____________________________________________

Year 2002 Annual Report

And Energy Savings Claim

Reflecting Adjustments from

Savings Verification Process

September 8, 2003

255 South Champlain Street, Suite 7

Burlington, Vermont 05401-4894

1-888-921-5990

www.efficiencyvermont.com
This revised report is submitted September 8, 2003, to the Vermont

Public Service Board, the Vermont Department of Public Service,

the Efficiency Vermont Contract Administrator, and the Efficiency

Vermont Advisory Committee. The tables contained in this report

reflect final adjustments to 2002 savings as reported by the

Contract Administrator to the Vermont Public Service Board. The

tables have been generated directly from adjusted data contained in

the Efficiency Vermont data tracking system. The savings

adjustments will be reflected in all reports generated by Efficiency

Vermont after September 8, 2003.
Year 2002 Adjusted Annual Report and Energy Savings Claim

Table of Contents

1. Narratives

1.1. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

1.2. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ENERGY SERVICES.....................................................................................................................8

1.3. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SERVICES...............................................................................................................................................................15

2. Energy Savings and Expenditures Tables..................................................................................................................21

2.1. ORGANIZATION OF TABLES...............................................................................................................................................................................21

2.2. PROGRESS REPORT......................................................................................................................................................................................................22

2.3. EFFICIENCY VERMONT OVERALL RESULTS....................................................................................................................................23

2.3.1. Efficiency Vermont Annual Summary 2002..........................................................................................................23

2.3.2. Total Resource Benefits.................................................................................................................................................................24

 2.3.3. End Use Breakdown...........................................................................................................................................................................25

 2.3.4. Utility Breakdown ............................................................................................................................................................................26

 2.3.5. County Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................27

 2.3.6. Distributional Equity of Benefits and Expenditures......................................................................................28

 2.3.6.2. Cumulative Distributions by Customer Sector.......................................................................................28

 2.3.6.3. Cumulative Distributions by County..................................................................................................................29

 2.3.6.4. Cumulative Distributions by Utility Service Territory..................................................................30

2.4. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ENERGY SERVICES...................................................................................................................31

2.4.1. Program Summary..............................................................................................................................................................................31

2.4.2. End Use Breakdown..........................................................................................................................................................................32

2.5. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SERVICES...............................................................................................................................................................33

2.5.1. Program Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................33

2.5.2. End Use Breakdown..........................................................................................................................................................................34

3. Individual Program Results....................................................................................................................................................................35

3.0. COMMERCIAL ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM..............................................................................................................35

3.0.2. Program Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................35

3.0.3. End Use Breakdown............................................................................................................................................................................36

3.0.4. Utility Breakdown...................................................................................................................................................................................37

3.0.5. County Breakdown................................................................................................................................................................................38

3.1. CEO NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................39

3.1.2. Program Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................39

3.1.3. End Use Breakdown...........................................................................................................................................................................40

3.1.4. Utility Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................41

3.1.5. County Breakdown...............................................................................................................................................................................42

3.1.6. Program-Specific Indicators....................................................................................................................................................43

 3.1.6.1. Committed Projects Summary..........................................................................................................................43

3.1.6.2. Project Counts by Track..........................................................................................................................................43
3.2 CEO MARKET OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM.....................................................................................................................................44

3.2.2. Program Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................44

3.2.3. End Use Breakdown...........................................................................................................................................................................45

3.2.4. Utility Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................46

3.2.5. County Breakdown...............................................................................................................................................................................47

3.2.6. Program-Specific Indicators....................................................................................................................................................48

3.2.6.1. Committed Projects Summary..........................................................................................................................48

3.2.6.2. Project Counts by Track..........................................................................................................................................48

3.2.6.3. Participating Vendors..................................................................................................................................................49

3.3. DAIRY FARMS PROGRAM.....................................................................................................................................................................................50

3.3.2. Program Summary..............................................................................................................................................................................50

3.3.3. Not in use...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

3.3.4. Not in use...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

3.3.5. Not in use...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

3.3.6. Program-Specific Indicators....................................................................................................................................................51

 3.3.6.1. Project Counts by Track..........................................................................................................................................51

3.4. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL EMERGING MARKETS PROGRAM............................................................................52

3.4.2. Program Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................52

3.4.3. End Use Breakdown...........................................................................................................................................................................53

3.4.4. Utility Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................54

3.4.5. County Breakdown...............................................................................................................................................................................55

3.5. RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM..........................................................................................................................56

3.5.2. Program Summary..............................................................................................................................................................................56

3.5.3. End Use Breakdown..........................................................................................................................................................................57

3.5.4. Utility Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................58

3.5.5. County Breakdown...............................................................................................................................................................................59

3.5.6. Program-Specific Indicators....................................................................................................................................................60

 3.5.6.1. Home Counts.........................................................................................................................................................................60

 3.5.6.2. Builder Counts.....................................................................................................................................................................60

 3.5.6.3. Lighting Fixtures Installed....................................................................................................................................60

3.6. EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PROGRAM................................................................................................................................................................61

3.6.2. Program Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................61

3.6.3. End Use Breakdown...........................................................................................................................................................................62

3.6.4. Utility Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................63

3.6.5. County Breakdown..............................................................................................................................................................................64

3.6.6. Program-Specific Indicators....................................................................................................................................................65

 3.6.6.1. Product Counts....................................................................................................................................................................65

3.6.6.2. Retailer Counts....................................................................................................................................................................65

3.7. LOW INCOME MULTIFAMILY (RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM) ...................................66

3.7.2. Program Summary..............................................................................................................................................................................66

3.7.3. End Use Breakdown...........................................................................................................................................................................67

3.7.4. Utility Breakdown..................................................................................................................................................................................68

3.7.5. County Breakdown..............................................................................................................................................................................69

3.7.6. Program-Specific Indicators....................................................................................................................................................70

 3.7.6.1. Committed Projects Summary..........................................................................................................................70

 3.7.6.2. Project Counts......................................................................................................................................................................70
 3.7.6.3. Utility Account Counts..............................................................................................................................................71

3.8. LOW INCOME SINGLE FAMILY PROGRAM.........................................................................................................................................72

3.8.2. Program Summary..............................................................................................................................................................................72

3.8.3. End Use Breakdown..........................................................................................................................................................................73

3.8.4. Utility Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................74

3.8.5. County Breakdown..............................................................................................................................................................................75

3.9. RESIDENTIAL EMERGING MARKETS PROGRAM........................................................................................................................76

3.9.2. Program Summary..............................................................................................................................................................................76

3.9.3. End Use Breakdown..........................................................................................................................................................................77

3.9.4. Utility Breakdown.................................................................................................................................................................................78

3.9.5. County Breakdown...............................................................................................................................................................................79

4. Appendices............................................................................................................................................................................................................................81

4.1. NOT IN USE.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

4.2. CUSTOMER CREDIT PROGRAM......................................................................................................................................................................83

4.2.1. Narrative..........................................................................................................................................................................................................83

4.2.2. Program Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................84

4.2.3. End Use Breakdown...........................................................................................................................................................................85

4.2.4. Total Resource Benefits...................................................................................................................................................................86

4.2.5. Efficiency Vermont Annual Summary 2002 plus Customer Credit..............................................87

4.3. DEFINITIONS AND END NOTES......................................................................................................................................................................88

4.3.1. Annual Report Tables Overview......................................................................................................................................88

4.3.2. Definitions.....................................................................................................................................................................................................88

4.3.3. Table End Notes....................................................................................................................................................................................93

1.1. SUMMARY

SUCCESS THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS

2002 was a year of success for Efficiency Vermont, the nation’s first statewide energy efficiency

utility. Established by the Vermont Public Service Board in 1999, Efficiency Vermont has

helped more than 67,840 Vermont businesses and households lower their energy costs by

investing in energy efficiency. We have partnered with design professionals, builders, vendors

and many others to decrease barriers to participation in energy efficiency. Together, we’ve

accrued a track record of cost-effectively reducing Vermont’s need for electricity supply,

lowering energy rates, strengthening the state’s economy and protecting our environment.

The economic worth of energy efficiency can be clearly seen when compared to the cost of

conventional electricity sources in Vermont’s energy resource portfolio. In this report, the

economic worth of energy savings is referred to as lifetime economic value. This term equals the

present value of expenditures for electricity, fossil fuels and water savings that would have been

made in the absence of energy efficiency. Further, the term includes the worth of the savings

over the lifetime of the efficiency measures. In the data table sections of this report, lifetime

economic value is referenced as Total Resource Benefits. These terms may be used

interchangeably.

The benefits of energy efficiency investments made with Efficiency Vermont assistance in 2002

are summarized in the following six categories:

• Major Accomplishments - 2002 at a Glance

• A Competitive and Proven Source of Electricity

• Putting More Money in the Pockets of Vermonters

• Helping Keep the Green Mountain State Green

• Adding Efficiency Capacity to Vermont’s Energy Portfolio

• Providing a Successful National Model

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS – 2002 AT A GLANCE

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont helped 32,306 households and businesses complete energy

efficiency investments that resulted in:

• 38,363 megawatt-hours (MWh) of annual energy savings, costing ratepayers 52% less

than what utilities would have paid to purchase this energy on the wholesale supply

market. These energy savings will last an average of 14.4 years;

• $25 million in lifetime economic value over the 14.4-year average life of the efficiency

measures installed in 2002;

• surpassing Efficiency Vermont’s 2002 annual energy savings target by 59% and

exceeding the three-year contract savings goal by 17%; and,
• the elimination of 411,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have been

created by conventional power generation.

Additional notable indicators of Efficiency Vermont’s achievements in 2002 include:

• clear evidence of significant and lasting effects on Vermont’s consumer and business

markets;

• recognition of energy efficiency leadership, both regionally and nationally;

• meeting, and most cases exceeding, seven specific contractual indicators of performance

established by the Vermont Public Service Board; and

• verification and validation of Efficiency Vermont’s performance for 2001.

As was true in 2000 and 2001, our success in 2002 was due to the contributions of numerous

partners. These partners included Vermont households, businesses, vendors, suppliers, service

professionals, and fellow Vermont ratepayers, as well as the state’s regulators and legislators

who created Efficiency Vermont and supported its continued operation. Everyone’s efforts were

indispensable to Efficiency Vermont’s success in 2002.

A COMPETITIVE AND PROVEN SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Efficiency Vermont provides an economical and beneficial energy source

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont expenditures and customer investments in energy efficiency

improvements totaled $16.8 million.

2002 Summary of Costs

Efficiency Vermont Total Expenditures $10.5 Million

Participant and Third-Party Investments $6.3 Million

Total Investment in Energy Efficiency $16.8 Million

2002 Summary of Benefits

Lifetime Economic Value $25.1 Million

Figure 1.1.1.

Generating a lifetime savings of 552,705 MWh, the cost of these improvements is 3.0 cents per

saved kWh. This is 52% lower than the average 6.3 cents per kWh that Vermont electric utilities

would have paid to purchase comparable electricity supply on the New England wholesale

market for delivery to Vermont customers over the 14.4-year average life of the savings. Hence,

these efficiency investments were significantly more cost-effective than conventional sources of

electricity.

Electrical efficiency investments also slow the rise of electricity supply prices and, thereby,

lower the cost of electricity for everyone on the system. This is especially true during those times

of year when electrical demand is greatest and supply costs are highest. The reduction of

electrical demand at peak periods not only helps to reduce the wholesale price on the spot

market, but serves as a hedge against long-term price increases, by lowering new contract prices.
Thus, efficiency savings benefit all ratepayers by lowering prices paid for all electricity used,

whether or not these customers take direct advantage of Efficiency Vermont’s services.

Efficiency Vermont Savings Validated through 2001

Efficiency Vermont’s savings claims were verified and validated in 2002. The Vermont

Department of Public Service conducted a rigorous review of our 2001 claim for electricity and

other resource savings. This review led to an adjustment in the electrical savings claim by only

two percent.

The Vermont Public Service Board also engaged an independent consultant to scrutinize both

Efficiency Vermont’s estimates and the verification process conducted by the Vermont

Department of Public Service. The consultant examined Efficiency Vermont’s data tracking

system, quality assurance systems, as well as the Technical Reference Manual that documents

the basis and algorithms for savings calculations. The independent consultant’s report,

Independent Audit of Vermont Energy Efficiency Utility Energy and Capacity Savings for 2000

and 2001, by Martin Cummings, found that “The EVT [Efficiency Vermont] estimates of annual

energy and capacity savings, as verified and adjusted by the Department of Public Service, are

reliable and unbiased estimates of program savings,” and confirmed that “Efficiency Vermont’s

programs are highly cost-effective.” The report also stated that “the audit has shown that EVT

[Efficiency Vermont] and the Department have put appropriate procedures and controls in place

to minimize sources of error and bias in the [savings] estimation process.”

In 2002, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation continued its successful fulfillment of its

fiduciary obligations as the Efficiency Vermont contractor. In addition to maintaining rigorous

cost accounting procedures, the contractor participated in regular monthly reviews of Efficiency

Vermont expenditures conducted by the Vermont Public Service Board’s Contract Administrator

for the Energy Efficiency Utility. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation’s annual independent

financial audit, encompassing all aspects of Efficiency Vermont’s operations, established that

funds were being managed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

PUTTING MORE MONEY IN THE POCKETS OF VERMONTERS

Efficiency Vermont Cuts Household and Business Energy Costs

In 2002, we served 31,719 households and 587 businesses in Vermont. Over their lifetimes, the

energy efficiency measures installed in these homes and businesses will generate $25.1 million

in lifetime economic value.
Distribution of Benefits by Sector

Commercial &

Industrial Residential Total

Benefits Achieved in 2002

Annual MWh Savings 18,436 (48%) 19,927 (52%) 38,363

Lifetime Economic

Value

$12,000,000 (48%) $13,100,000 (52%) $25,100,000

Cumulative Benefits achieved 2000-2002

Annual MWh Savings 48,180 (49%) 49,870 (51%) 98,050

Lifetime Economic

Value

$32,500,000 (49%) $33,500,000 (51%) $66,000,000

Figure 1.1.2.

Serving Vermont, from Bennington to Barton

A key objective of Efficiency Vermont’s efforts is to help as many Vermonters as possible,

regardless of where they live or work. It is important, therefore, that participation and benefits be

widely distributed. In 2002, Efficiency Vermont successfully reached every corner of our state.

As in previous years, efficiency investments and their economic benefits were distributed in each

county in roughly the same proportion as the energy efficiency charge that each county’s

ratepayers paid through their electric bills. The widespread distribution of these benefits has

been no accident. Our marketing, business development and service teams have worked to

establish a network of partnerships with design professionals, builders, contractors and vendors

throughout the state. Additionally, we undertook targeted campaigns to increase participation in

those markets where customer activity was previously low.

The Efficiency-Powered Economic Engine

In addition to direct energy savings benefits, Efficiency Vermont’s work in 2002 generated a

long-term, positive stimulus to the state’s economy. In contrast to the performance of the

economy in 2002, Vermont’s efficiency investments generated strong returns both for individual

investors and for the state’s economy as a whole. These investments will continue to pay

dividends in the years ahead, in the form of lower expenditures on electricity, fossil fuel and

water for Vermont’s homes and businesses. The average business that took advantage of

Efficiency Vermont services in 2002 will realize a return of 71% on its portion of efficiency

investment costs, a rate of return that outperforms all but the riskiest financial market

investments.

The lifetime economic value resulting from Efficiency Vermont’s first three years of service is

$66 million. As these savings unfold over the next 14.4 years, they act as a time-released

stimulus to Vermont’s economy. The recurring savings from these efficiency investments will

spur Vermont’s economic growth in the same way that a sustained decrease in energy prices

would lower the cost of living, and of doing business, in the state.
Energy efficiency investments decrease the amount of money leaving the state to pay for

imported energy; a significantly more costly power source. Savings generated by Vermonters’

energy efficiency investments are spent on goods and services or reinvested in other assets. Most

of this spending and reinvesting involves transactions with Vermont businesses, resulting in

economic stimulus and job creation. According to an analysis by Skip Laitner, a nationally

recognized expert on the economic impacts of energy efficiency investment, the investments

catalyzed by Efficiency Vermont’s efforts through 2002 can be expected to add an estimated $26

million to Vermont’s economic output. They also will have created more than 100 net new fulltime Vermont jobs during the 2000-2002 period. Over the next fifteen years, the ensuing lifetime

economic value generated by Efficiency Vermont will create another 46 jobs.

HELPING KEEP THE GREEN MOUNTAIN STATE GREEN

Efficiency is a clean electricity resource because it reduces the need for the energy production

that causes pollution. The table below shows the harmful emissions prevented by Efficiency

Vermont’s work. Since its inception in 2000, Efficiency Vermont has prevented the amount of

pollution that 14,000 cars emit in a year.

Power Plant Emissions Reduced by Efficiency Vermont Activities

Year 2002 (in tons) Years 2000-2002 (in tons)

Carbon Dioxide 411,213 1,051,990

Oxides of Nitrogen 525 1,343

Sulphur Dioxide 1,713 4,383

Particulates 141 361

Figure 1.1.3.

ADDING EFFICIENCY CAPACITY TO VERMONT’S ENERGY PORTFOLIO

Efficiency Vermont Builds Service Delivery Capacity

A natural and deliberate outcome of Efficiency Vermont’s work has been the creation of an

energy efficiency infrastructure throughout Vermont. By cultivating and progressively

strengthening relationships with businesses, trade associations, key industries, and with providers

of energy efficiency services and products, we have been able to tap additional cost-effective

efficiency resources in a reliable and predictable manner. This process has been a key factor in

enabling Efficiency Vermont to increase savings and to exceed targets in each contract year.

With this infrastructure in place, Vermont can now depend on energy efficiency as a ready,

reliable and integral component of our state’s portfolio of energy resources.

The signs of the successful creation of this infrastructure can be found in many places. We have

increased the average number of monthly leads for business projects by 35% from 2001 to 2002.

Customers returning to Efficiency Vermont for help with new efficiency projects provide

confirmation that efficiency is becoming an integral part of development planning for increasing

numbers of Vermont businesses.
Another sign of growing capacity is the increased attendance at Efficiency Vermont’s annual

conference on new construction. Planning for the 2003 conference began in June 2002. The 2-

day event featured advanced training, energy-efficient products, and nationally renowned

presenters. Conference attendance increased by 63% over the previous year, to more than 800

builders, architects, engineers, vendors and other industry professionals.

To meet the challenge of helping greater numbers of customers save more comprehensively, we

conducted strategic hiring of qualified personnel to provide expert technical assistance. The

result today is a staff comprised of architects, engineers, and energy specialists that represent

some of the top talent in the country in the energy efficiency field.

Efficiency Vermont also has succeeded in increasing the comprehensiveness of the efficiency

projects we have helped advance. Business new construction projects are increasingly

incorporating energy efficiency into all aspects of design and construction. Additionally, these

projects are becoming more comprehensive; bringing together all project decision-makers, to

consider the whole building and its systems, thereby increasing energy savings. There has been a

substantial increase in the number of ENERGY STAR® qualified homes built in Vermont this year,

as we have made the plan review process significantly easier for participants. We have also

developed one of the nation’s most comprehensive approaches to providing energy efficiency

services to market rate and low-income multifamily housing.

PROVIDING A SUCCESSFUL NATIONAL MODEL

As other states strive to find more affordable and environmentally friendly ways to supply

electricity while boosting their economies, Efficiency Vermont is increasingly looked to as a

model for the nation. We are honored to have been contacted in 2002 by organizations and

governmental entities in states exploring the possible replication of Vermont’s approach. We

attribute Vermont’s national reputation as a leader in the energy efficiency field to the lasting

impact that Efficiency Vermont and our partners, statewide, are having on the ways that energy

efficiency decisions are made in the marketplace.

A good illustration of this impact can be seen in the air conditioning market. Despite having one

of the shortest and mildest summer seasons in the nation, Vermont stands out regionally and

nationally for its market share of high-efficiency air conditioner sales. Nationally, Vermont ranks

first in the market share of energy-efficient residential room air conditioners sold in 2002. That

success is due in no small measure to our partnership with participating retailers in promoting

products that qualify for the ENERGY STAR label. Efficiency Vermont met with similar success in

the non-residential cooling market. Ninety percent of the commercial heating and cooling system

units that qualified for incentives from Efficiency Vermont met the highest efficiency standard,

as compared to only 51% for northeast states undertaking similar efforts (Connecticut,

Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island).

Recent data released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 2002 reveals that

Vermont leads the eastern U.S. in market share for ENERGY STAR labeled homes. Vermont ranks

third, nationally, in market share for ENERGY STAR labeled clothes washers.
Vermont’s pioneering approach to energy efficiency service delivery brought increasing national

attention and interest to our state in 2002. Six recent honors exemplify this recognition:

• Efficiency Vermont was selected from among 1,200 nominees as one of the 15 finalists

for the Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard’s Kennedy School of

Government.

• The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) selected several of

Efficiency Vermont’s residential services for their “Exemplary Programs” Award. The

awards were for services delivered in the single-family residential new construction

market, the multifamily low-income market, and the lighting market (as a part of the

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships regional initiatives).

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded Efficiency Vermont the New

England 2002 Environmental Merit Award for outstanding efforts in preserving New

England’s environment.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy awarded

Efficiency Vermont:

• 2002 ENERGY STAR Excellence in Consumer Education for exceptional service to

Vermont consumers, as part of a regional energy efficiency partnership with northeast

utilities;

• 2002 ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year, for outstanding commitment to providing

expert design assistance and financial incentives to Vermonters building homes that

meet or exceed ENERGY STAR standards; and,

• 2002 ENERGY STAR Labeled Homes Outstanding Achievement Award, for verifying

more than 250 ENERGY STAR labeled homes in the past year.

CONCLUSION

Vermont’s unique successes in and contributions to the energy efficiency field are achievements

in which Vermonters can take pride. After Efficiency Vermont’s first three years of operation,

we are pleased and proud to have been a successful part of our state’s effort to minimize the

long-term costs of electricity supply, to strengthen the economy and to protect the environment.

We look forward to our continued service to the people of Vermont.
1.2. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ENERGY SERVICES

A YEAR OF PERFORMANCE THROUGH PARTNERSHIP

During 2002, Efficiency Vermont partnered with Vermont commercial and industrial customers

to complete 661 projects that cut costs, improved business operations, and saved energy. These

relationships enabled us to provide technical assistance and financial incentives of $4.4 million

to 587 Vermont businesses. Participants invested $3 million of their own capital. Our

partnerships in the business community generated $12 million in lifetime economic value that

will be realized throughout the next 15.7 years. Together, we cut 18,436 annual MWh from

Vermont’s total annual electric consumption, offsetting almost one quarter of the projected

growth in commercial and industrial electricity sales forecast by the Vermont Department of

Public Service.1

In order to build strong customer and strategic partner relationships, we engaged participants in

discussions of technical, business and financial issues. Through these discussions, business

operators gained a greater understanding of the role of energy efficiency in long-term

profitability. As a result, we were able to increase the implementation of energy efficiency

measures across different end-uses such as lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation in current

and planned projects. On average, the businesses that partnered with us and installed efficiency

measures are now earning returns of 71% on their investments.

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont strengthened our strategic alliances with key associations of design

professionals, including local chapters of:

• American Institute for Architects;

• American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers; and,

• Construction Specifications Institute.

We worked with these associations to inform their members of the resources available from

Efficiency Vermont. The success of these alliances was evident in our interactions with design

professionals. We experienced a high degree of repeat business through referrals from architects

and engineers who had worked with us in the past. We became aware of two design firms that

have established an internal policy specifying that all of their Vermont projects will include

Efficiency Vermont early in the design phase. Each new project with a returning customer

proceeded more smoothly than the last. The players knew what to expect from us, and we in turn

knew the strengths of the designers and the areas where our expertise would be most beneficial.

 

1

 Based on projected Vermont commercial & industrial electric sales growth from 2002 to 2003 of 76,526 MWh: Vermont

Department of Public Service forecast 10/29/02.
Our success in establishing Efficiency Vermont as a credible asset to the design community is

documented in a market assessment conducted on behalf of the Vermont Department of Public

Service2

. This assessment revealed that, in less than three years, Efficiency Vermont has become

widely known among commercial and industrial market participants as the primary resource for

energy efficiency knowledge and services in Vermont, as is shown in the table below.

Results of Market Assessment Survey of Design Professionals

Design professional groups

% recognition of Efficiency

Vermont name

% recognition of Efficiency

Vermont as a “primary

resource” without prompting

Engineers 100% 92%

Architects 84% 53%

All types of contractors 73% 36%

Figure 1.2.1.

Efficiency Vermont also continued outreach to large businesses and related professional

associations such as:

• the Association for Facilities Engineering;

• the Vermont Grocers’ Association; and,

• the Vermont Ski Areas Association.

By actively participating with groups such as these, we were able to reach a large number of

potential customers. We identified customers with large commercial and industrial projects based

on a number or criteria, including electricity usage, industry type, opportunities for efficiency,

and geographic location. Our activities resulted in more projects with large businesses and

greater collaboration with these associations.

Because of the critical role of farming in Vermont’s economy, Efficiency Vermont also worked

closely with Vermont’s agricultural community. We initiated a marketing and business

development effort to distribute informational releases encouraging dairy farmers to take

advantage of Efficiency Vermont’s services. We coordinated this effort with Cabot Cooperative

Creamery, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, HP Hood, the Vermont Department of

Agriculture and a number of publications serving dairy farmers, This focus on dairy farms

resulted in 94 completed projects in 2002 and savings of 960 MWh.

Our efforts to increase overall awareness of Efficiency Vermont’s services resulted in greater

recognition by business customers. The market assessment study3

 indicates that 55% of business

property managers and developers recognized Efficiency Vermont as a source of efficiency

services and 24% recognized our name without prompting.

 

2

 GDS Associates Team, Evaluation of the Commercial & Industrial Sector Markets and Activities of Vermont’s Energy

Efficiency Utility, February 17, 2003.

3

 GDS Associates Team.
NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT

Tailoring Services to Customer Needs

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont completed 597 projects in the new construction, renovation, and

equipment replacement markets, providing annual savings of 13,481 MWh. The lifetime

economic value is $9.5 million, as a result of $5.3 million in total investments (combined

Efficiency Vermont and customer investments).

In these markets, Efficiency Vermont worked to integrate energy efficiency at the time of

customers’ planned modifications to buildings, equipment, ownership, facility use or operations.4

We addressed all major end uses, including lighting, cooling, ventilation, motors, space heating,

service water heating, refrigeration and industrial processes. We also encouraged the

implementation of energy efficiency improvements through technical and financial assistance,

with three general approaches for incentives geared to specific customer needs, as described

below.

• Prescriptive incentives provided fixed dollar amounts for specific eligible efficiency

measures.

• Custom incentives were tailored to individual project costs and savings. We provided

custom incentives for the majority of our projects, to maximize the electrical and

economic savings per dollar invested. This approach enabled us to leverage investments

in more comprehensive packages of efficiency measures.

• Comprehensive design incentives were utilized to help customers optimize building

performance by fully integrating energy efficiency into building design. Efficiency

Vermont completed two comprehensive design projects during the year, and enrolled

another 16 active projects that should complete over the next few years. These results

exceeded the associated contractual performance target set by the Vermont Public

Service Board.5

These general approaches, combined with strategic partnerships, resulted in the significant

savings cited above. Activity in 2000-2002 in the commercial and industrial new construction

and replacement markets achieved savings in excess of the contract savings goal for these

markets by 12%.6

 

4

 Efficiency Vermont tracks and reports savings in these lost-opportunity markets under Commercial Energy Opportunities

Program. Efficiency Vermont tracks savings from the new construction market separately from equipment replacement savings,

which are reported under the Market Opportunities Program in the tables below.

5

 These quantities are remarkable, considering the size of Vermont’s commercial and industrial new construction market. After

two years of operation, NSTAR’s target for comprehensive projects was 21 for a much larger market, according to NSTAR 2000

Energy Efficiency Plan Update.

6

 2000-2002 MWh savings of 38,703 exceed the three-year goal of 34,521 MWh savings by 12%. 2002 expenditures of $3.3

million were 94% of the $3.5 million Efficiency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Service Board.
Efficiency Vermont’s 2002 efforts placed Vermont in a leadership role in the region. Vermont

led all northeastern states in the quantity of energy-efficient motors installed and in electrical

load eliminated, relative to the size of Vermont’s commercial and industrial market.7

Vermont also led the region in market share for energy-efficient commercial heating, ventilation,

and air conditioning equipment. Ninety percent of the equipment for which Efficiency Vermont

paid incentives met the highest efficiency standard. This was the highest percentage of top

efficiency equipment achieved by any state in the region that offered these incentives,

(Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island), and far exceeded the 51% average

percentage for top efficiency equipment that the other states achieved.8 This was particularly

remarkable due to the fact that Vermont had the fewest cooling hours among these states.

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL RETROFIT9

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont assisted commercial and industrial ratepayers with the successful

completion of 64 retrofit projects, providing annual savings of 4,955 MWh. The lifetime

economic value is $2.5 million, as a result of $2.2 million in total investments ($1.1 million in

Efficiency Vermont expenditures and customer investments of $1.1 million).

Efficiency Vermont offered customized technical assistance and financial incentives to spur costeffective efficiency retrofit investments by commercial and industrial customers.10 Typical

measures included compressed air system upgrades, lighting wattage reduction and/or output

enhancements, industrial process improvements, and fuel switches from electricity to alternative

fuels. While we promoted cost-effective retrofit savings across all end-uses, the greatest savings

came from industrial process, lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, and compressed

air system improvements. Savings in 2000-2002 in the commercial and industrial retrofit markets

exceeded the contract savings goal by 31%.11

 

7

 2002 MotorUp program tracking data provided by Applied Proactive Technology.

8

 These figures do not include customized cooling efficiency improvements, which are beyond the scope of the regional initiative.

9

 Retrofit efficiency measures are those improvements which are not part of other planned facility upgrades and which are

undertaken primarily to save energy and cut costs.

10 Efficiency Vermont tracks and reports savings from large retrofit projects under the Commercial and Industrial Emerging

Markets Program.

11 2000-2002 MWh savings of 7,232 exceed the three-year goal of 5,500 MWh savings by 31%. 2002 expenditures of $1.1

million were 65% of the $1.7 million Efficiency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Service Board for 2002.
Sample Commercial and Industrial Efficiency Activities

The table below provides a sampling of the types of facilities and efficiency measures installed,

as well as savings and benefits that the businesses received from their investments.

Facility Type

Efficiency Measures

Installed

Customer

Investment

Annual

Savings

(MWh)

Weighted

Lifetime of

Investment

Rate of Return on

Customer

Investment12

Commercial and Industrial New Construction, Renovation, and Replacement

Dairy farm Variable frequency drives,

 lighting, ventilation

$14,678 86 13 years 51%

Mineral

manufacturing Variable frequency drives $67,549 886 10 years 58%

Household furniture

manufacturing Transformer $5,255 33 40 years 42%

Ski resort Process snowmaking $140,430 624 20 years 30%

Stone products

manufacturing Compressed air system $15,782 81 20 years 44%

Daycare / school

 Lighting, HVAC,

 Act 250 comprehensive

 measures

$3,076 27 20 years 74%

Commercial and Industrial Retrofit

Furniture

manufacturing

Variable frequency drives

on dust collection system $52,392 325 10 years 36%

Wood products

manufacturing

Improved process

equipment $60,250 154 30 years 23%

High school Transformer,

 lighting upgrade $86,528 215 35 years 18%

Figure 1.2.2.

MARKET INITIATIVES

Market initiatives are strategies designed to help specific sectors overcome unique barriers to

participation in energy efficiency. In 2002, we devoted special attention to two of Vermont’s

critical market segments: Schools and water/wastewater treatment facilities. These market

segments offered, and continue to offer, significant untapped potential for the delivery of costeffective efficiency services to an economically and geographically diverse population.

 

12 Rate of Return on Customer Investment is the rate that discounts future customer savings to a present value equal to the

customer’s investment. Future savings are level over the weighted lifetime of the measures. That is, no inflation is applied to

future savings.
School Facilities

The schools initiative continued the work that Efficiency Vermont began in 2001, addressing all

300+ Vermont K-12 public and private schools, regardless of size. We focused on developing

strategic partnerships with numerous market actors, to discover if they were considering facility

construction or renovation, equipment replacement projects, and whether and how they were

considering discretionary retrofit investments. As a result of these efforts, Efficiency Vermont

developed an effective network of decision-makers involved in school construction. Efficiency

Vermont is now routinely involved in many schools’ project decision processes and frequently

engaged by third parties. We worked with numerous strategic partners in these efforts, including:

• Vermont Superintendents’ Association and its School Energy Management Program

(SEMP);

• Vermont Department of Education;

• Vermont Association of School Business Officials; and,

• Vermont School Board Insurance Trust.

With the assistance of these partners, we completed 24 schools projects, providing net annual

savings of 2,536 MWh in 2002. The lifetime economic value is $1.7 million, as a result of total

investments of $884,000 ($390,000 in Efficiency Vermont expenditures and customer

investments of $494,000).13 At year-end, Efficiency Vermont was involved in an additional 80

active projects. Combined with the 52 projects completed in 2000 and 2001, the total number of

Efficiency Vermont’s completed and active school projects was 156 at the close of 2002.

Water and Wastewater Facilities

This initiative investigates efficiency opportunities in municipal, industrial, and private water

and wastewater treatment facilities across the state. Through this initiative we served the

approximately 100 municipal and 100 private wastewater systems, as well as 700 public and

private water systems in Vermont in 2002. We targeted municipal systems as an important submarket because they typically are larger and have more savings opportunities than private

systems.

In 2002, we continued to develop a network with water and wastewater facility decision-makers,

enabling us to increase our involvement whenever systems investments were contemplated. Our

strategic partners in this initiative included:

• Green Mountain Water Environment Association;

• Northeast Rural Water Association;

• Vermont Technical College; and,

• Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

 

13 These school savings represent new construction, equipment replacement and retrofit efficiency measures and are reported in

Commercial Energy Opportunities or Commercial and Industrial Emerging Markets programs, as appropriate.
With these partners, Efficiency Vermont sponsored a facility operator training seminar called

“Basics of Motor, Drives and Energy Efficiency”. Held at Vermont Technical College, this

highly successful seminar was booked to capacity (22 attendees), and has since generated several

new projects that utilized variable frequency drives (VFDs). Efficiency Vermont previously had

funded the school’s purchase of VFDs to enhance their training facility and to encourage

efficient motors training.

We also strengthened our partnership with the water and wastewater market through trade show

displays and presentations targeting facility operators, engineers, and other decision-makers, to

inform them about our services and the benefits of energy efficiency. Efficiency Vermont helped

facilities overcome market barriers through data collection -- such as metering of efficiency

upgrade projects and pilot testing technologies -- to validate savings estimates before customers

committed to installing new equipment.

Efficiency Vermont completed 12 water and wastewater projects in 2002, which more than

doubles the completions from previous years. At year-end, Efficiency Vermont was working on

another 25 projects. In all, Efficiency Vermont has engaged with 46 completed or active

waste/wastewater facility projects since our inception in 2000. This project count is particularly

notable in view of the nationally low participation in energy efficiency by wastewater facilities.14

 

14 The Consortium for Energy Efficiency reported in Market Transformation News, winter 2003, that nationally, the wastewater

industry “...is paying little attention to [energy efficiency]”.
1.3. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SERVICES

Efficiency Vermont delivered services in the following four residential efficiency markets during

2002:

• Products and appliances;

• New construction;

• Single-family retrofit; and

• Low-income multifamily housing.

Efficiency Vermont succeeded in helping to broaden and deepen the transformation of

Vermont’s residential efficiency markets while raising the yield of electricity and other resource

savings. Electricity savings from Efficiency Vermont’s residential services in 2002 totaled

19,927 MWh. Total expenditures (Efficiency Vermont, participant and third party) of $9 million

for residential energy efficiency measures in 2002 will return an estimated $13.2 million in

lifetime economic value for the efficiency measures installed during the year. Since its inception

in 2000, Efficiency Vermont has served 66,567 Vermont households, saving an average of $81

per participant annually.

Efficiency Vermont’s residential services continued to garner national recognition as models for

the rest of the nation. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

selected several of Efficiency Vermont’s residential programs for their Exemplary Programs

Award. The awards recognized services delivered in the residential new construction market, the

multifamily low-income market, and the lighting market (as a part of the Northeast Energy

Efficiency Partnerships regional initiatives).

Below, we highlight Efficiency Vermont’s accomplishments in each residential efficiency

market.

PRODUCTS AND APPLIANCES

Efficiency Vermont’s efforts to increase market share for ENERGY STAR® products and

appliances met with continued success in 2002. Signs of progress were particularly strong in the

residential lighting market. ENERGY STAR lighting products continued to sell extremely well in

Vermont retail stores in 2002, despite a 25% reduction in bulb and fixture rebates from the prior

year. Vermont retailers demonstrated increasing commitment to stocking, selling, and promoting

a wider variety of high-efficiency lighting products. Retailers held a larger portion of sales

events promoting efficient lighting on their premises in 2002, as opposed to the special events

that Efficiency Vermont conducted in previous years at home shows and county fairs. Aubuchon

Hardware stores throughout Vermont began an ongoing torchiere turn-in program in 2002,

following the turn-in model we developed and implemented around the state in previous years.

Efficiency Vermont supported these 2002 retailer events with co-op advertising, point of

purchase materials, and banners.
Market assessments15 conducted in 2002 indicate that sales of compact fluorescent lighting

products in Vermont stores were 50 to 100 times higher than sales by counterpart stores in Maine

(which has no turn-in program) in 2000 and 2001.

Efficiency Vermont’s efforts met with similar success in the residential appliance market. At the

close of 2002, as a result of these efforts, Efficiency Vermont was well positioned to meet two

contractual performance indicators established by the Vermont Public Service Board for this

market. The first such indicator specified a 6% increase in the number of ENERGY STAR labeled

refrigerators and dishwashers on showroom floors. In 2002, the actual increase was 19.5%.

According to sales data from national retail chains, Vermont’s market share of ENERGY STAR

labeled refrigerators ranked seventh in the nation.

The second indicator specified the achievement of a 27% market share of ENERGY STAR clothes

washers in 2002 in Vermont. In 2002, actual the market share at national chain stores in

Vermont was 34%. Vermont had the third highest market share of ENERGY STAR qualified

clothes washers in the country. 16

Other signs of Efficiency Vermont’s success in transforming our efficient appliance market are

evidenced by the following occurrences in 2002:

• A major retail chain approached Efficiency Vermont with an offer to match the $25

rebate we offered during the second half of 2002 for ENERGY STAR labeled refrigerators.

• Vermont ranked first, nationwide, in market share for ENERGY STAR labeled room airconditioners.

• For the third year in a row, Efficiency Vermont, along with the other regional sponsors of

efficient lighting and appliance initiatives, received a national ENERGY STAR award for

“Excellence in Consumer Education” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and the Department of Energy.

All of Vermont’s 280,000+ residential customers are eligible for Efficiency Vermont’s efficient

product and appliance services. While virtually all electricity users purchase lighting products

each year, fewer people purchase new appliances. Our best current estimate of the number of

annual appliance purchases made in the state is based on 2001 data from the American Home

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), which reports Vermont sales as:

• 12,600 clothes washers;

• 13,100 refrigerators;

• 8,500 dishwashers; and

• 6,100 room air conditioners.17

As was the case in 2001, the lighting and appliance markets proved to be the largest combined

source of residential electricity savings for Efficiency Vermont in 2002. A total of 25,688

 

15 Xenergy, Inc., Final Report of the Phase 1 Evaluation of Efficiency Vermont’s Products Program, submitted to the Vermont

Department of Public Service, December 2002.

16 Provided by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ENERGY STAR 2002 sales data at national chain stores.

17 This is based on sales data provided by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
Vermont residential customers purchased one or more efficient lighting products or appliances in

2002, excluding the significant number of individuals who purchased qualifying products or

appliances without claiming a rebate.18 These participants collectively produced net annualized

savings of 12,292 MWh, providing an estimated $6.2 million in lifetime economic value.19

NEW CONSTRUCTION

2002 was the first full year in which Efficiency Vermont offered completely redesigned services

under the Vermont ENERGY STAR Homes label. Introduced in November 2001, this approach was

designed to integrate Vermont Gas Systems services, and to combine lighting and appliances into

a single offering. It has been so successful that it is now considered a national model for services

incorporating efficient lighting and appliances with home energy ratings in ENERGY STAR

labeled homes.20

To help ensure that high-efficiency housing construction extends beyond the high growth area of

Vermont’s northwest region, the Vermont Public Service Board established contractual

performance indicators for participating new homes built outside of Chittenden County.

Efficiency Vermont completed projects for 75 new homes outside of Chittenden County, nine

more than the contractual performance indicator of 66.

Efficiency Vermont’s efforts to reach more of the multifamily new construction market met with

tangible success. To encourage participating builder/developers to achieve ENERGY STAR

building performance ratings, we began offering customized incentives for comprehensive

energy efficiency upgrades. In 2002, we provided services for eight completed market-rate new

construction projects, with a combined total of 163 housing units.

Nationwide, preliminary data shows that Vermont achieved the fourth highest market share for

ENERGY STAR labeled new homes. Vermont’s market share of ENERGY STAR labeled homes was

between five and six times the national average.21 The table below presents the results for 2002.

ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes Constructed in 2002 with Efficiency Vermont Assistance

Single-family homes 234

Market rate multifamily dwellings 163

Subsidized multifamily dwellings 150

Total ENERGY STAR qualified homes 547

Figure 1.3.1.

 

18 Xenergy Inc.

19 2000-2002 MWh savings of 34,207 exceed the three-year MWh savings goal by 22%. 2002 expenditures of $1.6 million were

10% higher than the $1.5 million Efficiency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Service Board for 2002

20 Efficiency Vermont received recognition from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s ENERGY STAR program for our efforts in the residential new construction market. Vermont Energy Investment

Corporation, the non-profit organization under contract to the Vermont Public Service Board to administer Efficiency Vermont,

was named ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year in March 2002.

21 Estimates for the number of new homes built in Vermont in 2002 vary. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports

1,958 units through September 2002. A January 22, 2003 Burlington Free Press article cites 2,798 residential permits issued

through November 2002.
Efficiency Vermont achieved total electricity savings in the residential new construction market

of 1,334 MWh in 2002. Efficiency Vermont’s expenditures of $1.1 million and customer

expenditures of $500,000 in 2002 will produce an estimated $2.3 million in lifetime economic

value.22

SINGLE-FAMILY RETROFIT

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont helped residents of single-family homes pursue cost-effective

efficiency retrofit investments. We targeted our efforts to the following segments of Vermont’s

single-family retrofit market:

• Low-income retrofit;

• Customer driven retrofit;

• Vendor driven retrofit; and

• Targeted high use retrofit.

2002 was the first full year of operation for our efforts in the last three of the above segments.23

Low-Income Single-Family Retrofit

In partnership with Vermont’s statewide low-income Weatherization Assistance Program

(WAP), Efficiency Vermont helped improve the efficiency of 3,136 low-income Vermont homes

in 2002 through the installation of a comprehensive set of electrical efficiency measures.24

Whereas WAP services traditionally focus on the thermal shell of the customer’s home and the

reduction of fossil fuel energy use, Efficiency Vermont provides financial and technical

assistance for electrical efficiency improvements recommended as cost-effective. Qualifying

measures include efficient lighting, electric water heating conservation, conversion of electric

space and/or water heating equipment to less costly fuels, and early replacement of inefficient

refrigerators with high-efficiency ENERGY STAR labeled models.

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont began a partnership with Rutland West Neighborhood Housing

Services, Inc. to provide services similar to those offered through WAP. This effort served

Vermonters at or below 80% of the median income level in Rutland County who failed to meet

WAP income guidelines.

Total annual electricity savings among low-income single-family households was 2,262 MWh

from our expenditures of $1.2 million in 2002. For customers who had both audits performed

and efficiency measures installed, the average annual savings generated per household was 1,639

gross kWh. This is 1.6 times the associated contractual performance indicator set for Efficiency

 

22 2000-2002 MWh savings of 3,026 exceed the three-year MWh savings goal by 39%. 2002 expenditures of $1.1 million were

84% of the $1.3 million Efficiency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Service Board for 2002

23 Results from these three efforts are reported in the tables for the Residential Emerging Markets Initiative.

24 The eligible market is estimated to be 63,300 households, as was reported in the Efficient Vermont Annual Report 2001, page

92.
Vermont by the Vermont Public Service Board. Combined with water and fossil fuel savings, the

$1.3 million in efficiency investments made in participating homes in 2002 produced $952,508

in lifetime economic value.25

Customer Driven Retrofit

Using software customized for Vermont by Nexus, Inc., Efficiency Vermont enabled Vermonters

to assess the potential for cost-effective efficiency opportunities in their homes. We distributed

this software on compact discs through our web site, at special events, and by mail. In total, we

distributed 1,800 compact discs to Vermont households.

Vendor Driven Retrofit

Efficiency Vermont completed planning to serve more Vermonters through cooperative

agreements with residential insulation and air sealing contractors as well as energy specialists.

The contractors will offer cost-effective electrical efficiency products at no cost to their

customers and will be reimbursed by Efficiency Vermont. During 2002, we launched a pilot of

this concept with the Vermont Consumer Energy Cooperative, which served 72 households with

electrical efficiency measures.

Targeted High Use Retrofit

To yield maximum value from its budget, Efficiency Vermont offered a comprehensive retrofit

service to Vermonters with historically high electric usage. During 2002, we served 465

customers, of whom 46% (213) replaced electric space heating or electric water heating

equipment. These customers received an on-site assessment of a home’s efficiency potential,

financial incentives for qualifying measures, and were eligible to arrange for loans for the

balance of measure costs through the Vermont Development Credit Union.

In aggregate, Efficiency Vermont customer, vendor, and targeted high use retrofit efforts

produced total savings of 1,784 annualized MWh and $848,754 of lifetime economic value26.

 

25 2000-2002 MWh savings of 4,345 exceed the three-year MWh savings goal by 16%. Year 2002 expenditures of $1.2 million

were 97% of the $1.3 million Efficiency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Service Board for 2002.

26 2000-2002 MWh savings of 2,049 exceed the three-year MWh savings goal by 31%. 2002 expenditures of $602,434 were

96% of the $630,714 Efficiency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Service Board for 2002.
LOW-INCOME MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

Efficiency Vermont strives to lower the operating costs of Vermont’s subsidized multifamily

housing through comprehensive energy efficiency services.27 We provide customized financial

incentives as well as recommendations on efficient lighting applications, appliances, fuel use,

water conservation and building envelope measures. Efficiency Vermont’s efforts target

efficiency investments in major rehabilitation or renovation, and discretionary retrofit projects in

multi-unit rental properties, condominiums and townhouses. We also provide rebates for the

purchase of energy efficient appliances.

We help housing developers, owners and managers to identify cost-effective efficiency measures

in end uses involving all energy sources. By including all efficiency opportunities, we are able to

optimally leverage owner investment and thus maximize electricity savings and lifetime

economic value generated by each dollar of Efficiency Vermont expenditure.

In 2002, we completed 69 projects serving 1,657 individual housing units, including properties in

every Vermont county. We also successfully increased participation in the non-subsidized

affordable housing market. By the end of 2002, Efficiency Vermont provided energy audits for a

total of 23 private, non-subsidized housing projects.

We continued our successful role as a leveraging agent in the affordable housing market. Our

expenditures in 2002 of $1.1 million leveraged $1.1 million in additional investment on the part

of property owners and third parties, resulting in more than $2.2 million in energy improvements

to Vermont's affordable housing stock. Building owners contributed 45%, while third parties -

the state Weatherization Assistance Program and Vermont Gas Systems- provided 5% of the

total investment. These investments will yield an estimated $2.9 million in lifetime economic

value and 2,253 MWh in annual electrical savings.28

In addition, Efficiency Vermont helped three public housing projects include major efficiency

improvements in their capital investment plans submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development. Through these efforts, we exceeded the multifamily performance target that

the Vermont Public Service Board established for Efficiency Vermont in 2002, which specified

that two such projects would be completed.

By the close of the year, we had 18 efficiency projects under contract in the low-income

multifamily market involving 419 dwelling units scheduled for future completion, including two

new construction projects with 25 units. Upon completion, these projects will offer total

estimated electricity savings of 1,645 MWh annually.

 

27 Based on the 1990 U.S. Census, multifamily housing units in Vermont total approximately 80,000, of which approximately

25,000 are in buildings with five or more units. Census data also indicates that approximately 35% of all Vermont households can

be classified as low-income; defined as a household at or below 80% of median income. Published census data does not,

however, quantify the number of multifamily units that are occupied by low-income tenants.

28 2000-2002 MWh savings of 6,234 exceed the three-year MWh savings goal by 4%. 2002 expenditures of $1.1 million were

73% of the $1.5 million Efficiency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Service Board for 2002
2.0. ENERGY SAVINGS AND EXPENDITURES TABLES

2.1. ORGANIZATION OF TABLES

This report presents detailed information about expenditures and savings for Efficiency

Vermont activities in 2002. Data is provided in a series of tables that follow this section.

Aggregate data for Efficiency Vermont activities is provided in tables 2.2. through

2.3.6.4. Activity totals for the Commercial & Industrial sector are provided in tables

2.4.1. and 2.4.2. Residential sector totals are provided in tables 2.5.1. and 2.5.2.

The remaining tables are organized by the programs that Efficiency Vermont offered in

2002. These programs relate to the markets addressed in the narrative sections of this

report, as follows:

Sector Market Program Name Tables

Commercial Energy

Opportunities

3.0.2. –3.0.5.

CEO New Construction 3.1.2. – 3.1.6.2.

New Construction, Renovation,

and Equipment Replacement

CEO Market Opportunities 3.2.2. – 3.3.6.1.

Commercial &

Industrial

Commercial and Industrial

Retrofit 

Commercial & Industrial

Emerging Markets 3.4.2. – 3.4.5.

Products and Appliances Efficient Products 3.6.2. – 3.6.6.2.

New Construction Residential New Construction 3.5.2. – 3.5.6.3.

Low-Income Single-Family 3.8.2. – 3.8.5.

Single-Family Retrofit Residential Emerging

Markets 3.9.2. – 3.9.5. Residential

Low-Income Multifamily

Housing

Low-Income Multifamily 3.7.2. – 3.7.6.3.

Figure 2.1.1.
Program Year 2002

Program to 

Date

Projected 

savings 

through 2002

Actual Savings to 

Date/Total Projected 

Savings through 2002

CEO New Construction 2,873 12,632

CEO Market Opportunities 10,608 26,071 34,521 112%

Dairy Farms nap 2,246 2,246 100%

C&I Emerging Markets 4,955 7,232 5,500 131%

Subtotal C&I 18,436 48,180 42,267 114%

Residential New Construction 1,334 3,026 2,170 139%

Efficient Products 12,292 34,207 28,054 122%

Low Income MultiFamily (REEP) 2,253 6,234 5,979 104%

Low Income Single-Family 2,262 4,345 3,731 116%

Residential Emerging Markets 1,784 2,049 1,565 131%

Subtotal Residential 19,926 49,870 41,499 120%

TOTAL 38,361 98,051 83,766 117%

Program Year 2002

Program to 

Date

Projected 

savings 

through 2002

Actual Savings to 

Date/Total Projected 

Savings through 2002

CEO New Construction $1,667,489 $8,963,325 nav nav 

CEO Market Opportunities 7,837,636 18,143,284 nav nav 

Dairy Farms nap 1,160,839 nav nav 

C&I Emerging Markets 2,454,798 4,187,242 nav nav 

Subtotal C&I $11,959,923 $32,454,689 nav nav 

Residential New Construction $2,316,056 $5,061,087 nav nav 

Efficient Products 6,182,048 18,216,431 nav nav 

Low Income MultiFamily (REEP) 2,867,867 7,332,331 nav nav 

Low Income Single-Family 952,508 1,977,594 nav nav 

Residential Emerging Markets 848,754 950,442 nav nav 

Subtotal Residential $13,167,233 $33,561,716 nav nav 

TOTAL $25,127,156 $66,016,406 $36,162,000 183%

Program Year 2002

Program to 

Date

Budgeted 

Costs 

through 2002

Program to Date Costs 

as % of Budgeted 

Costs through 2002

CEO New Construction $1,040,839 $2,866,245

CEO Market Opportunities 2,220,152 4,629,022

Subtotal CEO $3,260,991 $7,495,267 $7,683,541 98%

Dairy Farms $0 $822,620 $822,620 100%

C&I Emerging Markets 1,107,631 1,694,254 2,289,068 74%

Subtotal C&I $4,368,623 $10,012,141 $10,795,229 93%

Residential New Construction $1,113,459 $2,558,902 $2,766,523 92%

Efficient Products 1,645,049 5,271,968 5,121,168 103%

Low Income Multifamily (REEP) 1,134,019 2,706,110 3,118,607 87%

Low Income Single Family 1,235,119 2,128,274 2,169,583 98%

Residential Emerging Markets 602,434 750,266 778,546 96%

Subtotal Residential $5,730,079 $13,415,520 $13,954,428 96%

TOTAL[b] $10,098,702 $23,427,661 $24,749,657 95%

MOP/CINC have a combined budget

2.2. Progress Report[a]

MWh Savings (Net at Generation)

Total Resource Benefits (2001 Dollars, Present Worth)

Program Costs and Budgets

MOP/CINC have a combined target
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Estimated 

Year 2003

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 30,971 32,306 nav nap 67,840 

# participants with audit/analysis 3,482 3,555 nav nap 11,022 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 2,250 2,004 nav nap 2,084 

# of audits/analyses with installations 3,139 3,678 nav nap 8,487 

Program Costs

 Administration

 General $91,044 $94,751 $205,080 $136,902 $275,412

 Implementation 1,822,514 2,270,975 2,499,883 nap 5,464,157

 Program Planning 357,180 315,656 330,812 nap 977,110

 Marketing 949,524 1,367,073 1,736,534 nap 2,842,028

 IT Development 256,431 300,327 370,076 397,082 695,248

 Subtotal Administration $3,476,692 $4,348,782 $5,142,385 $533,984 $10,253,954

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $1,199,898 $1,682,223 $1,965,608 nap $3,606,623

 Services to Trade Allies 250,072 255,827 219,623 nap 700,909

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $1,449,971 $1,938,050 $2,185,231 nap $4,307,533

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $3,581,362 $4,206,339 $4,631,003 nap $9,836,225

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 609 41,595 nap 609

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $3,581,362 $4,206,947 $4,672,597 nap $9,836,834

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs [a] $8,508,025 $10,493,780 $12,000,213 $13,039,983 $24,398,321

Total Participant Costs $5,122,443 $5,831,679 nav nap $14,495,202

Total Third Party Costs $383,656 $513,229 nav nap $955,819

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav nap $0

Total Program Costs $14,014,125 $16,838,688 $12,000,213 nap $39,849,342

Total Measure Costs $9,087,462 $10,551,856 $4,672,597 nap $25,287,855

Total Cost of Services $1,449,971 $1,938,050 $2,185,231 nap $4,307,533

Annualized MWh Savings 36,894 38,363 24,078 37,792 98,051

Lifetime MWh Savings 531,042 552,705 nav nap 1,413,965

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 6,399 7,215 nav nap 18,892

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 4,161 4,745 nav nap 10,926

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 1.191 1.187 nav nap 1.445

Weighted Lifetime 14 14 nav nap 14

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 nap $0

Budget and MWh Savings projections for 2003 include MultiFamily in Commercial & Industrial Energy Services. 

Costs and MWh Savings for 2000, 2001 and 2002 include Multifamily in Residential Energy Services.

2.3.1. Efficiency Vermont Annual Summary 2002 
2002

Lifetime (Present 

Value)

Avoided Cost of Electricity nap $21,645,819

Fossil Fuel Savings (Costs) $202,922 $1,596,487

Water Savings (Costs) $245,864 $1,888,008

Total $448,786 $25,129,989

Savings at Generation

Gross Net Net

Annualized Energy Savings (MWh): Total 33,127 32,764 38,363

 Winter on peak 9,514 9,421 11,294

 Winter off peak 3,472 3,411 3,916

 Summer on peak 11,970 11,833 13,960

 Summer off peak 8,170 8,098 9,195

Coincident Demand Savings (kW)

 Winter 6,370 6,318 7,215

 Shoulder 5,780 5,747 6,483

 Summer 4,259 4,188 4,745

Gross Net Net Lifetime Savings [a]

Annualized Water Savings (ccf) 30,226 32,983 414,700

Annualized fuel savings (increase) MMBtu 23,795 26,545 309,245

 LP 2,955 3,432 62,196

 NG 11,736 12,583 200,654

 Oil/Kerosene 9,104 10,537 46,428

 Wood 0 0 0

 Solar 0 0 0

 Other 0 0 0

Annualized savings (increase) in O&M($) $339,869 $349,014 $2,922,860

Savings at meter

2.3.2. Total Resource Benefits, overall
2.3.3. Overall - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$101,763 Air Conditioning Eff. 1,468 865 760 12,926 56 651 0 0 $128,795

$669,937 Cooking and Laundry 3,437 1,226 912 17,029 243 178 4,764 22,702 $144,451

$6,703 Design Assistance 80000000 $25,417

$240,712 Hot Water Efficiency 1,496 344 296 2,716 59 43 7,468 9,727 $25,872

$299,599 Hot Water Fuel Switch 420 2,077 1,871 60,978 363 350 -7,600 182 $301,413

$826,612 Industrial Process Eff. 20 3,568 3,137 59,654 1,844 234 -756 321 $302,970

$1,225,428 Lighting 27,459 20,145 17,163 219,223 3,115 2,277 -4,937 0 $1,813,122

$459,824 Motors 148 4,209 3,642 52,208 520 587 12,128 0 $329,882

$97,608 Other Efficiency 6 267 251 9,650 30 29 0 0 $41,420

$47,689 Other Fuel Switch 207 361 310 9,622 70 59 -1,104 37 $30,121

-$81,227 Other Indirect Activity 638 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $183,526

$348,208 Refrigeration 2,096 2,334 2,079 33,240 223 227 0 0 $414,975

$844,488 Space Heat Efficiency 997 94 82 2,221 25 1 19,024 0 $1,709

$609,692 Space Heat Fuel Switch 178 2,243 2,079 66,022 617 2 -7,816 0 $333,951

$135,565 Ventilation 989 630 544 7,215 52 105 5,374 0 $123,655

$7 Water Conservation 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $0

38,363 33,127 552,705 7,215 4,745 26,545 32,983 Totals $4,201,280 $5,832,608
2.3.4. Overall - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$11,636 Barton 136 133 114 2,490 22 13 -229 67 $26,656

$185,051 Burlington 139 1,465 1,381 27,020 109 42 -1,574 0 $89,408

$398,317 Citizens 1,651 2,309 1,997 37,092 510 211 -57 1,330 $353,421

$2,897,210 CVPS 14,659 16,149 13,875 226,297 2,880 2,133 7,176 15,736 $1,735,717

$15,581 Enosburg Falls 237 217 181 3,218 34 21 -147 130 $33,116

$1,391,233 Green Mountain 9,512 11,414 9,823 167,041 1,713 1,535 21,560 11,487 $1,225,706

$21,738 Hardwick 540 314 258 3,523 49 36 -30 279 $47,539

$46,494 Hyde Park 162 310 287 5,082 49 84 -111 31 $44,353

$61,526 Jacksonville 29 165 153 4,725 27 37 6 30 $16,856$69,813 Johnson 97 165 149 4,028 37 8 -411 17 $25,711

$77,523 Ludlow 207 669 599 7,598 100 94 -236 44 $50,208

$20,972 Lyndonville 426 340 292 4,318 54 41 -330 165 $49,216

$87,881 Morrisville 460 672 609 7,765 102 95 14 298 $60,530

$7,522 Northfield 244 188 163 2,354 30 24 -86 56 $22,046

$23,160 Orleans 60 102 92 2,102 19 8 -166 12 $16,650

$220 Readsboro 4 1 1 9 0 0 1 7 $76

$4,326 Rochester 41 39 33 620 6 5 60 44 $9,860

$233,049 Stowe 264 1,205 1,037 17,619 1,072 82 297 290 $106,440

$39,594 Swanton 395 544 485 8,080 76 60 -295 263 $39,076

$163,355 VT Electric Coop 1,664 1,198 990 13,633 204 137 1,072 1,815 $174,956

$20,288 VT Marble 58 62 53 1,185 13 5 -103 44 $5,278

$56,118 Washington Electric 1,321 703 556 6,906 109 74 134 837 $68,463

38,363 33,127 552,705 7,215 4,745 26,545 32,983 Totals 32,306 $4,201,280 $5,832,608
2.3.5. Overall - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$489,520 Addison 1,947 2,384 2,042 31,054 340 381 162 1,793 $288,921

$510,769 Bennington 1,911 2,846 2,459 44,407 850 214 -307 1,915 $300,973

$410,097 Caledonia 1,748 1,984 1,802 29,476 306 257 623 1,189 $235,382

$1,134,317 Chittenden 6,018 8,549 7,530 141,295 1,132 1,112 10,085 9,533 $907,820

$20,911 Essex 241 151 127 2,161 24 16 60 73 $37,815

$333,319 Franklin 2,531 2,733 2,334 39,173 427 310 592 2,139 $369,869

$22,363 Grand Isle 391 189 153 2,387 31 22 164 370 $25,335

$495,400 Lamoille 1,524 2,727 2,390 38,885 1,334 310 183 1,132 $307,214

$97,987 Orange 1,457 1,014 845 12,293 151 132 296 1,057 $112,004

$302,079 Orleans 1,126 1,845 1,619 28,230 421 178 -1,492 765 $245,824

$271,668 Rutland 3,942 2,716 2,248 34,070 453 329 -131 2,758 $291,937

$490,545 Washington 4,159 4,284 3,637 57,426 661 544 11,490 3,217 $429,773

$859,681 Windham 2,323 2,663 2,292 42,625 447 310 4,509 4,733 $260,498$393,952 Windsor 2,995 4,277 3,648 49,224 640 630 312 2,308 $387,915

38,363 33,127 552,705 7,215 4,745 26,545 32,983 Totals 32,313 $4,201,280 $5,832,608
Sector Allocation PSB 

Approved Five-Year 

Budget

Sector Allocation by 

Customer Rate 

Revenue

Total % Total % % %

Commercial & Industrial $32,454,689 49% 48,180 49% 50% 57%Residential $33,561,716 51% 49,870 51% 50% 43%

 Total $66,016,406 100% 98,051 100% 100% 100%

Annualized MWh Energy Savings 

Program to Date

Total Resource Benefits 

Program to Date

2.3.6.2. Cumulative Distributions by Customer Sector [a]
Total % Total % Total %

Addison 5.9% 4,335 6.4% $3,131,977 4.6% 5,482 5.4%

Bennington 6.1% 3,921 5.8% 9,197,948 13.5% 11,357 11.2%

Caledonia 4.9% 3,452 5.1% 2,757,223 4.1% 4,161 4.1%

Chittenden 24.1% 15,007 22.1% 16,528,917 24.3% 24,288 23.9%

Essex 1.1% 471 0.7% 188,207 0.3% 343 0.3%

Franklin 7.5% 5,448 8.0% 3,771,918 5.5% 6,454 6.4%

Grand Isle 1.1% 951 1.4% 401,382 0.6% 631 0.6%

Lamoille 3.8% 3,383 5.0% 4,223,793 6.2% 5,041 5.0%

Orange 4.6% 2,727 4.0% 1,322,858 1.9% 2,333 2.3%

Orleans 4.3% 2,539 3.7% 3,175,077 4.7% 4,768 4.7%

Rutland 10.4% 7,977 11.8% 5,849,399 8.6% 9,710 9.6%

Washington 9.5% 7,917 11.7% 5,712,756 8.4% 9,197 9.1%

Windham 7.3% 4,187 6.2% 6,384,766 9.4% 8,904 8.8%

Windsor 9.4% 5,564 8.2% 5,355,228 7.9% 8,915 8.8%

Total 100.0% 67,879 100.0% $68,001,449 100.0% 101,586 100.0%

Number of Participants 

Program to Date

Total Resource Benefits 

Program to Date

2.3.6.3. Cumulative Distributions by County [a]

Annualized MWh Energy 

Savings Program to 

Date % of Statewide 

Population

County
% % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %

Barton 0.62% 0.28% 320 0.47% 320 0.32% $189,643 0.28% $110,199 0.37% $111,598 0.44%

Citizens 6.28% 6.05% 3,614 5.33% 5,563 5.48% $3,749,319 5.51% $2,044,158 6.92% $1,539,776 6.07%

CVPS 43.71% 42.79% 29,326 43.23% 45,517 44.81% $30,898,435 45.44% $13,228,052 44.77% $10,956,231 43.16%

Enosburg Falls 0.46% 0.40% 456 0.67% 677 0.67% $340,509 0.50% $135,061 0.46% $200,587 0.79%

GMP 26.16% 38.73% 20,923 30.84% 32,571 32.06% $21,920,009 32.23% $9,715,894 32.88% $8,515,138 33.55%

Hardwick 1.21% 0.60% 1,219 1.80% 857 0.84% $411,136 0.60% $223,955 0.76% $194,536 0.77%

Hyde Park 0.36% 0.21% 372 0.55% 496 0.49% $277,391 0.41% $79,089 0.27% $114,837 0.45%

Jacksonville 0.19% 0.11% 67 0.10% 187 0.18% $158,015 0.23% $44,481 0.15% $45,657 0.18%

Johnson 0.25% 0.31% 203 0.30% 273 0.27% $150,250 0.22% $124,630 0.42% $71,566 0.28%

Ludlow 1.06% 0.87% 316 0.47% 2,388 2.35% $1,677,446 2.47% $337,896 1.14% $525,683 2.07%

Lyndonville 1.54% 1.31% 824 1.21% 762 0.75% $350,591 0.52% $495,130 1.68% $212,523 0.84%

Morrisville 1.06% 0.85% 941 1.39% 1,212 1.19% $656,660 0.97% $313,086 1.06% $289,993 1.14%

Northfield 0.68% 0.51% 463 0.68% 368 0.36% $172,433 0.25% $188,334 0.64% $79,642 0.31%

Orleans 0.21% 0.34% 106 0.16% 512 0.50% $344,521 0.51% $121,531 0.41% $117,404 0.46%

Readsboro 0.12% 0.04% 24 0.04% 35 0.03% $23,574 0.03% $18,102 0.06% $6,639 0.03%

Rochester 0.25% 0.12% 120 0.18% 113 0.11% $78,085 0.11% $45,765 0.15% $30,886 0.12%

Stowe 1.04% 1.12% 548 0.81% 1,702 1.68% $2,126,488 3.13% $416,180 1.41% $356,338 1.40%

Swanton 0.98% 1.17% 897 1.32% 1,209 1.19% $645,490 0.95% $401,953 1.36% $308,193 1.21%

VT Elec Coop 4.82% 2.80% 4,238 6.25% 3,391 3.34% $2,245,195 3.30% $995,214 3.37% $922,525 3.63%

Vt Marble 0.27% 0.20% 142 0.21% 127 0.13% $66,856 0.10% $66,568 0.23% $24,276 0.10%

WEC 2.83% 1.19% 2,471 3.64% 1,551 1.53% $779,216 1.15% $136,754 0.46% $293,261 1.16%

sub-Total 94.10% 100.00% 67,590 99.63% 99,831 98.27% $67,261,262 98.91% $29,242,032 98.97% $24,917,288 98.16%

BED [c] 5.90% 0.00% 251 0.37% 1,755 1.73% $740,186 1.09% $305,676 1.03% $466,207 1.84%

Total 100.00% 100.00% 67,841 100.00% 101,586 100.00% $68,001,449 100.00% $29,547,708 100.00% $25,383,495 100.00%

EEU ExpendituresEVT program and administration expenditures $25,383,495Contract Administrator, Fiscal Agent, DPS Eval. $1,635,860EVT Performance-based Fee $795,000

$1,733,353

Total EEU Expenditures $29,547,708

Annualized MWh 

Energy Savings 

Program to Date

EEU charges collected but not expended in Year 2002

EVT Program and 

Administration 

Expenditures 

Program to Date

MWh 

Sales 

Subject to 

EEC

2.3.6.4. Cumulative Distributions by Utility Service Territory [a]

EE Charges Paid through 

December 31, 2002 [b] Utility

Statewide 

Electric 

Customers

Number of 

Participants 

Program to Date

Total Resource Benefits 

Program to Date
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Estimated 

Year 2003

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 470 587 nav nap 1,273

# participants with audit/analysis 522 324 nav nap 1,156

# of audits/analyses with pending action 235 168 nav nap 229

# of audits/analyses with installations 324 238 nav nap 666

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $946,043 $1,062,159 $1,177,379 nap $2,689,201

 Program Planning 174,489 146,008 143,878 nap 476,542

 Marketing 356,516 669,776 867,974 nap 1,192,512

 Subtotal Administration $1,477,048 $1,877,943 $2,189,231 nap $4,358,255

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $691,904 $826,661 $1,199,858 nap $2,010,572

 Services to Trade Allies 15,418 9,084 11,790 nap 39,070

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $707,322 $835,745 $1,211,648 nap $2,049,642

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $1,302,448 $1,654,935 $1,753,056 nap $3,604,244

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 nap 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $1,302,448 $1,654,935 $1,753,056 nap $3,604,244

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $3,486,817 $4,368,623 $5,153,935 $7,271,098 $10,012,141

Total Participant Costs $2,595,021 $2,966,272 nav nap $7,318,171

Total Third Party Costs $117,495 $124,752 nav nap $242,247

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav nap $0

Total Program Costs $6,199,333 $7,459,647 $5,153,935 nap $17,572,559

Total Measure Costs $4,014,964 $4,745,960 $1,753,056 nap $11,164,663

Total Cost of Services $707,322 $835,745 $1,211,648 nap $2,049,642

Annualized MWh Savings 18,436 12,522 17,978 22,105 48,180

Lifetime MWh Savings 288,803 nav nap 757,971 292,807

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 3,915 nav nap 10,318 3,225

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 2,460 nav nap 5,716 2,306

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 31.406 38.251 nav nap 37.848 

Weighted Lifetime 16 16 nav nap 16 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 nap $0

Budget and MWh Savings projections for 2003 include MultiFamily in Commercial & Industrial Energy Services. 

Costs and MWh Savings for 2000, 2001 and 2002 include Multifamily in Residential Energy Services.

2.4.1. Commercial & Industrial Energy Services Program Summary 
2.4.2. Commercial & Industrial Energy Services - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$80,493 Air Conditionin

g Eff. 50 777 686 11,533 56 241 0 0 $92,581

$1,599 Cookin

g and Laundr

y 2 9 8 12 3 3 9 26 $228

$6,703 Desi

gn Assistance 80000000 $22,171

$2,040 Hot Water Efficienc

y 2 16 14 159 1 2 0 0 $3,104

$139,957 Hot Water Fuel Switch 35 438 403 11,919 86 174 -1,635 182 $52,509

$826,612 Industrial Process Eff. 20 3,568 3,137 59,654 1,844 234 -756 321 $302,970

$671,410 Li

ghtin

g 360 6,000 5,740 78,187 931 946 -4,931 0 $474,638

$458,636 Motors 108 4,202 3,636 52,108 518 587 12,128 0 $326,293

$97,608 Other Efficienc

y 6 267 251 9,650 30 29 0 0 $41,420

$46,418 Other Fuel Switch 7 137 120 2,903 26 26 -392 37 $18,476

-$5,117 Other Indirect Activit

y 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,267

$293,227 Refri

geration 64 1,646 1,488 27,603 139 147 0 0 $167,948

$21,478

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 6 27 27 545 4 1 201 0 $1,319

$271,360

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 30 990 933 29,157 256 2 -3,469 0 $90,338

$53,850

Ventilation 14 358 317 5,374 22 68 4,603 0 $55,672

18,436 16,760 288,803 3,915 2,460 5,758 566 Totals $1,654,935 $2,966,272
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Estimated 

Year 2003

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 30,501 31,719 nav nap 66,567 

# participants with audit/analysis 2,960 3,231 nav nap 9,866 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 2,015 1,836 nav nap 1,855 

# of audits/analyses with installations 2,815 3,440 nav nap 7,821 

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $876,471 $1,208,816 $1,322,504 nap $2,774,956

 Program Planning 182,691 169,649 186,933 nap 500,567

 Marketing 593,008 697,297 868,560 nap 1,649,516

 Subtotal Administration $1,652,170 $2,075,762 $2,377,998 nap $4,925,040

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $507,994 $855,562 $765,750 nap $1,596,051

 Services to Trade Allies 234,655 246,743 207,832 nap 661,840

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $742,649 $1,102,305 $973,583 nap $2,257,891

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $2,278,914 $2,551,403 $2,877,947 nap $6,231,981

 Incentives to Trade Allies $0 $609 $41,595 nap $609

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $2,278,914 $2,552,012 $2,919,541 nap $6,232,589

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $4,673,733 $5,730,079 $6,271,122 $5,234,901 $13,415,520

Total Participant Costs $2,527,422 $2,865,407 nav nap $7,177,031

Total Third Party Costs $266,161 $388,477 nav nap $713,572

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav nap $0

Total Program Costs $7,467,317 $8,983,963 $6,271,122 nap $21,306,123

Total Measure Costs $5,072,498 $5,805,896 $2,919,541 nap $14,123,192

Total Cost of Services $742,649 $1,102,305 $973,583 nap $2,257,891

Annualized MWh Savings 18,916 19,927 11,556 15,686 49,870

Lifetime MWh Savings 238,236 263,902 nav nap 655,994

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 3,175 3,300 nav nap 8,573

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 1,855 2,285 nav nap 5,210

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 0.620 0.628 nav nap 0.749

Weighted Lifetime 13 13 nav nap 13 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 nap $0

Budget and MWh Savings projections for 2003 include MultiFamily in Commercial & Industrial Energy Services. 

Costs and MWh Savings for 2000, 2001 and 2002 include Multifamily in Residential Energy Services.

2.5.1. Residential Energy Services Program Summary
2.5.2. Residential Energy Services - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$21,270 Air Conditionin

g Eff. 1,418 87 75 1,393 0 410 0 0 $36,214

$668,338 Cookin

g and Laundr

y 3,435 1,217 904 17,018 240 175 4,755 22,676 $144,223

$0 Desi

gn Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,246

$238,672 Hot Water Efficienc

y 1,494 328 282 2,558 58 41 7,468 9,727 $22,768

$159,642 Hot Water Fuel Switch 385 1,639 1,467 49,059 276 177 -5,965 0 $248,904

$554,018 Li

ghtin

g 27,099 14,145 11,423 141,036 2,184 1,331 -6 0 $1,338,484

$1,189 Motors 40 7 6 100 2 0 0 0 $3,589$1,271 Other Fuel Switch 200 224 190 6,719 44 32 -712 0 $11,645

-$76,110 Other Indirect Activit

y 636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $178,259

$54,981 Refri

geration 2,032 688 591 5,637 84 80 0 0 $247,027

$823,010

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 991 67 55 1,676 21 0 18,823 0 $390

$338,332

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 148 1,253 1,146 36,865 361 0 -4,346 0 $243,614

$81,716

Ventilation 975 272 228 1,841 30 37 770 0 $67,983

$7 Water Conservation 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $0

19,927 16,367 263,902 3,300 2,285 20,787 32,417 Totals $2,546,345 $2,866,336
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 364 518 nav 1,013

# participants with audit/analysis 393 253 nav 873

# of audits/analyses with pending action 214 144 nav 197

# of audits/analyses with installations 245 187 nav 502

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $638,801 $777,458 $626,678 $1,966,689

 Program Planning 137,247 95,459 94,879 372,278

 Marketing 307,988 539,995 625,160 1,014,155

 Subtotal Administration $1,084,036 $1,412,912 $1,346,718 $3,353,123

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $498,519 $663,113 $847,950 $1,568,046

 Services to Trade Allies 12,691 9,012 11,525 36,271

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $511,210 $672,125 $859,474 $1,604,317

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $907,306 $1,175,954 $1,245,299 $2,537,827

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $907,306 $1,175,954 $1,245,299 $2,537,827

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $2,502,553 $3,260,991 $3,451,491 $7,495,267

Total Participant Costs $2,114,041 $1,894,235 nav $5,545,027

Total Third Party Costs $117,495 $117,952 nav $235,447

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $4,734,089 $5,273,178 $3,451,491 $13,275,741

Total Measure Costs $3,138,843 $3,188,140 $1,245,299 $8,318,301

Total Cost of Services $511,210 $672,125 $859,474 $1,604,317

Annualized MWh Savings 13,481 14,724 9,300 38,703 

Lifetime MWh Savings 195,551 239,655 nav 595,515 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 3,299 2,500 nav 8,785 

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 1,845 2,004 nav 4,680 

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 26.025 40.452 nav 38.206 

Weighted Lifetime 15 16 nav 15 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.0.2. Commercial Energy Opportunities Program Summary[a] 
3.0.3. Commercial Energy Opportunities - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$72,394 Air Conditionin

g Eff. 48 737 648 10,927 56 229 0 0 $88,974

$1,599 Cookin

g and Laundr

y 2 9 8 12 3 3 9 26 $228

$0 Desi

gn Assistance 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,565

$2,040 Hot Water Efficienc

y 2 16 14 159 1 2 0 0 $3,104

$44,026 Hot Water Fuel Switch 19 242 217 6,041 50 32 -950 0 $32,204

$587,298 Industrial Process Eff. 10 2,605 2,226 43,962 1,775 98 0 0 $205,985

$478,525 Li

ghtin

g 342 4,632 4,452 58,562 748 747 -4,380 0 $367,779

$335,110 Motors 103 3,442 2,915 42,340 463 512 12,128 0 $249,919

$8,670 Other Efficienc

y 3 53 47 2,103 6 6 0 0 $8,801

$42,193 Other Fuel Switch 3 108 93 2,162 20 21 -303 0 $15,477

$244,663 Refri

geration 59 1,173 1,037 20,511 127 131 0 0 $142,704

$21,428

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 5 27 27 545 4 1 197 0 $1,319

$7,772

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 7 117 105 3,411 29 0 -422 0 $4,295

$48,518

Ventilation 13 321 281 4,816 17 64 4,603 0 $50,600

13,481 12,070 195,551 3,299 1,845 10,881 26 Totals $1,175,953 $1,894,235
3.0.4. Commercial Energy Opportunities - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$4,852 Barton 3 18 16 229 3 1 -13 0 $2,006

$175,051 Citizens 36 759 656 11,862 232 35 -415 0 $59,967

$919,675 CVPS 218 6,195 5,551 90,387 1,295 846 -1,851 26 $551,766

$7,643 Enosbur

g Falls 4 46 40 587 6 3 0 0 $5,346

$446,349 Green Mountain 155 4,387 3,950 63,454 550 715 13,499 0 $332,369

$5,710 Hardwick 7 39 37 578 6 5 -44 0 $8,836

$42,428

H

yde Park 1 226 219 4,114 36 72 -109 0 $33,716

-$185 Johnson 4 2 2 35 0 0 -2 0 $893

$9,096 Ludlow 2 222 193 2,065 34 36 -39 0 $9,491

$10,548

L

yndonville 16 112 100 1,194 18 16 -133 0 $11,702

$349 Morrisville 5 28 32 404 5 5 -37 0 $3,624

$760 Northfield 2 34 38 623 6 7 -45 0 $3,860

$2,892 Orleans 2 31 27 479 3 3 0 0 $3,044

$109 Rochester 1 12 10 177 2 1 0 0 $3,511

$189,823 Stowe 15 953 830 13,994 1,023 51 225 0 $82,729

$14,513 Swanton 6 78 67 1,166 11 8 0 0 $11,514

$63,917

VT Electric Coo

p 35 330 294 4,070 66 38 -153 0 $50,009

$703 Washin

gton Electric 6 9 8 133 1 1 -2 0 $1,570

13,481 12,070 195,551 3,299 1,845 10,881 26 Totals 518 $1,175,953 $1,894,235
3.0.5. Commercial Energy Opportunities - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$220,417 Addison 47 1,058 933 15,573 164 181 -279 26 $127,421

$292,533 Bennin

gton 29 1,430 1,247 23,713 615 51 -96 0 $123,464

$163,606 Caledonia 30 992 976 16,749 145 146 -896 0 $101,110

$220,048 Chittenden 100 2,626 2,385 40,942 302 415 2,621 0 $167,943

$1,826 Essex 2 12 11 232 2 1 -50 0 $3,023

$136,241 Franklin 62 861 758 11,487 114 114 -170 0 $107,835

$1,412 Grand Isle 2 6 5 111 1 1 -1 0 $1,319

$264,915 Lamoille 32 1,311 1,170 19,875 1,096 139 54 0 $138,002

$30,306 Oran

g

e 15 272 252 4,766 36 47 -170 0 $31,371

$176,500 Orleans 37 726 637 11,056 231 32 -483 0 $54,805

$23,018 Rutland 34 218 198 2,690 38 46 -281 0 $24,365

$140,532 Washin

gton 52 1,145 1,045 15,316 156 197 11,399 0 $119,764

$68,516 Windham 46 617 542 9,701 83 82 -123 0 $39,402

$154,365 Windsor 30 2,208 1,912 23,340 316 393 -643 0 $136,130

13,481 12,070 195,551 3,299 1,845 10,881 26 Totals 518 $1,175,953 $1,894,235
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 77 56 nav 169 

# participants with audit/analysis 130 76 nav 313 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 116 78 nav 94 

# of audits/analyses with installations 61 48 nav 121

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $291,515 $260,040 nap $772,073

 Program Planning 62,632 31,929 nap 168,562

 Marketing 140,549 180,615 nap 382,962

 Subtotal Administration $494,696 $472,583 nap $1,323,597

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $227,498 $293,426 nap $680,279

 Services to Trade Allies 5,791 0 nap 11,309

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $233,289 $293,426 nap $691,588

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $390,088 $274,829 nap $851,060

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 nap 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $390,088 $274,829 nap $851,060

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $1,118,073 $1,040,839 nap $2,866,245

Total Participant Costs $1,138,034 $365,708 nap $2,194,381

Total Third Party Costs $8,416 $37,053 nap $45,469

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nap $0

Total Program Costs $2,264,524 $1,443,601 nap $5,106,095

Total Measure Costs $1,536,539 $677,591 nap $3,090,910

Total Cost of Services $233,289 $293,426 nap $691,588

Annualized MWh Savings 2,873 5,467 nav 12,632 

Lifetime MWh Savings 44,486 94,186 nav 203,117 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 348 nav 3,124 1,021

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 483 nav 1,291 693

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 51.306 71.002 nav 74.744 

Weighted Lifetime 15 17 nav 16 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.1.2. CEO New Construction Program Summary 
3.1.3. CEO New Construction - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$6,236 Air Conditioning Eff. 24 292 255 4,178 6 103 0 0 $36,285

$265 Cooking and Laundry 1 9 8 12 3 3 0 0 $228

$0 Design Assistance 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,565

$22,960 Hot Water Fuel Switch 3 30 27 898 11 11 -95 0 $4,327

$2,100 Industrial Process Eff. 1 37 34 738 0 27 0 0 $2,130

$194,900 Lighting 50 1,328 1,298 20,329 201 203 -1,323 0 $145,287

$54,083 Motors 13 694 593 9,045 70 78 0 0 $30,063$40,843 Other Fuel Switch 1 93 79 1,860 17 18 -257 0 $13,812$17,891 Refrigeration 6 240 206 4,683 24 29 0 0 $16,279

$4,136 Space Heat Efficiency 3 3 5 60 0 0 15 0 $0

$597 Space Heat Fuel Switch 2 32 29 968 8 0 -113 0 $599

$21,697 Ventilation 6 114 99 1,717 8 11 3,801 0 $21,254

2,873 2,633 44,486 348 483 2,029 0 Totals $274,829 $365,708
3.1.4. CEO New Construction - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$262 Citizens 1 1 1 15 0 0 -1 0 $0

$53,370 CVPS 16 490 481 7,455 71 81 -31 0 $61,342

$260,628 Green Mountain 25 2,028 1,806 30,841 226 303 2,247 0 $159,591

$0 Hardwick 10000000 $254

$42,428 Hyde Park 1 226 219 4,114 36 72 -109 0 $33,716

$25 Johnson 1 1 1 18 0 0 -1 0 $325

$0 Morrisville 2 12 15 205 2 2 -15 0 $1,999

$4,247 Stowe 3 39 39 580 4 10 -13 0 $8,883

$4,154 VT Electric Coop 3 68 64 1,143 8 14 -48 0 $7,351

$595 Washington Electric 3 8 7 116 1 1 -1 0 $1,370

2,873 2,633 44,486 348 483 2,029 0 Totals 56 $274,829 $365,708
3.1.5. CEO New Construction - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$68,907 Addison 5 233 206 3,520 32 34 -114 0 $26,588

$8,681 Bennington 2 73 63 1,075 8 8 434 0 $9,433

$3,072 Caledonia 3 144 161 2,434 24 24 -176 0 $23,740

$93,182 Chittenden 16 1,106 978 17,415 102 168 2,762 0 $56,457

$1,404 Franklin 3 37 42 588 5 9 -29 0 $6,990

$262 Grand Isle 1 1 1 15 0 0 -1 0 $0

$49,858 Lamoille 9 307 299 5,468 45 93 -161 0 $50,112

$5,112 Orange 3 61 60 546 9 8 -68 0 $5,881

$0 Orleans 10000000 $254

$6,978 Rutland 1 28 24 425 5 7 -35 0 $0

$104,403 Washington 9 786 716 11,348 102 113 -465 0 $88,239

$3,386 Windham 1 17 15 243 2 1 -19 0 $0

$20,464 Windsor 2 80 68 1,411 14 18 -99 0 $7,136

2,873 2,633 44,486 348 483 2,029 0 Totals 56 $274,829 $365,708
Committed MWh as of 12/31/02

Committed Measure 

Incentive as of 12/31/02

Participants with 

Committed Projects

 $912,642 24 4,063 

Track

Committed Projects as 

of 12/31/02

Completed Projects Year 

2002

Completed Projects 

Program to Date

Act 250 58 10 172 

New Construction 27 8 77 

Comprehensive Act 250 2 6 2 

Comprehensive Non-Act 250 0 00

3.1.6.2. CEO New Construction Project Counts by Track 

3.1.6.1. CEO New Construction Committed Projects Summary 
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 287 462 nav 844 

# participants with audit/analysis 263 177 nav 560 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 98 66 nav 103 

# of audits/analyses with installations 184 139 nav 381

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $347,287 $517,418 nap $1,194,616

 Program Planning 74,615 63,530 nap 203,716

 Marketing 167,439 359,380 nap 631,194

 Subtotal Administration $589,340 $940,329 nap $2,029,526

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $271,022 $369,687 nap $887,768

 Services to Trade Allies 6,899 9,012 nap 24,962

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $277,921 $378,699 nap $912,730

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $517,218 $901,124 nap $1,686,767

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 nap 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $517,218 $901,124 nap $1,686,767

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $1,384,479 $2,220,152 nap $4,629,022

Total Participant Costs $976,007 $1,528,527 nap $3,350,646

Total Third Party Costs $109,079 $80,899 nap $189,977

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nap $0

Total Program Costs $2,469,565 $3,829,577 nap $8,169,646

Total Measure Costs $1,602,304 $2,510,549 nap $5,227,390

Total Cost of Services $277,921 $378,699 nap $912,730

Annualized MWh Savings 10,608 9,257 nav 26,071 

Lifetime MWh Savings 151,065 145,469 nav 392,399 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 2,951 nav 5,661 1,479

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 1,362 nav 3,389 1,311

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 22.961 32.256 nav 30.890 

Weighted Lifetime 14 16 nav 15 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.2.2. CEO Market Opportunities Program Summary 
3.2.3. CEO Market Opportunities - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$66,158 Air Conditionin

g Eff. 24 445 392 6,749 50 126 0 0 $52,689

$1,334 Cookin

g and Laundr

y 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 26 $0

$2,040 Hot Water Efficienc

y 2 16 14 159 1 2 0 0 $3,104

$21,066 Hot Water Fuel Switch 16 212 191 5,143 40 21 -855 0 $27,877

$585,198 Industrial Process Eff. 9 2,568 2,192 43,224 1,775 71 0 0 $203,855

$283,625 Li

ghtin

g 292 3,304 3,154 38,233 547 544 -3,058 0 $222,491

$281,027 Motors 90 2,748 2,323 33,296 393 434 12,128 0 $219,856

$8,670 Other Efficienc

y 3 53 47 2,103 6 6 0 0 $8,801

$1,350 Other Fuel Switch 2 15 14 302 3 2 -47 0 $1,665

$226,772 Refri

geration 53 933 831 15,829 103 102 0 0 $126,425

$17,292

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 2 24 22 485 4 1 182 0 $1,319

$7,175

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 5 84 76 2,444 21 0 -310 0 $3,696

$26,821

Ventilation 7 207 182 3,098 9 53 803 0 $29,346

10,608 9,437 151,065 2,951 1,362 8,852 26 Totals $901,124 $1,528,527
3.2.4. CEO Market Opportunities - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$4,852 Barton 3 18 16 229 3 1 -13 0 $2,006

$174,789 Citizens 35 758 655 11,846 232 34 -414 0 $59,967

$866,306 CVPS 202 5,706 5,070 82,932 1,225 765 -1,820 26 $490,424

$7,643 Enosburg Falls 4 46 40 587 6 3 0 0 $5,346

$185,722 Green Mountain 130 2,359 2,145 32,613 324 412 11,251 0 $172,778

$5,710 Hardwick 6 39 37 578 6 5 -44 0 $8,583

-$210 Johnson 3 1 1 18 0 0 -1 0 $568

$9,096 Ludlow 2 222 193 2,065 34 36 -39 0 $9,491

$10,548 Lyndonville 16 112 100 1,194 18 16 -133 0 $11,702

$349 Morrisville 3 16 17 200 3 3 -22 0 $1,625

$760 Northfield 2 34 38 623 6 7 -45 0 $3,860

$2,892 Orleans 2 31 27 479 3 3 0 0 $3,044

$109 Rochester 1 12 10 177 2 1 0 0 $3,511

$185,577 Stowe 12 914 791 13,415 1,020 41 238 0 $73,845

$14,513 Swanton 6 78 67 1,166 11 8 0 0 $11,514

$59,763 VT Electric Coop 32 262 230 2,928 57 24 -105 0 $42,658

$108 Washington Electric 3 1 1 17 0 0 -2 0 $201

10,608 9,437 151,065 2,951 1,362 8,852 26 Totals 462 $901,124 $1,528,527
3.2.5. CEO Market Opportunities - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$151,510 Addison 42 825 726 12,053 133 147 -165 26 $100,833

$283,852 Bennin

gton 27 1,357 1,184 22,638 608 44 -530 0 $114,031

$160,534 Caledonia 27 849 815 14,316 121 122 -720 0 $77,370

$126,866 Chittenden 84 1,519 1,407 23,527 200 246 -141 0 $111,485

$1,826 Essex 2 12 11 232 2 1 -50 0 $3,023

$134,837 Franklin 59 824 716 10,899 108 105 -141 0 $100,845

$1,150 Grand Isle 1 5 4 96 0 1 0 0 $1,319

$215,058 Lamoille 23 1,003 871 14,408 1,050 46 215 0 $87,890

$25,194 Oran

g

e 12 211 192 4,220 28 39 -102 0 $25,490

$176,500 Orleans 36 726 637 11,056 231 32 -483 0 $54,551

$16,040 Rutland 33 189 174 2,265 33 39 -246 0 $24,365$36,130 Washin

gton 43 359 329 3,968 54 83 11,864 0 $31,525

$65,130 Windham 45 601 527 9,458 81 81 -104 0 $39,402

$133,902 Windsor 28 2,128 1,844 21,930 302 375 -544 0 $128,994

10,608 9,437 151,065 2,951 1,362 8,852 26 Totals 462 $901,124 $1,528,527
Committed MWh as of 

12/31/02

Committed Measure 

Incentive as of 12/31/02

Participants with 

Committed Projects

 $259,267 28 2,719 

Track

Committed Projects as 

of 12/31/02

Completed Projects 

Year 2002

Completed Projects 

Program to Date

Custom 92 25 222 

Farm 93 93 3

Prescriptive 0 324 717 

3.2.6.2. CEO Market Opportunities Project Counts by Track 

3.2.6.1. CEO Market Opportunities Committed Projects Summary 
3.2.6.3. CEO Market Opportunities Participating Vendors [a]

Vendor Type Lighting Motors HVAC Total

Electrical Supplier/Contractor 70 70

Motor Supplier/Contractor 15 15

HVAC Supplier/Contractor 25 25

Total 70 15 25 110
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 81 nap nap 169 

# participants with audit/analysis [a] 87 nap nap 171 

# of audits/analyses with pending action [a] 0 nap nap 0

# of audits/analyses with installations 60 nap nap 94

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $94,940 nap nap $225,509

 Program Planning 11,600 nap nap 24,649

 Marketing 0 nap nap 0

 Subtotal Administration $106,540 nap nap $250,158

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $81,201 nap nap $166,795

 Services to Trade Allies 0 nap nap 0

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $81,201 nap nap $166,795

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $213,373 nap nap $405,667

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 nap nap 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $213,373 nap nap $405,667

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $401,114 nap nap $822,620

Total Participant Costs $159,312 nap nap $379,438

Total Third Party Costs $0 nap nap $0

Evaluation Costs $0 nap nap $0

Total Program Costs $560,426 nap nap $1,202,058

Total Measure Costs $372,685 nap nap $785,105

Total Cost of Services $81,201 nap nap $166,795

Annualized MWh Savings nap nap 2,246 976 

Lifetime MWh Savings nap nap 29,533 13,481 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings nap nap 343 150

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings nap nap 220 100

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant nap nap 13.289 12.053 

Weighted Lifetime nap nap 13 14 

Loan Activity $0 nap nap nap

Starting in Year 2002, Dairy Farm projects are reported under the CEO Market Opportunities Program.

3.3.2. Dairy Farms Program Summary 
Track

Committed Projects as 

of 12/31/02

Completed Projects Year 

2002

Completed Projects 

Program to Date

New Construction 0 0 16

Retrofit 0 0 158 

3.3.6.1. Dairy Farms Project Counts by Track [a]
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 25 69 nav 91 

# participants with audit/analysis 42 71 nav 112 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 21 24 nav 32

# of audits/analyses with installations 19 51 nav 70

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $212,302 $284,701 $550,701 $497,003

 Program Planning 25,642 50,548 48,999 79,615

 Marketing 48,528 129,781 242,813 178,356

 Subtotal Administration $286,472 $465,030 $842,513 $754,974

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $112,183 $163,548 $351,908 $275,731

 Services to Trade Allies 2,727 72 266 2,799

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $114,910 $163,619 $352,174 $278,530

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $181,769 $478,981 $507,757 $660,751

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $181,769 $478,981 $507,757 $660,751

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $583,151 $1,107,631 $1,702,445 $1,694,254

Total Participant Costs $321,668 $1,072,038 nav $1,393,706

Total Third Party Costs $0 $6,800 nav $6,800

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $904,819 $2,186,469 $1,702,445 $3,094,760

Total Measure Costs $503,437 $1,557,819 $507,757 $2,061,256

Total Cost of Services $114,910 $163,619 $352,174 $278,530

Annualized MWh Savings 4,955 2,277 3,223 7,232 

Lifetime MWh Savings 93,252 39,671 nav 132,923 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 574 616 nav 1,191

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 201 615 nav 816

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 91.090 71.807 nav 79.472

Weighted Lifetime 17 19 nav 18 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.4.2. C&I Emerging Markets Program Summary
3.4.3. C&I Emerging Markets Initiatives - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$8,099 Air Conditionin

g Eff. 2 41 38 606 0 12 0 0 $3,607

$6,703 Desi

gn Assistance 50000000 $17,605

$95,931 Hot Water Fuel Switch 16 196 186 5,878 36 142 -684 182 $20,305

$239,314 Industrial Process Eff. 10 964 911 15,692 69 136 -756 321 $96,985

$192,885 Li

ghtin

g 18 1,368 1,289 19,625 183 199 -551 0 $106,860

$123,526 Motors 5 760 721 9,768 56 75 0 0 $76,375

$88,938 Other Efficienc

y 3 214 203 7,547 24 24 0 0 $32,620

$4,225 Other Fuel Switch 4 29 27 741 6 6 -89 37 $2,999

-$5,117 Other Indirect Activit

y 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,267

$48,564 Refri

geration 5 473 451 7,091 12 16 0 0 $25,244

$50

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 $0

$263,588

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 23 873 828 25,746 227 2 -3,047 0 $86,043

$5,332

Ventilation 1 37 36 559 4 4 0 0 $5,073

4,955 4,690 93,252 616 615 -5,123 540 Totals $478,981 $1,072,038
3.4.4. C&I Emerging Markets Initiatives - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$125,551 Burlin

gton 6 992 944 14,149 8 8 0 0 $54,242

$80,221 Citizens 7 389 366 5,151 63 65 -214 0 $66,875

$437,368 CVPS 26 1,574 1,488 36,798 232 291 -2,232 55 $203,577

$960 Enosbur

g Falls 1 5 4 139 1 1 -14 0 $446

$138,275 Green Mountain 16 718 676 14,696 122 86 -1,772 485 $59,718

$60,250 Jacksonville 2 154 145 4,635 26 36 0 0 $14,964

$68,575 Johnson 1 93 88 2,792 24 0 -331 0 $8,953

$42,358 Ludlow 2 273 259 2,885 30 39 0 0 $23,579

$71,421 Morrisville 4 415 393 5,151 60 59 -42 0 $33,175

$1,050 Orleans 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,065

$23,900 Stowe 1 55 52 1,642 15 2 -174 0 $4,159

$3,774 Swanton 1 255 243 4,269 29 28 -234 0 $5,083

$18,335

VT Marble 1 31 30 945 8 0 -112 0 $3,145

4,955 4,690 93,252 616 615 -5,123 540 Totals 69 $478,981 $1,072,038
3.4.5. C&I Emerging Markets Initiatives - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$189,048 Addison 4 361 340 6,014 20 81 -21 0 $63,679

$51,830 Bennin

gton 5 361 342 7,144 57 42 -455 0 $43,123

$3,620 Caledonia 2 53 48 795 10 11 -71 0 $5,797

$238,177 Chittenden 17 1,386 1,317 25,330 64 154 -409 0 $108,425

$5,000 Essex 10000000 $10,145

$30,724 Franklin 4 321 305 6,140 46 33 -446 55 $16,254

$163,896 Lamoille 6 563 534 9,585 99 62 -546 0 $46,288

$54,142 Orleans 6 345 325 3,853 49 65 -68 0 $50,312

$68,614 Rutland 9 217 206 6,360 54 4 -731 0 $21,516

$112,177 Washin

gton 6 540 507 11,135 88 71 -1,489 485 $41,231

$100,070 Windham 6 416 393 12,220 90 42 -887 0 $41,108

$54,740 Windsor 3 392 373 4,676 40 51 0 0 $31,104

4,955 4,690 93,252 616 615 -5,123 540 Totals 69 $478,981 $1,072,038
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations[a] 622 700 640 1,898 

# participants with audit/analysis[b] 783 858 594 3,222 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 52 812 nap 812

# of audits/analyses with installations 729 538 594 2,480

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $132,359 $178,597 $210,187 $435,330

 Program Planning 46,753 47,807 39,282 118,824

 Marketing 261,456 218,730 389,611 579,082

 Subtotal Administration $440,568 $445,134 $639,080 $1,133,236

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $124,586 $208,152 $160,439 $392,123

 Services to Trade Allies 34,157 70,689 54,486 115,689

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $158,743 $278,841 $214,925 $507,812

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $321,148 $389,484 $467,567 $917,854

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $321,148 $389,484 $467,567 $917,854

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $920,459 $1,113,459 $1,321,572 $2,558,902

Total Participant Costs $381,793 $363,632 nav $986,749

Total Third Party Costs $27,367 $134,411 nav $161,779

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $1,329,619 $1,611,502 $1,321,572 $3,707,430

Total Measure Costs $730,308 $887,527 $467,567 $2,066,382

Total Cost of Services $158,743 $278,841 $214,925 $507,812

Annualized MWh Savings 974 1,334 470 3,026 

Lifetime MWh Savings 17,969 24,339 nav 55,429 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 148 199 nav 456

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 130 178 nav 386

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 1.906 1.565 0.736 1.594 

Weighted Lifetime 18 18 nav 18 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.5.2. Residential New Construction Program Summary 
3.5.3. Residential New Construction - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$75 Air Conditionin

g Eff. 114 22 18 540 0 64 0 0 $127

$38,922 Cookin

g and Laundr

y 452 59 46 796 12 8 371 1,084 $1,775

$0 Desi

gn Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,246

$177,866 Hot Water Efficienc

y 537 0 0 0 0 0 3,090 493 $0

$33,120 Li

ghtin

g 668 1,016 889 19,183 147 85 0 0 $166,891

$69 Other Fuel Switch 82 22 19 672 4 3 -76 0 $3,354

-$97,360 Other Indirect Activit

y 511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $177,143

$7,787 Refri

geration 401 24 20 404 3 3 0 0 $4,639

$186,800

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 593 55 45 1,377 17 0 9,468 0 $0

$16,352

Ventilation 480 137 112 1,368 15 15 44 0 $33,944

1,334 1,149 24,339 199 178 12,897 1,578 Totals $391,119 $363,632
3.5.4. Residential New Construction - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$7,185 Citizens 18 31 27 574 5 3 381 2 $12,291

$161,357 CVPS 276 522 451 9,476 76 75 4,505 341 $129,363

$1,025 Enosbur

g Falls 2 4 3 74 1 0 34 0 $796

$160,342 Green Mountain 332 648 558 11,886 97 87 6,424 1,093 $192,455

$460 Hardwick 1 2 2 42 0 0 34 0 $1,329

$380

H

yde Park 1 2 2 34 0 0 34 0 $994

$905 Morrisville 2 4 4 71 1 0 69 0 $2,384$640 Northfield 1 2 2 49 0 0 18 0 $609

$1,955 Rochester 2 3 3 65 0 2 68 0 $918

$3,136 Stowe 7 15 13 283 2 2 209 23 $8,965

$749 Swanton 2 2 2 35 0 0 27 0 $1,030

$25,498

VT Electric Coo

p 56 97 83 1,750 15 8 1,094 117 $39,986

1,334 1,149 24,339 199 178 12,897 1,578 Totals 700 $391,119 $363,632
3.5.5. Residential New Construction - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$10,810 Addison 21 35 30 627 5 3 307 24 $9,272

$3,499 Bennin

gton 8 14 12 247 2 1 75 1 $3,031

$1,107 Caledonia 4 7 6 131 1 1 69 0 $3,146

$173,086 Chittenden 341 656 564 11,953 99 89 6,789 1,132 $196,461

$150 Essex 1 3 2 53 0 0 0 0 $304

$15,656 Franklin 35 56 48 991 9 5 740 18 $22,927

$2,754 Grand Isle 7 14 12 255 2 1 172 1 $5,170

$11,256 Lamoille 29 60 51 1,091 10 6 658 108 $32,178

$2,895 Oran

g

e 5 8 7 150 1 1 87 0 $1,808

$1,596 Orleans 6 8 7 147 1 1 87 0 $3,614

$43,272 Rutland 61 228 198 4,012 31 22 958 179 $32,943$10,085 Washin

gton 18 27 23 487 4 2 383 16 $9,816

$57,815 Windham 65 100 86 1,967 14 36 1,132 24 $13,666$29,651 Windsor 99 119 102 2,227 19 11 1,441 73 $56,785

1,334 1,149 24,339 199 178 12,897 1,578 Totals 700 $391,119 $363,632
Indicator Quantity - Year 2002

Number of homes enrolled: 2,321

Number of Vermont Energy Star Homes enrolled: 2,021

Number of completed homes: 700

Number of completed Vermont Star and completed Vermont Energy Star Homes: 397

Indicator Quantity - Year 2002

Number of different builders who participated: 72

Number of new builders who participated: 34

Indicator Quantity - Year 2002

Average number of efficient fixtures installed in Vermont Star and Vermont Energy 

Star Homes: 11.66

Average number of efficient fixtures installed in non-Vermont Star or non-Vermont 

Energy Star Homes: 5.50

3.5.6.1. Residential New Construction Home Counts 

3.5.6.2. Residential New Construction Builder Counts 

3.5.6.3. Residential New Construction Lighting Fixtures Installed 
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 27,596 25,688 nav 57,084 

# participants with audit/analysis nap nap nap nap

# of audits/analyses with pending action nap nap nap nap

# of audits/analyses with installations nap nap nap nap

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $280,839 $297,519 $340,135 $893,877

 Program Planning 64,099 61,035 70,046 191,210

 Marketing 214,798 263,736 233,716 683,760

 Subtotal Administration $559,736 $622,290 $643,897 $1,768,847

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $0 $0 $0 $0

 Services to Trade Allies 197,713 175,152 152,303 539,784

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $197,713 $175,152 $152,303 $539,784

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $1,270,658 $846,998 $657,469 $2,962,728

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 609 41,595 609

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $1,270,658 $847,606 $699,064 $2,963,337

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $2,028,108 $1,645,049 $1,495,263 $5,271,968

Total Participant Costs $1,311,447 $1,087,851 nav $3,174,179

Total Third Party Costs $42,628 $51,089 nav $93,717

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $3,382,183 $2,783,988 $1,495,263 $8,539,864

Total Measure Costs $2,624,733 $1,986,546 $699,064 $6,231,233

Total Cost of Services $197,713 $175,152 $152,303 $539,784

Annualized MWh Savings 14,168 12,292 6,139 34,207 

Lifetime MWh Savings 143,015 109,320 nav 335,277 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 2,314 1,971 nav 5,660

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 1,403 1,592 nav 3,788

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 0.479 0.513 nav 0.599 

Weighted Lifetime 9 10 nav 10 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.6.2. Efficient Products Program Summary 
3.6.3. Efficient Products - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$21,195 Air Conditioning Eff. 1,203 65 56 842 0 344 0 0 $35,834

$607,690 Cooking and Laundry 2,767 1,155 854 16,164 227 167 3,881 20,513 $140,773

$444,712 Lighting 21,784 11,039 8,681 91,731 1,740 1,074 0 0 $655,147

$855 Refrigeration 545 33 28 563 4 4 0 0 $13,847

$13,399 Ventilation 87 1 1 20 0 4 0 0 $2,359

12,292 9,621 109,320 1,971 1,592 3,881 20,513 Totals $847,960 $1,087,851
3.6.4. Efficient Products - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$2,001 Barton 70 21 17 170 3 3 7 37 $1,474

$3,616 Burlington 51 63 50 666 9 5 0 0 $4,171

$44,327 Citizens 1,126 442 346 4,133 69 59 154 814 $32,434

$455,186 CVPS 11,484 5,439 4,254 46,541 877 713 1,772 9,368 $365,392

$3,715 Enosburg Falls 189 83 65 687 13 9 13 67 $5,504

$369,201 Green Mountain 7,753 3,784 2,961 34,837 607 501 1,245 6,579 $267,650

$14,956 Hardwick 450 202 159 1,872 32 24 39 207 $14,277

$2,966 Hyde Park 140 60 47 530 9 10 4 22 $4,177

$1,276 Jacksonville 17 6 4 62 1 1 6 30 $515$1,123 Johnson 57 25 20 192 4 4 1 7 $1,676$5,224 Ludlow 180 110 87 849 18 16 8 44 $6,224$6,520 Lyndonville 289 104 82 876 16 11 13 67 $7,191

$14,884 Morrisville 375 196 154 1,753 31 27 55 289 $13,807

$4,709 Northfield 210 116 91 962 18 14 10 52 $7,162

$606 Orleans 31 12 9 103 2 1 0 0 $756

$220 Readsboro 3 1 1 8 0 0 1 7 $70

$1,637 Rochester 32 13 10 139 2 1 8 44 $1,102

$15,279 Stowe 235 175 137 1,561 30 27 50 266 $9,361

$9,762 Swanton 327 149 116 1,319 24 19 42 222 $10,226

$73,277 VT Electric Coop 1,399 623 487 5,633 100 76 293 1,547 $45,876

$1,953 VT Marble 51 30 23 236 5 5 8 44 $1,834

$55,415 Washington Electric 1,219 640 502 6,191 100 67 151 799 $47,080

12,292 9,621 109,320 1,971 1,592 3,881 20,513 Totals 25,688 $847,960 $1,087,851
3.6.5. Efficient Products - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$65,974 Addison 1,701 782 612 6,646 126 100 263 1,391 $52,592$54,272 Bennington 1,429 634 496 5,353 103 94 237 1,251 $43,153

$33,431 Caledonia 1,243 562 442 4,973 89 64 80 422 $37,761

$261,696 Chittenden 4,767 2,068 1,613 18,561 337 316 1,037 5,483 $151,315

$3,563 Essex 138 57 45 484 9 6 7 37 $3,509

$74,964 Franklin 2,012 923 722 8,342 146 115 300 1,584 $66,359$15,635 Grand Isle 335 128 100 1,212 20 17 60 318 $9,694

$51,889 Lamoille 1,212 630 493 5,623 102 89 183 969 $42,140$51,636 Orange 1,200 599 470 5,873 95 71 162 858 $43,976

$28,320 Orleans 694 265 207 2,340 43 38 98 518 $18,574

$108,043 Rutland 3,068 1,609 1,259 13,089 261 216 427 2,257 $101,819

$160,332 Washington 3,599 2,051 1,609 19,793 323 229 389 2,057 $144,580

$78,097 Windham 1,760 818 640 6,839 133 92 241 1,273 $51,915

$100,000 Windsor 2,536 1,168 914 10,191 187 146 396 2,094 $80,572

12,292 9,621 109,320 1,971 1,592 3,881 20,513 Totals 25,694 $847,960 $1,087,851
Indicator Quantity

Number of rebates for efficient clothes washers: 2,772 

Number of rebates for CFLs: 95,665 

Number of rebates for efficient hardwired fixtures: 10,329 

Number of rebates for torchieres: 4,890 

Indicator Quantity

Number of participating lighting dealers: 140

Number of participating appliance dealers: 60

3.6.6.1. Efficient Products Product Counts

3.6.6.2. Efficient Products Retailer Counts 
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations[a] 1,657 1,254 nav 2,579 

# participants with audit/analysis 808 1,126 nav 3,514 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 1,963 1,024 nav 1,043

# of audits/analyses with installations 1,060 1,402 nav 2,344

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $262,368 $356,187 $364,688 $813,615

 Program Planning 42,992 19,002 21,267 107,418

 Marketing 72,577 88,513 128,399 207,678

 Subtotal Administration $377,937 $463,702 $514,353 $1,128,711

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $197,901 $269,012 $311,265 $609,670

 Services to Trade Allies 2,784 902 1,044 6,367

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $200,684 $269,914 $312,309 $616,037

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $257,528 $400,403 $720,295 $961,362

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $257,528 $400,403 $720,295 $961,362

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $836,149 $1,134,019 $1,546,957 $2,706,110

Total Participant Costs $785,195 $1,003,891 nav $2,556,843

Total Third Party Costs $114,012 $117,345 nav $288,887

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $1,735,356 $2,255,256 $1,546,957 $5,551,840

Total Measure Costs $1,156,735 $1,521,640 $720,295 $3,807,092

Total Cost of Services $200,684 $269,914 $312,309 $616,037

Annualized MWh Savings 1,822 2,253 1,998 6,234 

Lifetime MWh Savings 39,488 46,484 nav 140,347 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 334 360 nav 1,243

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 164 201 nav 525

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 1.360 1.453 nav 2.417 

Weighted Lifetime 21 22 nav 23 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.7.2. Low Income Multifamily (REEP) Program Summary 
3.7.3. Low Income Multi-Family (REEP) - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$0 Air Conditionin

g Eff. 100 1 1 6 0 2 0 0 $254

$21,726 Cookin

g and Laundr

y 216 4 4 58 1 1 504 1,079 $1,674

$60,486 Hot Water Efficienc

y 409 54 46 483 12 7 4,304 6,978 $754

$31,397 Hot Water Fuel Switch 108 297 253 8,791 49 31 -1,070 0 $38,148

$76,007 Li

ghtin

g 1,145 1,196 1,070 21,815 160 101 -6 0 $221,394

$1,189 Motors 40 7 6 100 2 0 0 0 $3,589$1,202 Other Fuel Switch 118 202 171 6,048 40 29 -635 0 $8,291

$21,000 Other Indirect Activit

y 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,015

$42,691 Refri

geration 753 126 108 2,145 15 15 0 0 $34,346

$633,668

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 396 8 7 242 3 0 9,342 0 $288

$62,554

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 47 228 194 6,362 65 0 -773 0 $59,365

$51,964

Ventilation 407 133 114 435 15 15 726 0 $31,191

$7 Water Conservation 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $0

2,253 1,972 46,484 360 201 12,393 8,071 Totals $400,309 $1,003,891
3.7.4. Low Income Multi-Family (REEP) - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$55,943 Citizens 62 245 209 6,170 53 15 951 178 $74,118

$775,442 CVPS 988 945 829 16,213 135 90 7,364 4,938 $114,828$172,314 Green Mountain 565 1,056 928 24,003 172 94 4,077 2,955 $209,318

$192 Johnson 19 4 4 83 1 0 0 0 $1,775

$0 Morrisville 23 2 2 15 0 0 0 0 $270

2,253 1,972 46,484 360 201 12,392 8,071 Totals 1,657 $400,309 $1,003,891
3.7.5. Low Income Multi-Family (REEP) - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$828 Addison 6 4 3 63 0 0 4 14 $1,116

$62,296 Bennin

gton 189 137 118 2,391 16 11 538 664 $17,536

$195,406 Caledonia 152 121 110 2,365 19 12 1,834 486 $25,090$100,462 Chittenden 373 808 714 17,671 121 74 3,241 2,745 $153,769

$9,905 Essex 12 23 19 578 4 2 169 0 $4,011

$46,539 Franklin 82 207 177 5,087 47 11 844 203 $69,137

$1,382 Lamoille 89 13 12 176 2 1 28 0 $5,554

$13,150 Oran

g

e 53 36 31 676 5 4 230 105 $5,975

-$100 Orleans 5 18 15 529 3 2 -53 0 $1,871

$16,266 Rutland 305 101 86 1,901 14 9 -39 0 $5,002

$52,398 Washin

gton 175 296 255 7,048 56 24 1,106 576 $49,785

$488,380 Windham 180 420 373 5,909 62 42 4,697 3,279 $46,145

$16,980 Windsor 36 70 59 2,091 12 8 -207 0 $15,319

2,253 1,972 46,484 360 201 12,392 8,071 Totals 1,657 $400,309 $1,003,891
Committed MWh as of 

12/31/02

Committed Measure 

Incentive as of 12/31/02

Participants with 

Committed Projects

1,645 $356,558 18 

Track

Committed Projects as of 

12/31/02

Completed Projects Year 

2002

Completed Projects 

Program to Date

New Construction 7 9 2

Retrofit/Rehab 62 16 108 

3.7.6.2. Low Income Multifamily Project Counts 

3.7.6.1. Low Income Multifamily Committed Projects Summary 
Unique Utility Account Number Year 2002 Unique Utility Account Number Program to Date

 1,019 571 

3.7.6.3. Low Income Multifamily Utility Account Counts
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 941 3,136 1,053 4,385 

# participants with audit/analysis[a] 953 1,048 nap 2,515

# of audits/analyses with pending action[b] nap nap nap nap

# of audits/analyses with installations 938 1,032 nap 2,450

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $139,179 $230,573 $266,974 $424,468

 Program Planning 21,163 27,716 34,006 57,853

 Marketing 36,094 85,723 76,098 130,318

 Subtotal Administration $196,435 $344,012 $377,078 $612,639

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $152,895 $207,523 $168,535 $390,770

 Services to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $152,895 $207,523 $168,535 $390,770

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $395,344 $683,584 $731,003 $1,124,865

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0000

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $395,344 $683,584 $731,003 $1,124,865

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $744,674 $1,235,119 $1,276,616 $2,128,274

Total Participant Costs $0 $9,324 nav $9,324

Total Third Party Costs $76,094 $71,641 nav $149,139

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $820,768 $1,316,084 $1,276,616 $2,286,737

Total Measure Costs $471,438 $764,549 $731,003 $1,283,328

Total Cost of Services $152,895 $207,523 $168,535 $390,770

Annualized MWh Savings 1,689 2,262 1,647 4,345 

Lifetime MWh Savings 31,152 35,444 nav 69,850 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 320 366 nav 751

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 145 215 nav 399

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 1.794 0.721 1.565 0.991

Weighted Lifetime 16 18 nav 16 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.8.2. Low Income Single Family Program Summary 
3.8.3. Low Income Single Family - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$70 Hot Water Efficienc

y 475 255 218 1,944 43 32 64 2,169 $20,199

$9,254 Hot Water Fuel Switch 106 606 517 18,190 102 65 -2,108 0 $140,368

$0 Li

ghtin

g 3,084 718 614 7,252 110 58 0 0 $255,115

$0 Refri

geration 326 496 425 2,480 61 58 0 0 $192,963

$0

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 18 185 158 5,560 51 0 -649 0 $71,410

$0

Ventilation 1 1 1 18 0 3 0 0 $488

2,262 1,934 35,444 366 215 -2,692 2,169 Totals $680,544 $9,324
3.8.4. Low Income Single Family - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$1,228 Barton 53 75 64 1,621 13 7 -164 30 $19,656

$0 Burlington 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6

$1,648 Citizens 359 298 254 5,254 54 27 -456 324 $86,027$3,114 CVPS 1,499 1,032 883 15,886 161 98 -1,179 994 $310,308

$481 Enosburg Falls 35 67 57 1,426 11 7 -144 59 $19,142

$346 Green Mountain 547 296 253 3,757 50 27 -227 356 $94,235

$612 Hardwick 72 62 53 985 10 6 -60 65 $21,472

$0 Hyde Park 17 16 14 273 3 2 -27 5 $4,531

$0 Jacksonville 10 4 4 28 1 0 0 0 $1,377

$109 Johnson 16 41 35 926 9 3 -80 9 $12,414

$0 Ludlow 18 5 4 30 1 0 0 0 $1,112$0 Lyndonville 92 85 73 1,465 13 9 -121 87 $24,116

$0 Morrisville 48 19 16 155 3 2 0 9 $6,893

$499 Northfield 30 28 24 500 4 3 -41 0 $9,697

$0 Orleans 14 5 4 23 1 0 0 0 $1,284$0 Readsboro 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6

$625 Rochester 6 11 10 239 2 1 -17 0 $4,329

$0 Stowe 41160000 $314

$0 Swanton 42 16 14 112 2 2 0 41 $4,635

$663 VT Electric Coop 170 146 125 2,172 23 15 -162 151 $38,879

$0 VT Marble 60040000 $299

$0 Washington Electric 96 54 46 581 8 5 -15 38 $19,813

2,262 1,934 35,444 366 215 -2,692 2,169 Totals 3,136 $680,544 $9,324
3.8.5. Low Income Single Family - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$819 Addison 160 129 110 1,802 20 16 -76 337 $33,332$409 Bennin

gton 230 137 117 2,003 23 12 -171 0 $54,050

$612 Caledonia 251 163 139 2,840 26 17 -222 255 $48,977

$288 Chittenden 211 160 137 2,541 22 13 -193 165 $43,632

$467 Essex 72 49 42 764 8 5 -67 36 $14,871

$1,286 Franklin 287 253 217 4,231 41 25 -361 267 $68,984

$0 Grand Isle 43 28 24 459 5 3 -32 50 $7,081

$109 Lamoille 140 127 109 2,026 21 11 -138 51 $39,768

$0 Oran

g

e 182 98 84 821 14 10 -14 94 $28,646

$2,408 Orleans 328 320 274 5,960 57 29 -559 231 $90,322

$1,457 Rutland 435 270 231 4,182 40 27 -275 322 $95,206

$845 Washin

gton 297 170 145 2,102 25 17 -115 76 $55,909

$0 Windham 232 182 156 3,132 36 13 -258 154 $51,417

$625 Windsor 269 177 151 2,582 27 16 -212 129 $48,351

2,262 1,934 35,444 366 215 -2,692 2,169 Totals 3,137 $680,544 $9,324
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 88 537 540 617 

# participants with audit/analysis 98 517 nap 615

# of audits/analyses with pending action nap nap nap nap

# of audits/analyses with installations 88 468 nap 547

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $61,726 $145,940 $140,520 $207,665

 Program Planning 7,685 14,089 22,333 25,263

 Marketing 8,083 40,596 40,737 48,679

 Subtotal Administration $77,493 $200,624 $203,590 $281,607

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $32,613 $170,875 $125,511 $203,488

 Services to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $32,613 $170,875 $125,511 $203,488

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $34,237 $230,934 $301,613 $265,171

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 00

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $34,237 $230,934 $301,613 $265,171

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $144,343 $602,434 $630,714 $750,266

Total Participant Costs $48,987 $400,709 nav $449,936

Total Third Party Costs $6,060 $13,990 nav $20,050

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $199,391 $1,017,133 $630,714 $1,220,253

Total Measure Costs $89,285 $645,633 $301,613 $735,158

Total Cost of Services $32,613 $170,875 $125,511 $203,488

Annualized MWh Savings 265 1,784 1,300 2,049 

Lifetime MWh Savings 6611 48,286 nav 54,897 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 59 403 nav 462

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 12 98 nav 110

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 3.010 3.322 2.408 3.321

Weighted Lifetime 25 27 nav 27 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 $0

3.9.2. Residential Emerging Markets Program Summary
3.9.3. Residential Emerging Markets Initiatives - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$0 Hot Water Efficienc

y 72 20 19 131 3 2 7 87 $1,815

$118,992 Hot Water Fuel Switch 171 736 697 22,078 126 80 -2,788 0 $70,388

$0 Li

ghtin

g 417 176 167 1,034 27 14 0 0 $39,926

$3,648 Refri

geration 7 9 9 45 1 1 0 0 $1,233

$2,291

S

pace Heat Efficienc

y 1 4 4 56 1 0 0 0 $101

$275,778

S

pace Heat Fuel Switch 83 840 794 24,943 245 0 -2,925 0 $112,838

1,784 1,689 48,286 403 98 -5,706 87 Totals $226,301 $400,709
3.9.4. Residential Emerging Markets Initiatives - Utility Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs Utility

$3,556 Barton 10 19 18 471 3 2 -59 0 $3,519

$55,884 Burlin

gton 81 409 387 12,205 92 28 -1,574 0 $30,989

$33,943 Citizens 43 145 137 3,948 33 9 -458 12 $21,709

$144,138 CVPS 167 440 417 10,967 104 18 -1,219 14 $60,371

$1,756 Enosbur

g Falls 6 12 12 305 2 1 -36 4 $1,881

$104,405 Green Mountain 144 525 497 14,408 115 25 -1,686 20 $69,961

$0 Hardwick 10 8 8 46 1 1 0 6 $1,625

$720

H

yde Park 3 6 6 131 1 1 -13 4 $934

$20,845 Ludlow 5 60 56 1,770 17 2 -205 0 $9,803

$3,905

L

yndonville 29 39 37 783 6 4 -88 11 $6,207

$323 Morrisville 3 8 7 216 1 1 -31 0 $377

$914 Northfield 1 8 7 220 1 1 -28 4 $718

$18,613 Orleans 12 55 52 1,497 13 3 -166 12 $10,502

$910 Stowe 2 5 5 132 1 1 -13 0 $911

$10,797 Swanton 17 44 42 1,179 11 2 -130 0 $6,590

$0

VT Electric Coo

p 41170000 $206

1,784 1,689 48,286 403 98 -5,706 87 Totals 537 $226,301 $400,709
3.9.5. Residential Emerging Markets Initiatives - County Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs County

$1,624 Addison 8 14 14 329 4 0 -35 0 $1,510

$45,932 Bennin

gton 21 134 127 3,556 34 3 -434 0 $16,616

$12,315 Caledonia 66 86 82 1,623 16 7 -170 25 $13,501

$140,562 Chittenden 209 846 801 24,296 188 51 -3,002 8 $86,276

$0 Essex 15 8 8 49 1 1 0 0 $1,952

$27,909 Franklin 49 112 106 2,896 25 7 -315 12 $18,373

$2,562 Grand Isle 4 13 12 351 3 1 -35 0 $2,071$1,953 Lamoille 16 23 22 507 4 2 -57 4 $3,283

$0 Oran

g

e 21160000 $229

$39,213 Orleans 50 163 154 4,344 36 11 -514 16 $26,326

$10,998 Rutland 30 74 70 1,837 15 5 -190 0 $11,087

$14,176 Washin

gton 12 57 54 1,545 9 3 -184 6 $8,688

$65,874 Windham 33 109 103 2,829 30 3 -308 4 $16,735$37,590 Windsor 22 144 136 4,117 39 4 -463 12 $19,653

1,784 1,689 48,286 403 98 -5,706 87 Totals 537 $226,301 $400,709

Appendices

4.2. CUSTOMER CREDIT PROGRAM 

4.2.1. NARRATIVE

The Customer Credit program (CCP) provides an alternative program path for large

businesses that meet program eligibility criteria. The program enables customers with the

capability and resources to identify, analyze, and undertake efficiency projects to selfimplement energy efficiency measures with financial assistance from Efficiency Vermont

(EVT). CCP customers can apply for financial incentives for any retrofit or marketdriven project that saves electrical energy and passes the Vermont societal costeffectiveness test. Once a customer elects to participate in CCP, it is no longer eligible to

participate in other EVT programs.

All projects must be customer initiated. In addition, the customer or its contractors must

complete all technical analysis. Customers can receive cash incentives capped at 70% of

their projected two-year contribution to the statewide energy efficiency fund at any time.

Customers can draw on contributions from the current year and either the previous or

ensuing year. Market-driven projects are eligible for incentives equal to 100% of the

incremental measure cost. For retrofit projects, customers can receive incentives that

reduce the customer payback time to 18 months.

Eligible Market

To be eligible for CCP, customers must:

• never have accepted cash incentives from any Vermont utility Demand Side

Management (DSM) program;

• show a corporate commitment to energy efficiency by participation in the United

States Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Wise program, or currently active

similar program as determined by the PSB; and

• have ISO 14001 certification.
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Program to 

Date

Program Costs

 Administration

 Implementation $27,214 $53,209 $70,735 $104,075

 Program Planning 11,406 8,500 7,405 29,217

 Marketing 0 0 0 0

 sub-Total Administration $38,620 $61,709 $78,140 $133,292

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $0 $0 $0 $0

 Services to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 sub-Total Implementation Costs $0 $0 $0 $0

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $256,009 $426,893 $556,503 $851,883

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 0

 sub-Total Incentive Costs $256,009 $426,893 $556,503 $851,883

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs $294,629 $488,602 $634,643 $985,174

Total Participant Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Third Party Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav $0

Total Program Costs $294,629 $488,602 $634,643 $985,174

Total # Participants 1 1 nav 1

Total Measure Costs $256,009 $426,893 $556,503 $851,883

Total Cost of Services $0 $0 $0 $0

Annualized MWh Savings 595 2,194 2,016 3,536 

Lifetime MWh Savings 8,923 28,603 nav 48,721 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 252 nav 511

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 118 251 nav 509

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 2,194 595 nav 3,536 

Weighted Lifetime 13 15 nav 14 

4.2.2. Customer Credit Program Summary
4.2.3. Customer Credit - End Use Breakdown

# of

Participants

Net

MWH

Saved

Gross

 MWH

Saved

Net

Lifetime

 MWH

Saved

Net

Winter

KW

Saved

Net

Summer

KW

 Saved

Net

 Other 

Fuel

 MMBTU

Net

Water

 CCF

 Saved

Incentives

Paid

Participant

Costs End Use

$0 Motors 1 2,194 1,884 28,603 252 251 0 0 $426,893

2,194 1,884 28,603 252 251 0 0 Totals $426,893 $0
2002

Lifetime 

(Present Value)

Avoided Cost of Electricity nap $1,024,714

Fossil Fuel Savings (Costs) $0 $0

Water Savings (Costs) $0 $0

Total $0 $1,024,714

Savings at Generation

Gross Net Net

Annualized Energy Savings (MWh): Total 1,884 1,884 2,194

 Winter on peak 415 415 497

 Winter off peak 208 208 239

 Summer on peak 601 601 709

 Summer off peak 660 660 750

Coincident Demand Savings (kW)

 Winter 221 221 252

 Shoulder 221 221 249

 Summer 221 221 251

Gross Net Net Lifetime Savings

Annualized Water Savings (ccf) 0 0 0

Annualized fuel savings (increase) MMBtu 0 0 0

 LP 0 0 0

 NG 0 0 0

 Oil/Kerosene 0 0 0

 Wood 0 0 0

 Solar 0 0 0

 Other 0 0 0

Annualized savings (increase) in O&M ($) $0 $0 $0

Savings at meter

4.2.4. Customer Credit Total Resource Benefits 
Prior Year

Actual Year 

2002

Projected 

Year 2002

Estimated 

Year 2003

Program to 

Date

# participants with installations 30,972 32,307 nav nap 67,841 

# participants with audit/analysis 3,482 3,555 nav nap 11,022 

# of audits/analyses with pending action 2,250 2,004 nav nap 2,084 

# of audits/analyses with installations 3,139 3,678 nav nap 8,487 

Program Costs

 Administration

 General $91,044 $94,751 $205,080 $136,902 $275,412

 Implementation 1,849,728 2,324,184 2,570,618 nap 5,568,232

 Program Planning 368,585 324,156 338,217 nap 1,006,327

 Marketing 949,524 1,367,073 1,736,534 nap 2,842,028

 IT Development 256,431 300,327 370,076 397,082 695,248

 Subtotal Administration $3,515,312 $4,410,491 $5,220,526 $533,984 $10,387,246

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants $1,199,898 $1,682,223 $1,965,608 nap $3,606,623

 Services to Trade Allies 250,072 255,827 219,623 nap 700,909

 Subtotal Implementation Costs $1,449,971 $1,938,050 $2,185,231 nap $4,307,533

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants $3,837,371 $4,633,232 $5,187,506 nap $10,688,108

 Incentives to Trade Allies 0 609 41,595 nap 609

 Subtotal Incentive Costs $3,837,371 $4,633,841 $5,229,100 nap $10,688,717

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs [a] $8,802,654 $10,982,382 $12,634,857 $13,310,461 $25,383,495

Total Participant Costs $5,122,443 $5,831,679 nav nap $14,495,202

Total Third Party Costs $383,656 $513,229 nav nap $955,819

Evaluation Costs $0 $0 nav nap $0

Total Program Costs $14,308,754 $17,327,291 $12,634,857 nap $40,834,516

Total Measure Costs $9,343,470 $10,978,749 $5,229,100 nap $26,139,738

Total Cost of Services $1,449,971 $1,938,050 $2,185,231 nap $4,307,533

Annualized MWh Savings 37,489 40,557 26,094 nap 101,586 

Lifetime MWh Savings 539,965 581,308 nav nap 1,462,686 

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 6,489 7,467 nav nap 19,403

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 4,278 4,996 nav nap 11,435

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 1.210 1.255 nav nap 1.497

Weighted Lifetime 14 14 nav nap 14 

Loan Activity $0 $0 $0 nap $0

Budget and MWh Savings projections for 2003 include MultiFamily in Commercial & Industrial Energy Services. 

Costs and MWh Savings for 2000, 2001 and 2002 include Multifamily in Residential Energy Services.

4.2.5. Efficiency Vermont Annual Summary 2002 plus Customer Credit
4.3. DEFINITIONS AND END NOTES

4.3.1. ANNUAL REPORT TABLES OVERVIEW

Definitions for items in the Annual Report tables are provided in section 4.3.2. below. End notes

for specific items in the tables are provided by table in section 4.3.3. below.

Data items in which the data is not available is indicated by “nav”. Data items in which the data is

not applicable is indicted by “nap”.

Efficiency Vermont (EVT) expenditure, budget and savings values provided in Section 3 do not

include the Customer Credit program, which is discussed separately in Section 4.2.

Except where noted, EVT expenditure data in this report were incurred during the period January 1,

2002 through December 31, 2002. Measures savings data is primarily for measures installed during

the same period. 

The count of cumulative participants is not the sum of participants in 2000, 2001 and 2002. This is

because the count of participants is the count of unique premises. If the same customer participates

in all three years or in more than one program, this customer is only counted once.

In the Annual Report 2002 tables, total Efficiency Vermont costs include a non-performance-based

fee of 1.45% as specified by the EVT contract.

Where “Incentives to Participants” appears in program summary Tables 2.3.1., 3.0.1., 3.1.2., 3.2.2.,

3.3.2., 3.4.2., 3.5.2., 3.6.2., 3.7.2., 3.8.2., 3.9.2., and 4.2.2., it is based on financial data from

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation's accounting system, MAS90. “Incentives Paid”, as it

appears in all other tables, is based on data entered into EVT’s FastTrack tracking system and

adjusted for the non-performance-based fee cited above. Where there are differences, they are due

to year-end timing differences.

4.3.2. DEFINITIONS

The tables that appear in EVT Annual Report 2002 were developed as a collaborative effort

between EVT, the Vermont Department of Public Service, the Energy Efficiency Utility Contract

Administrator and Burlington Electric Department. Two major table formats, program summary

and breakdown tables are used throughout the report. The definitions of the data reported in these

tables are provided on the pages that follow. Data items identified with a number and parenthesis

are identified in the narrative that follows.
 Figure 4.3.2.1. – Template for Program Summary Report 

Prior

Year

Actual 

2002

Projected

2002

Estimated

2003

 Program

to Date

(1) (2) (3) (4)

# participants with installations (5)

# participants with audit/analysis (6)

# of audits/analyses with pending action (7)

# of audits/analyses with installations (8)

Program Costs

 Administration

 General (11)

 Implementation (12)

 Program Planning (13)

 Marketing (14)

 IT Development (15)

 sub-Total Administration (10)

 Implementation Costs

 Services to Participants (17)

 Services to Trade Allies (18)

 sub-Total Implementation Costs (16)

 Incentive Costs

 Incentives to Participants (20)

 Incentives to Trade Allies (21)

 sub-Total Incentive Costs (19)

Total Efficiency Vermont Costs (9)

Total Participant Costs (22)

Total Third Party Costs (23)

Evaluation Costs (24)

Total Program Costs (25)

Total Measure Costs (26)

Total Cost of Services (27)

Annualized MWh Savings (28)

Lifetime MWh Savings (29)

Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings (30)

Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings (31)

Annualized MWh Savings/Participant (32)

Weighted Lifetime (33)

Loan Activity (44)
Figure 4.3.2.2. – Breakdown Report Template

Footnotes for the report table templates:

(1) Activity for the current reporting year. For savings this figure will be the estimated savings for measures actually

implemented and verified for the current report period. Savings are reported in MWh, at generation and net of all

approved adjustment factors, except as otherwise noted.

(2) Estimated portion of the three year savings and costs projected for the current report year. Projections for categories

identified as (5) to (8), (22) to (27) and (29) to (33) will be provided if available. 

(3) Estimated Year 2003 data is presented for informational purposes only. The 2003-2005 Efficiency Vermont

contract is based on three-year cumulative budget and savings goals, therefore EVT does not have annual budget or

annual contract goals.

Estimated Year 2003 data is available only on the following reports: Program Summary plus CC; Program Summary,

overall (no CC); Program Summary, C&I (no CC); Program Summary, Residential. Estimated Year 2003 is not

available on individual program summary reports. Since EVT Services under the 2003-2005 Contract do not

correspond with EVT Programs under the 2000-2002 Contract, 2003 estimates at the program level will not be

provided in the 2002 Annual Report. 

(4) Program to date activity. For participation [(5) to (8)], the program-to-date column counts each customer (premise)

only once, regardless of participation in previous years. The executive summary counts each customer (premise) only

once, even if a customer was served by more than one program. 

(5) Number of customers with verified installations during the current report period. “Customer” is defined as a unique

premise as defined by the utility, with one exception. For master-metered, multifamily buildings, “customer” is defined

as a dwelling unit.

(6) Number of customers who had analyses or audits completed during the current report period.

(7) Number of customers who had analyses or audits during the current report period and are actively involved in the

process of selecting and installing efficiency measures, but have not actually completed any installations. The number

of customers reported in this category should be a subset of the customers counted in (6) above. The “program to date”

column should reflect activity related to all participants with analyses/audits, regardless of when the analysis was

conducted. 

(8) Number of customers who had analyses or audits during the current report period and have completed one or more

installations during the current report period. The number of customers reported in this category should be a subset of

the customers counted in (6) above. The “program to date” column should reflect activity related to all participants

with analyses/audits, regardless of when the analysis was conducted. 

(9) Total costs incurred by Efficiency Vermont during the current report period. All costs in nominal dollars, (10) +

(16) + (19).

X.X.X. Breakdown Template

# of 

Participants 

Net 

MWH 

Saved

 Gross 

MWH 

Saved

Net 

Lifetime 

MWH 

Saved

Net Winter 

KW Saved

Net 

Summer 

KW Saved

Net Other 

Fuel 

MMBTU 

Saved

Net 

Water 

CCF 

Saved

Participant 

Incentives 

Paid

Participant 

Costs

(34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43)
(10) Subtotal of all administrative costs detailed in the categories below, (11) + (12) + (13) + (14)+(15).

(11) Costs include general management, budgeting, financial management and management of the requirements of the

EVT contract.

(12) Implementation management and administrative costs include program management and administrative costs

directly related to implementation.

(13) Costs related to program design and planning, program screening and other similar functions.

(14) Costs related to marketing, outreach and business development.

(15) IT development and maintenance costs are not broken out by program. This category will be included only in

Table 2.3.1.

(16) Subtotal reflecting total implementation costs, (17) + (18).

(17) Costs related to conducting audits or analyses, preparing the package of efficiency measures, contract management

and post-project follow-up.

(18) Costs related to educational or other support services provided to entities other than individual program

participants, such as trade allies, manufacturers, wholesalers, builders, and architects.

(19) Subtotal reflecting total incentive costs, (20) + (21).

(20) Direct payments made to participants to defray the costs of specific efficiency measures. If a program employs a

shared savings mechanism or loan system, this category should include the utility share of the measure and carrying

costs projected over the payment period, net of all projected participant payments.

(21) Incentives paid to manufacturers, wholesalers, builders, or other stakeholders.

(22) Total costs incurred by participants related to EVT or utility activities during the current report period. This

category includes the participant contribution to the capital costs of installed measures and to specific DSM-related

services, such as technical assistance or energy ratings.

(23) Total costs incurred by third parties, i.e., entities other than EVT, utilities and participants, directly related to EVT

or utility DSM activities during the current report period. This category includes contributions by third parties to the

capital costs of installed measures and to specific DSM-related services, such as technical assistance or energy ratings.

Note: The costs reflected in footnotes (16), (19), (22), (23) are equal to the costs in footnotes (26) and (27), i.e.,

implementation (services) costs plus EVT incentives plus participant costs plus third party costs will be equal to total

cost of services plus total cost of measures.

(24) Evaluation costs, excluding tracking and reporting expenditures. 

(25) Total program costs, (9) + (22) + (23) + (24).

(26) Total capital expenditures incurred by the installation of DSM measures, including all EVT, utility, participant and

third party costs.

(27) Total expenditures associated with the delivery of direct services to participants and trade allies, including all

EVT, utility, participant and third party costs.

(28) Annualized MWh savings at generation and net of all approved adjustment factors (e.g., free riders, spill over) for

measures installed and verified during the current report period.
(29) The lifetime estimated MWh savings for measures installed and verified during the current reporting year, at

generation and net of all approved factors. (Estimated annualized savings times the life of the measure).

(30) Estimated impact of measures at time of winter system peak, at generation, net of adjustment factors.

(31) Estimated impact of measures at time of summer system peak, at generation, net of adjustment factors.

(32) Annualized MWh savings per participant, net at generation, i.e, (28) / (5).

(33) Average lifetime, in years, of measures in the program weighted by savings, i.e., (29)/(28).

(34) Number of customers with verified installations of measures within the end use, utility or county grouping.

(35)The total annualized MWh saved, at generation, net of adjustment factors. This will add up to the savings reported

in the line item identified as (28).

(36)The total annualized MWh saved, gross at the customer meter.

(37)The total lifetime MWh saved, at generation, net of adjustment factors, adds up to the savings reported in the line

item identified as (29).

(38)The total winter coincident KW, at generation, net of adjustment factors, adds up to the savings reported in the line

item identified as (30).

(39)The total summer coincident KW, at generation, net of adjustment factors, adds up to the savings reported in the

line item identified as (31).

(40)Total MMBtu estimated to be saved (positive) or used (negative) for alternative fuels as a result of measures

installed in the end use.

(41)Total water saved (positive) or used (negative) due to measures installed in the end use.

(42)Total incentive costs for measures installed, are approximately the same as those reported in the line item

identified as (20). See paragraph 7 of 4.3.1 for explanation.

(43)Total participant costs for measures installed, should add up to the costs reported in the line item identified as (22).

(44)Utility or EVT loans provided to customers. When there are loans, EVT will provide a Utility Loan Activity

Summary (a-e) for customer loan (shared savings) activity including :

 a. utility loans made during the current reporting year (dollars).

 b. utility loans repaid during the current reporting year including interest (dollars).

 c. (a-b) net cash flow for/from loans during the current reporting year (dollars).

 d. loans written off during the current reporting year (dollars).

 e. net loans outstanding as of December 31 of the current reporting year (dollars).
4.3.3. TABLE END NOTES

2.2. PROGRESS REPORT

[a] See 4.3.1. Annual Report Tables Overview above.

[b] Total program cost does not include general Efficiency Vermont administration or information

technology (IT) development costs.

2.3.1. PROGRAM SUMMARY OVERALL

[a] Total Efficiency Vermont costs include a non-performance-based fee of 1.45% as specified by

the EVT contract.

2.3.2. TOTAL RESOURCE BENEFITS, OVERALL

[a] Net lifetime water and fossil fuel savings are the sum of the product of net annual measure

water or fossil fuel savings multiplied by the measure lifetime.

2.3.6.2. CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS BY CUSTOMER SECTOR

[a] Data in this table includes EVT program MWh savings and Total Resource Benefit savings.

2.3.6.3. CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS BY COUNTY

[a] Data in this table includes EVT programs and Customer Credit MWh savings and Total

Resource Benefit savings.

2.3.6.4. CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION BY UTILITY SERVICE TERRITORY

[a] Data in this table includes EVT programs and Customer Credit MWh savings and Total

Resource Benefit savings.

[b] The charges shown exclude direct repayment to utilities for uncollectibles, pre-Efficiency

Vermont implementation costs and pre-Efficiency Vermont incentive costs.

[c] BED administers its own programs and reports separately to the Vermont Public Service Board.

The charges paid by BED in the table represent the amount of funds that BED directs to Efficiency

Vermont Emerging Markets programs, the Efficient Products Program (light bulbs) and toward a

portion of the Vermont Department of Public Service evaluation costs.

3.0.2. CEO PROGRAM SUMMARY

[a] Program budgets for the Commercial & Industrial New Construction and Commercial &

Industrial Market Opportunities Programs are prepared as a single budget, under the name of

Commercial Energy Opportunities (CEO). 

3.2.6.3. CEO PARTICIPATING VENDORS

[a] Participating CEO vendors are defined as trade allies who have received materials from EVT

and who distribute prescriptive measure forms for efficient lighting, motors and HVAC equipment

to prospective customers.
3.3.2. DAIRY FARMS PROGRAM SUMMARY

[a] In December 2001, Dairy Farm projects that were not complete were transferred to the CEO

Market Opportunities Program. Counts of participants with audits or pending action were also

transferred to CEO Marketing Opportunities Program in December 2001.

3.3.6.1. DAIRY FARMS PROJECT COUNTS BY TRACK

[a] In December 2001, Dairy Farm projects that were not complete were transferred to the CEO

Market Opportunities Program. Counts of participants with committed projects were also

transferred to CEO Marketing Opportunities Program in December 2001

3.5.2. RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUMMARY

[a] Participants are defined as the number of completed dwelling units served under the program.

Units are considered completed after a final inspection is performed.

[b] Audits for this program are defined as the number of completed dwelling units for which home

energy ratings were performed.

3.7.2. LOW INCOME MULTIFAMILY (REEP) PROGRAM SUMMARY

[a] Participants are defined as the number of dwelling units served under the program.

3.8.2. LOW INCOME SINGLE FAMILY PROGRAM SUMMARY

[a] Audit is defined as a site visit in which a walk-through survey or high use analysis survey is

conducted.

[b] Pending jobs currently are not reported by weatherization agencies.