436,96084526.11$112,0716,153332$2,109,421$666,112$1,2883.94TABLE7IMPACTBYLOW-INCOMEBCR ACTIVITIESAnnualLifetimeCost

Pa r t i c i p a n ttCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 28Table 7 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the costs incurredfor thelow-incomeprograms. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio,based on thetotal resource cost test. The costs and benefits used toderive this ratio are the sameas those presented in Table 3.While the Low IncomeRetrofit 1-4 (Single Family) and Multi-Family Retrofit Programsare clearly cost-effective, the LostOpportunity Program(New Construction) is less so. Webelieve that the benefit-cost ratio for the Lost Opportunity Program isespecially low this year as a result of relativelylow activity in 2006.1. ByBCR ActivityB. Low-IncomeCape Ligh

## 2. By End Uses

Table 8 presents a summary of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the low-incom e program s.

P r e liminar y R epor t P r e liminar y R e p or t P r e limin a r y R epor t



### Li ght i n g 1

, 971 1, 971 118 1 1 8 $57, 637 $57, 637

HV A C 2, 692 2, 692 7 7 $1, 936, 201 $1, 936, 201

Ref r i ger at i o n 1

, 346 1, 346 184 1 8 4 $43, 483 $43, 483

Hot W a t e r 6 8 6 8 2 3 2 3 $70, 304 $70, 304

M o t o r s 76 76 0 0 $1, 797 $1, 797

E nd Us er B e h a v i or NA NA NA NA N A NA

T o t a l 6

, 153 6, 153 332 3 3 2 $2, 109, 421 $2, 109, 421 TA B L E 8

I M P A CT BY L O W

- I NCO M E E N D- US E S

L i fe ti m e MW H L i f e t i m e k W L i fe ti m e $ N E B E nd U s e



## Figures 16 through 18 present the sam e infor m at ion as Table 8. They indicate that most

of the energy and dem a n d savings are fro m the refrigeration and HVAC end uses.

Most of the low-incom e non-electric benefits com e from the HVAC m e a s ures. This is

because the hom e energ y audits resu lt in b e nefits associated with (a) im proved property

values, (b ) r e duced f i re, illn ess and moving cost s, and (c) f o ssil-f u el sav i ngs. All of the

low-incom e program s also have non-electric be nefits as a result of reduced usage of the

low-incom e discount rate. The low incom e pr ogram s also have non-electric benefits that

are experienced by non-low-incom e residentia l custom ers, such as lighting operations

and m a intenance (“O&M”) savings and reduced water usage.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 29

### F I G URE 1 6

L O W- I NCO M E L I F E T I M E M W H - E ND- US E

0 1, 0 0 0 2, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 4, 0 0 0 5, 0 0 0 6, 0 0 0 7, 0 0 0

P r e l i m i n ar y R ep or t

P R EL I M I N A R Y

V E R

S U S EV A L U A T E DLIFETIMEMWH En d U s e r Be h a v i o r

Mo t o r s

Ho t W a t e r

R e f r ig er at io n

HV A

C

Li gh t i ng



### F I G URE 1 7

L O W- I NCO M E L I F E T I M E k W

- E ND- US E

0 50 10 0 15 0 20 0 25 0 30 0 35 0

P r el im in ar y R ep or t

P R E L I M I N A R Y

V E RS US E V A L U A T E DLIFETIMEkW 

### En d U s e r Be h a v i o r

Mo t o r s

Ho t W a t e r

R e f r ig er at io n

HV A

C

Li gh t i ng



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 30

### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 31 

## T h e C o m p a c t c o n d u c t e d n o n e w e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s i n c e t h e 2 0 0 4 p r o c e s s e v a l u a t i o n o f

the low incom e progra m . In 2006, the Com p act added low-incom e non-electric benefits

to the e s tim ates of low-in com e multif am ily pr ogram im p a c t s

. T h e N E B s a r e t h e s a m e a s

a r e a p p l i e d t o t h e l o w

- i n c o m e s i n g l e

- f a m i l y r e t r o f i t p r o g r a m

. 3. Program Evaluation FI G U R E 1 8

L O W

- I N CO M E L I F E T I M E $ N E B - EN D- USE

$1, 0 00, 000 $1, 5 00, 000 $2, 0 00, 000 $2, 5 00, 000

rtLIFETIME$NE

$0

$50 0, 000

P r el i m i nary R epo

P R E L I M I NARY V E RS US E V AL UAT E DB E nd U s er B ehav i o r

Mo t o r s

H o t W a te r

R e f r i gerat i o n

H VAC

Li g h t i ngBenefit-CostRatioBenefit-CostActivitykWhkWh perCustomerkW$-NEBMWHkW$-NEBActivityperCustomerTRCC02aC&ILostOpportunity68486,4507,154135.76$17,3132,026$11$340,675$5,0103.91C03aLarge C&IRetrofit196,661,710350,6161,927.50$4887,80825,504$635$1,560,390$82,12610.80C03bSmallC&IRetrofit2783,142,74011,305662.52$81639,7188,486$10,301$1,936,191$6,9653.19TOTAL36510,290,90028,1942,725.78$865134,83936,016$10,947$3,837,256$10,5136.35TABLE9IMPACTBYC&IBCR ACTIVITIESAnnualLifetimeCost

P a r t ic ipa n ttCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 32Table 9 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the costs incurredfor thecommercial & industrial programs. It alsopresents the benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. The costs and benefitsused to derive this ratio are thesameas those presented in Table 4.C. Commercial & Industrial1. ByBCR ActivityCape Ligh

## 2. By End Uses

Table 10 presents a sum m a ry of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the co mmercial & industrial

program s.

TABLE 10

IMPACT BY C&I EN D- US ES

Lifetim e M W H Lifetim e k W Lifetim e $ N E B End Use

Preliminar y Repor t Preliminar y R e p o r t P r e l i m i n a r y Repor t



### L i g h t i n g 1 0 6

, 8 0 7 104,94 0 27,955 27,485 $ 9

, 6 9 3 $ 9

, 0 7 1

H V A C 3

, 7 7 3 3,773 1,874 1,874 $ 3 4 3 $ 3 4 3

Motors / Driv es 18,391 18,391 5,685 5,685 $487 $487

Refri geration 6

, 7 0 6 6,706 737 737 $ 9 2 8 $ 9 2 8

Hot Wate r 0 0 0 0 $58 $58

Com p re ssed Air 1,030 1,030 235 235 $60 $60

Proc es s N A NA NA NA N A NA

End U s er Be hav ior NA NA NA NA NA NA

T o t a l 1 3 6

, 7 0 6 134,83 9 36,486 36,016 $11,56 9 $10,94 7



## Figures 19 through 21 present the sam e infor m at ion as Table 10. They indicate that the

energy and capacity savings are obtained pr im arily from lighting m easures and, to a

lesse r extent, f r om m o tors/driv e s and refrigeration m easures.

The sligh t d ecrea se in lighting sav i n g s is f r om updated f r ee

- r ider ship, sp illov e r and inservice rates for the Compact’s Governm e nt Retrofit program evaluation. Other

commercial and industrial program s were not evaluated in 2006, since m a ny evaluations

were com p leted in 2005 and there have been no significant changes in program design in

this year.

The non-energy benefits in the C&I sector ar e prim arily from reduced O&M costs as a

result of ef f i cient ligh t b u lbs with lo nger oper a ting lives.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 33

### F I G URE 1 9

C&I L I F E T I M E M W H - E N D- U S E

0 20, 000 40, 000 60, 000 80, 000 100, 000 120, 000 140, 000 160, 000

P r e l i m in ar y R e por t

P R EL I M I N A R Y V E R S U S EV A L U A T E DLIFETIMEMWH E n d U s er B e h a v i or

P r oc es s

Co m p r e s s ed A i r

H o t W a te r

Re f r ig er a t ion

M o to r s / D r i v e s

HV A

C

L i gh t i ng



### F I G URE 2 0

C&I L I F E T I M E k W

- E ND US E

0 5, 0 0 0 10

, 0 0 0 15

, 0 0 0 20

, 0 0 0 25

, 0 0 0 30

, 0 0 0 35

, 0 0 0 40

, 0 0 0

P r el i m i n ar y R epo r t

P R E L I M I NARY V E RS US E V AL UAT E DLIFETIMEkW E n d U s e r B e ha v i or

Pr o c e s s

Com p r e s s e d A i r

Hot W a t e r

Ref r ig er at io n

M o t o r s / D r i v e s

HV

A

C

Lig h t i ng



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 34

### FI G U R E 2 1

C & I LI FE TI M E $ N E B

- E N D

- U S E

$0 $2, 0 0 0 $4, 0 0 0 $6, 0 0 0 $8, 0 0 0 $ 10, 0 0 0 $ 12, 0 0 0 $ 14, 0 0 0

P r e l i m i nar y R epo r t

P R E L IM IN A R Y VE R S U S E V A L U A T E DLIFETIME$NEB E nd U s e r B e ha v i o r

P r oc es s

C o m p re s s ed A i r

Ho t W a t e r

Re f r i g e r a t i o n

M o to r s / D r i v e s

HV A C

Li gh t i ng



## 3. Program Evaluation

In 2006, the Cape Light Com p act commissioned an evaluation of its Sm al l Governm e nt

Retrofit Program

. This was based on severa l sources of data, incl uding survey results

from the population of 2004 and 2005 program pa rticipants. This was accom p lished by

com b ining relevan t resu lts f r om participants inc l u d ed in the C o m p act’s sa mple of the

previous, 2005, free-ridership a nd spillover study with a 2006 survey of the rem a ining set

of participants. In addition, database revi ew and on-site inspections of a sam p le of 20

projects were conducted. Results pertaining to the lighting measures in this sam p le were

used in updating free-ridership, participant spil lover and in-service rate param e ters for

governm e nt retrofit program i m pacts.

Key findings included:

• The program appears to be effective in m eeting governm e nt custom er needs for

energy-efficient m easures offered by the Program

.

• The vast m a jority of participan ts a r e quite s a tisf ie d.

• The m easure inform ation and baseline assum p tions used in the savings

calcu lations are reasonab l e.

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

tracking data. Most of the reduction wa s 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 i m pacts, due to the very sm all number of

participants in the study that m a ke st atistical data diffi cult to report.

• Participan t s p illov e r m o re than of f

s et the very lo w levels of f

r ee- r ide r ship

identified in this study.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 35

# Appendices

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 36

# Appendix 1. Glossary of T e rms and Abbreviations

Annual kWh Reduction Expected net annual energy savi ngs after all im pact factors

have been taken into consideration.

AMP Appliance Managem e nt Program

BBRS Board of Building Regu lations and Standards

CAP Community Action Program

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency

CFL Com p act Fluorescen t L a m p s

Coincident Peak Demand Dem a nd for electricity at the tim e of t h e Com p any’s peak

dem a nd.

Delta Watts The difference in th e wattage between pre-ex istin g or

baseline lighting equipment and energy efficient lighting

equipm ent.

Demand The am ount of electric energy used by a custom er or a piece

of equipm ent at a specific tim e, expressed in kilowatts.

Demand Adjustment Factor This factor is a com b ination of one or m o re evaluation

im pact param e ters applied to gross dem a nd savings in the

calculation of net dem a nd savings.

Diversity That characteris tic of a v a riety of electric load s whereby

individual maxim u m de m a nds usually occur at different

tim es.

Diversity F a ctor Percent of savings available at the tim e of the Com p any’s

peak dem a nd.

DOE Departm e nt of Energy

DOER Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources

D&R D&R Intern ationa l, the contra ctor to DOE and EPA that

monitors sales of ENERGY STAR® appliances.

DSM De m a nd Side Managem e nt

DPU Massachus etts Departm e nt of Public Utilitie s (f or m e rly

Departm e nt of Telecommunications and Energy)

EFLH Equivalent Full Load Hours

Energy Adjustment Factor A factor m a de up of one or m o re evaluation im pact

param e ters applied to gross kW h savi ngs in the calculation

of net kW h savings.

EPA Environm ental Protection Agency

EPACT Energy Policy Act

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 37

## ENERGY S T AR® Brand nam e for the voluntary en ergy efficiency labeling

initiative sponsored by the U.S. Environm ental Protection

Agency and Departm e nt of Energy.

Free Riders Custom ers who participate in an energy efficiency program

but would have installed the sa m e measure(s) on their own if

the program had not been available.

Free-Riders hip Rate The percent of savings attr ibu t able to Free Riders.

Gross kW Expected dem a nd reduction based on a com p arison of

standard o r replaced equipm ent, and equipm ent installed

through an energy efficiency program

.

Gross kWh Expected kWh reduction based on a com p arison of standard

or replaced equipm ent, and e quipment installed through an

energy efficiency program.

GWh Gigawatt-hour – a m easure of electricity usag e ov er tim e

equal to 1,000 m e gawatt-hour s or 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours.

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

Residential MassSAVE program to help consum ers install

m easures to increase th e energy efficiency of their hom e s.

Hours of Use The estim ated num ber of hours per year that a m easure

operates.

Hours of Us e Realiz ation

Rate Ratio of actual m e tered hours of use data to estim ated hours

of use data.

HP Horsepower

HVAC Heating Ven tilation and Air Conditio ning

Impact Factor Generic term for persistence, re aliza tion r a tes, in -serv i ce

rates, non-coincid en t co nnected dem a nd factors, etc.,

developed during the evaluation of energy efficiency

program s and used to calculate net savings.

JMC The Joint M a nagem e nt Comm ittee of utility an d non-utility

parties that m a nages the ENER GY S T AR® Ho mes Program

.

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

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

circuit for a period of one hour.

kW Kilowatt – A m easure of electric dem a nd – 1000 watts

kW – Years See: Lifetim e kW

Lifetime The expected length of tim e , in years, that an installed

m easure will be in s e rvice and prod ucing sav i ng s.

Lifetime kW The expected dem a nd sa vings over the lifetim e of an

installed m easure, calcu l ated by m u ltiplying the annual peak

kW reduction associated with a m easure by the expected

lifetim e of that m easure. It is expressed in units of kW

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 38

## years.

Lifetime M W h The expected energy sav i ngs over th e lifetim e of an installed

m easure, calculated by multiply ing the annual MW h

reduction as sociated with a m easure by the expected lifetim e

of that m easure.

LIHEAP Low Incom e Heating As sistan ce Pro g ram

Maximum Annual kW

Savings Peak annual dem a nd savings of a m e asure. At the program

level, this equals the sum of the annual peak dem a nd savings

across all m easures.

Measure Specific technology or practice that produces energy and/or

dem a nd savings for which the com p any provides financial

incentives.

MPER Multi-Year Program Evaluation and Market P r o g ress

Reporting, or Market Progre ss and Evaluation Report,

developed f o r various residential program s

.

MW Megawatt – a m easure of electric dem a nd equal to 1,000

kilowatts.

MWh Megawatt-hour – a m easure of energy use over tim e equal to

1,000 kilowatt-hours.

NAT E North Am erican Techn i cian Excellence Program

NEEP Northeast E n ergy Efficiency Partn e rships

O&M Operation and Maintenance

Off-Peak energy kWh The kW h reduction that occurs during the Com p a ny’s offpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 9 p.m . t o 8 a.m

. and

all day of weekends and holidays)

On-Peak E n ergy kWh The kW h reduction that occurs during the Com p a ny’s onpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 8 a.m

. t o 9 p.m

., except ho lid ays)

Persistence Rate Percentage of first year ener gy or dem a nd savings expected

to pers ist ov er the life of the ins t alled energy efficiency

equipm ent; developed by conducting surveys of installed

equipm ent severa l year s af ter ins t alla tion to d e te r m ine

presence and operational capab ility of the equip m ent.

RCS Residential Conservation Services. Form erly Energy

Conservation Services or ECS

Seasonal (Winter/Summer)

kW The net demand reduction during either the W i nter or

Summ er seasons.

Spillover Additional energy efficient equipm ent installed by custom ers

that were influenced by the Com p any’s sponsored program

, but without direct fi nancial or technical assistance from the

program . Spillov e r is se parated into Participan tand NonCape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 39

## participan t factors. Non-participating custom ers m a y be

influenced by product availabi lity, publicity, education, and

other facto r s that are affected by th e program

.

Spillover R a te Estim ate of energy sav i n g s attribu t ab le to sp illov e r effects

expressed as a percent of savi ngs in stalled by p a rticipan ts

through an energy efficiency program

.

VSD Variable Speed Drive

WAP Weatherization Assistance Program

Watt The basic electrical unit of power.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 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 pr ograms in 2006. Impact parameters for the

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

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

evaluated in 2006.Table A2.1Commercial & IndustrialProgram Evaluation Impact FactorsBCR ActivityProgramEndUseFreeRidershipRateSpillover[Participant]RateSpillover[NonParticipant]RateInServiceRatekWhRealizationRateC02aC&I Lost OpportunityCO2aC&I New ConstructionALght31%6%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC02aC&I New ConstructionBHVAC33%9%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC02aC&I New ConstructionFComA29%2%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC02bC&IGovt New ConstructionALght0%0%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC02bC&I Govt New ConstructionBHVAC0%0%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC02bC&I GovtNew ConstructionCMoDr0%0%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC02bC&IGovt New ConstructionDRefr0%0%3%100%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03aC&I Large RetrofitALght6%3%3%100%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03aC&I Large RetrofitBHVAC43%0%3%100%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03aC&I Large RetrofitCMoDr26%10%3%100%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03aC&I Large RetrofitDRefr4%0%3%100%100%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03bC&I Small RetrofitALght6%3%3%100%86%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03bC&I Small RetrofitBHVAC43%0%3%100%100%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03bC&I Small RetrofitDRefr4%0%3%100%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03cC&I Govt LargeALght0.60%3.40%3%89%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03cC&I Govt LargeBHVAC0%0%3%100%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03cC&I Govt LargeCMoDr0%0%3%100%100%C03aLargeC&I RetrofitC03cC&I Govt LargeDRefr0%0%3%100%100%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03dC&I Govt SmallALght0.60%3.40%3%89%86%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03dC&I GovtSmallBHVAC0%0%3%100%100%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03dC&I GovtSmallCMoDr0%0%3%100%100%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03dC&I GovtSmallDRefr0%0%3%100%100%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03dC&I Govt SmallEHoWa0%0%3%100%100%C03bSmall C&I RetrofitC03dC&I GovtSmallFComA0%0%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC04cC&I Products& ServicesALght31%6%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC04cC&I Products& ServicesBHVAC68%2%3%100%100%C02aC&I Lost OpportunityC04cC&I Products& ServicesCMoDr8%0%3%100%100%Note:Shadedcellsindicateimpactfactorsthatareneither100%nor0%.Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 42The table below presentsthe impact factors that were used tocalculate the evaluated savings for residential programsofferedby theCape Light Compact in 2006. Impact factors shown below for most programs represent the common assumptions developed byMassachusetts programadministrators, based on a review of bestavailable information on measuresin statewide programs. TheCompact’s Residential and LowIncomeprogram impact factors were not updated in 2006.Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 43Table A2.2 Residential ProgramEvaluation Impact FactorsBCR ActivityMeasureFreeRidershipRateSpillover[Participant]RateSpillover [NonParticipant] RateInServiceRatekWhPersistenceA02a Residential Lost OpportunityCFL2%0%0%90%100%A02a Residential Lost OpportunityHERS0%0%0%100%100%A02a Residential Lost OpportunityHERSC0%0%0%100%100%A02a Residential Lost OpportunityHERSD0%0%0%100%100%A02a Residential Lost OpportunityHERSS0%0%0%100%100%A02b Residential HVACHVAC0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4BOILRWATER0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4CFL0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4FIXTUREIN0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4HOTWATER0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4INDIRECTDH0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4REFRIG10%36%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4SWITCH0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4TORCHIERE0%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4T-STAT2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4AIRSEAL - electric2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4AIRSEAL - oil2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4AIRSEAL - gas2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4AIRSEAL - other2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4INSULATION- electric2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4INSULATION- other2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4INSULATION- gas2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4INSULATION- oil2%0%0%100%100%A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4FURNACE0%0%0%100%100%A04a Residential LightingCFL6%25%0%84%100%A04a Residential LightingFIXTUREIN8%4%0%95%100%A04a Residential LightingFIXTUREOUT12%7%0%87%100%A04a Residential LightingTORCHIERE6%3%0%83%100%A04b Residential AppliancesCLOTHESWAS0%0%0%100%100%A04b Residential AppliancesDEHUMIDIFI0%0%0%100%100%A04b Residential AppliancesECMHEAT0%0%0%100%100%A04b Residential AppliancesROOMAC0%0%0%100%100%Note:Shadedcellsindicateimpactfactorsthatareneither100%nor0%Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 44tCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2006Page 45SectorBCRActivityMeasureFree-RidershipRateSpillover[Participant]RateSpillover [Non-Participant]RateIn-ServiceRateLow IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityAIRSEAL0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityCFL0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityFIXTUREOUT0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityHEATSYSTEM0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityHOTWATER0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityINDIRECTDH0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityINSULATION0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityREFRIG0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB02a Low-Income Lost OpportunityT-STAT0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4AIRSEAL0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4CFL0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4DEHUMIDIFI0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4HEATSYSTEM0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4HOTWATER0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4INSULATION0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4REFRIG0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamilyAIRSEAL0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamilyCFL0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03b Low-Income RetrofitMultifamilyFIXTUREIN0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamilyHOTWATER0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamilyHVAC0%0%0%100%Low IncomeB03b Low-Income RetrofitMultifamilyINSULATION0%0%0%100%Table A2.3Low Income ProgramEvaluation Impact FactorsCape Ligh

# Appendix 3. Post Program Saving s Attributed to Selected 2006

Market T r ansformation Initiatives

The Com p a c t has not developed estim a tes of pos t program savings associated with

m a rket transfor m a tion initiatives. It is our understanding that this issue has not been

considered a high priority for DOER or other P r ogram Adm i nistrators. To the extent that

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

than those reported here.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 46

# Appendix 4. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive

The Cape Light Com p act does not require shareholder incentives to im plem ent its energy

efficiency program s. Therefore, th is section is not relevant to the Com p act.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 47

# Appendix 5. Summary of 2006 Energy Efficiency Evaluation

Report s

The following studies w e re used in prepari ng the evalua ted re sults p r esen ted in th is

Annual Report. The executive summ aries of th ese reports are attached. The full copies

of these reports are available from the Com p act upon request.

• Appendix 5-1 The Cape Light Compact Sma ll G o vernment R e trofit Program –

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

• Appendix 5-2 Evaluation of the Massachusetts E N

ERGY STAR ® 

## Homes

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

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

Analysis , fro m : Lynn Hoefgen and Tim Pettit, Nexus Market Research, A p ril 20,

2007

• Appendix 5-4 MEMORANDUM RE: Final Ev aluation 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 W i rtshaf ter Associate s , I n c., Kreitler Research an d Consultin g,

Perform a nce System s De velopm ent, 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 com ponent,

DRAFT, FROM: Lynn Hoefgen, Lisa W ilson-W r ight, Thom as Mauldin, and Tim

Pettit, NMR, June 25, 2007

• Appendix 5-8 Market P r ogress and Evalua tion Report (MPER) For the 2006

Massachusetts ENERGY STAR ® 

## Lighting Program DRAFT by: Nexus Market

Research, Inc., RLW Analyt ics, Inc., Shel Feldman Managem e nt Consul ting and

Dorothy Conant, June 22, 2007.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 006 Page 48