### ____________________________________________


## 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 Ve rmont 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. S UMMARY

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 

### 1

1.2. C OMMERCIAL 

### & I NDUSTRIAL 

### E NERGY 

### S ERVICES

..................................................................................................................... 

### 8

1.3. R ESIDENTIAL 

### E NERGY 

### S ERVICES

............................................................................................................................................................... 

### 15



## 2. Energy Savings and Expenditures Tables

.................................................................................................................. 

### 21

2.1. O RGANIZATION OF 

### T ABLES

............................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 21

2.2. P ROGRESS 

### R EPORT

...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 22

2.3. E FFICIENCY 

### V ERMONT 

### O VERALL 

### R ESULTS

.................................................................................................................................... 

### 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. Distributiona l 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. C OMMERCIAL 

### & I NDUSTRIAL 

### E NERGY 

### S ERVICES

................................................................................................................... 

### 31

2.4.1. Program Summary

.............................................................................................................................................................................. 

### 31

2.4.2. End Use Breakdown

.......................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 32

2.5. R ESIDENTIAL 

### E NERGY 

### S ERVICES

............................................................................................................................................................... 

### 33

2.5.1. Program Summary

............................................................................................................................................................................. 

### 33

2.5.2. End Use Breakdown

.......................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 34



## 3. Individual Program Results

.................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 35

3.0. C OMMERCIAL 

### E NERGY 

### O PPORTUNITIES 

### P ROGRAM

.............................................................................................................. 

### 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 N EW 

### C ONSTRUCTION 

### P ROGRAM

................................................................................................................................................. 

### 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 M ARKET 

### O PPORTUNITIES 

### P ROGRAM

..................................................................................................................................... 

### 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. D AIRY 

### F ARMS 

### P ROGRAM

..................................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 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. C OMMERCIAL 

### & I NDUSTRIAL 

### E MERGING 

### M ARKETS 

### P ROGRAM

............................................................................ 

### 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. R ESIDENTIAL 

### N EW 

### C ONSTRUCTION 

### P ROGRAM

........................................................................................................ .................. 

### 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. E FFICIENT 

### P RODUCTS 

### P ROGRAM

................................................................................................................................................................ 

### 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. L OW 

### I NCOME 

### M ULTIFAMILY 

### (R ESIDENTIAL 

### E NERGY 

### E FFICIENCY 

### P ROGRAM 

### )

................................... 

### 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. L OW 

### I NCOME 

### S INGLE 

### F AMILY 

### P ROGRAM

.................................................................................................................... ..................... 

### 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. R ESIDENTIAL 

### E MERGING 

### M ARKETS 

### P ROGRAM

........................................................................................................................ 

### 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. N OT 

### I N 

### U SE

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 

### 4.2. C USTOMER 

### C REDIT 

### P ROGRAM

...................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 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. D EFINITIONS AND 

### E ND 

### N OTES

...................................................................................................................................................................... 

### 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 Se rvice 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 partne red with design professionals, builders, vendors and many others to decrease barr iers to participation in ener gy efficiency. Together, we’ve accrued a track record of cost-effectively re ducing Vermont’s need for electricity supply, lowering energy rates, strengt hening 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 sa vings is referred to as lifetime economic value. This term equals the present value of expenditures for electricity, fossi l fuels and water savings that would have been made in the absence of energy efficiency. Furt her, the term includes the worth of the savings over the lifetime of the efficiency measures. In th e 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 th e Pockets of Vermonters

• Helping Keep the Green Mountain State Green

• Adding Efficiency Capacity to Vermont’s Energy Portfolio

• Providing a Successful National Model

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT S – 2002 AT A GLANCE

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont helped 32,306 hous eholds 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 ha ve 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 th e 14.4-year average life of the efficiency measures installed in 2002;

• surpassing Efficiency Vermont’s 2002 a nnual energy savings target by 59% and exceeding the three-year contra ct savings goal by 17%; and,

### • the elimination of 411,000 tons of greenhous e gas emissions that would have been created by conventional power generation.

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

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

• recognition of energy efficiency leader ship, both regionally and nationally;

• meeting, and most cases exceeding, seven specifi c contractual indicators of performance established by the Vermont Public Service Board; and

• verification and validation of Effici ency 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 incl uded Vermont households, businesse s, vendors, suppliers, service professionals, and fellow Vermont ra tepayers, as well as the stat e’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 econo mical 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 co st 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 el ectricity supply on the New England wholesale market for delivery to Vermont customers over th e 14.4-year average life of the savings. Hence, these efficiency investments were significantly more cost-effect ive than conventional sources of electricity.

Electrical efficiency investments also slow the rise of electricity supp ly prices and, thereby, lower the cost of electricity fo r 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 peri ods not only helps to reduce the wholes ale price on the spot market, but serves as a hedge against long-term price increases, by loweri ng 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 clai m for electricity and other resource savings. This review led to an ad justment in the electri cal savings claim by only

two percent.

The Vermont Public Service Board also engaged an independent consulta nt to scrutinize both Efficiency Vermont’s estimates and the ve rification 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 calcula tions. 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 adju sted by the Department of Public Service, are reliable and unbiased estimates of program savi ngs,” 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 Corporati on continued its successful fulfillment of its fiduciary obligations as the Efficiency Vermont contractor. In addition to maintaining rigorous cost accounting procedures, the contractor partic ipated in regular monthly reviews of Efficiency Vermont expenditures conducted by the Vermont P ublic Service Board’s Contract Administrator for the Energy Efficiency Utility. Vermont Ener gy Investment Corpora tion’s annual independent financial audit, encompassing all aspects of E fficiency Vermont’s operations, established that funds were being managed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

PUTTING MORE MONEY IN TH E POCKETS OF VERMONTERS

Efficiency Vermont Cuts Household and Business Energy Costs In 2002, we served 31,719 households and 587 busine sses in Vermont. Over their lifetimes, the energy efficiency measures installed in thes e 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 effort s 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, Effi ciency Vermont successfully reac hed every corner of our state. As in previous years, efficiency investments a nd their economic benefits were distributed in each county in roughly the same propor tion as the energy efficiency charge that each county’s ratepayers paid through their elec tric bills. The widespread di stribution of these benefits has been no accident. Our marketing, business deve lopment and service teams have worked to establish a network of partners hips 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 econom y. In contrast to the performance of the economy in 2002, Vermont’s efficiency investment s generated strong retu rns both for individual investors and for the state’s economy as a whol e. 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. Th e 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 result ing from Efficiency Vermont’s first three years of service is $66 million. As these savings unfold over the ne xt 14.4 years, they act as a time-released stimulus to Vermont’s economy. The recurring savi ngs from these efficiency investments will spur Vermont’s economic growth in the same wa y that a sustained decrease in energy prices would lower the cost of living, a nd of doing business, in the state.

### Energy efficiency investments decrease the am ount 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 reinvesti ng involves transacti ons 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 thr ough 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 becau se 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, Effi ciency 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 throughou t Vermont. By cultivating and progressively strengthening relationships with businesses, trad e associations, ke y 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 predictabl e 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 crea tion of this infrastructure ca n be found in many places. We have increased the average number of monthly lead s for business projects by 35% from 2001 to 2002. Customers returning to Efficiency Vermont fo r help with new effici ency projects provide confirmation that efficiency is becoming an inte gral 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 th e 2003 conference began in June 2002. The 2- day event featured advanced training, ener gy-efficient products, a nd nationally renowned presenters. Conference attendance increased by 63% over the previous year, to more than 800 builders, architects, engineers, vendo rs and other industry professionals.

To meet the challenge of help ing greater numbers of customer s save more comprehensively, we conducted strategic hiring of quali fied personnel to provide expe rt technical assistance. The result today is a staff comprise d of architects, engineers, and energy specialists that represent some of the top talent in the count ry in the energy efficiency field.

Efficiency Vermont also has succeeded in incr easing the comprehensiveness of the efficiency projects we have helped advance. Busine ss new construction proj ects are increasingly incorporating energy efficiency into all aspects of design and construction. Additionally, these projects are becoming more comprehensive; bri nging together all projec t decision-makers, to consider the whole building and its systems, th ereby increasing energy sa vings. There has been a

substantial increase in the number of E NERGY 

### S TAR ® 

### qualified homes built in Vermont this year, as we have made the plan review process si gnificantly easier for participants. We have also developed one of the nation’s most comprehens ive 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 affordab le and environmentally friendly ways to supply electricity while boosting their economies, Effici ency 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 reputa tion as a leader in the energy e fficiency 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 conditio ning 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 re sidential room air conditioners sold in 2002. That success is due in no small measure to our partners hip with participating retailers in promoting products that qualify for the E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### label. Efficiency Vermont met with similar success in the non-residential cooling market. Ninety percen t of the commercial heat ing and cooling system units that qualified for incentives from Efficiency Vermont met the highest efficiency standard, as compared to only 51% for northeast stat es undertaking similar efforts (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island).

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

Vermont leads the eastern U. S. in market share for E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled homes. Vermont ranks third, nationally, in market share for E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled clothes washers.

### Vermont’s pioneering approach to energy efficiency service de livery brought increasing national

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

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

for the Innovations in American Governme nt 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 th e single-family reside ntial new construction market, the multifamily low-income market, a nd the lighting market (as a part of the Northeast Energy Efficiency Part nerships regional initiatives).

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded Efficiency Vermont the New England 2002 Environmental Merit Award fo r outstanding efforts in preserving New England’s environment.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy and Department of Energy awarded Efficiency Vermont:

• 

### 2002 E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### Excellence in Consumer Educ ation for exceptional service to Vermont consumers, as part of a regional energy efficiency partnership with northeast utilities;

• 

### 2002 E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### Partner of the Year, for outst anding commitment to providing expert design assistance and financial in centives to Vermonters building homes that

meet or exceed E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### standards; and,

• 

### 2002 E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### Labeled Homes Outstanding Achi evement Award, for verifying

more than 250 E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### 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 Effi ciency 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 se rvice 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, impr oved 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 inve sted $3 million of th eir own capital. Our partnerships in the business community gene rated $12 million in lifetime economic value that will be realized throughout the next 15.7 ye ars. Together, we cut 18,436 annual MWh from Vermont’s total annual electric consumption, o ffsetting almost one quarter of the projected growth in commercial and industrial electric ity sales forecast by the Vermont Department of

Public Service. 1



### In order to build strong customer and strategic partner relationshi ps, we engaged participants in discussions of technical, busine ss and financial issues. Thr ough these discussions, business operators gained a greater unde rstanding of the role of en ergy 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 ligh ting, heating, cooling, and ventilation in current and planned projects. On average, the businesses that partnered with us and installed efficiency measures are now earning return s of 71% on their investments.

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont strengthened our strate gic alliances with key associations of design professionals, including local chapters of:

• American Institute for Architects;

• American Society of Heating, Refrigerat ion, and Air Conditioning Engineers; and,

• Construction Specifications Institute.

We worked with these associat ions to inform their members of the resources available from Efficiency Vermont. The success of these alliance s was evident in our interactions with design professionals. We experienced a high degree of re peat 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 po licy 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 player s 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 commercia l & 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 be half of the Vermont Department of Public

Service 2 

### . This assessment revealed that, in less than three years, Efficiency Vermont has become widely known among commercial and industrial mark et participants as th e 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 th ese, 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 usag e, 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 informationa l 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 servi ng dairy farmers, This focus on dairy farms resulted in 94 completed projec ts in 2002 and savings of 960 MWh.

Our efforts to increase overall awareness of Effici ency Vermont’s services resulted in greater recognition by business customers. The market assessment study 3 

### indicates that 55% of business property managers and developers recognized E fficiency Vermont as a source of efficiency services and 24% recognized our name without prompting.

2 GDS Associates Team, Evaluation of the Commercial & Industrial Sect or 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 proj ects 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 light ing, cooling, ventilation, motors, space heating, service water heating, refrigeration and indus trial processes. We also encouraged the implementation of energy efficiency improvement s through technical and financial assistance, with three general approaches for incentives ge ared to specific customer needs, as described

below.

• Prescriptive incentives provided fixed do llar amounts for specific eligible efficiency

measures.

• Custom incentives were tailored to indivi dual 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 appr oach enabled us to leverage investments in more comprehensive packages of efficiency measures.

• Comprehensive design incentives were uti lized to help customers optimize building performance by fully integrating energy e fficiency into building design. Efficiency Vermont completed two comprehensive desi gn projects during the year, and enrolled another 16 active projects that should complete over the next few years. These results exceeded the associated contractual perf ormance target set by the Vermont Public

Service Board. 5



### These general approaches, combined with strate gic partnerships, resulte d in the significant savings cited above. Activity in 2000-2002 in th e commercial and industrial new construction and replacement markets achieved savings in ex cess 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 constr uction market separately from equipment replac ement savings, which are reported under the Market Oppor tunities Program in the tables below.

5 These quantities are remarkable, considering the size of Ve rmont’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 en ergy-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 commerci al heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. Ni nety percent of the equipment for which Efficiency Vermont paid incentives met the highest efficiency stan dard. 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 R hode Island), and far exceeded the 51% average percentage for top efficiency equipm ent that the other states achieved. 8 

### This was particularly

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

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL RETROFIT 9



### In 2002, Efficiency Vermont assisted commercial and industrial ratepaye rs with the successful completion of 64 retrofit projects, providi ng 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 a ssistance and financial incentives to spur costeffective efficiency retrofit investments by commercial and industrial customers. 10 

### Typical measures included compressed air system upgrad es, lighting wattage reduction and/or output enhancements, industrial process improvements, and fuel switches from elec tricity to alternative fuels. While we promoted cost-effective retrofit savings across all end-us es, the greatest savings came from industrial process, lighting, heating, ventilation, a nd 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 prov ided by Applied Proactive Technology.

8 These figures do not include customized c ooling efficiency improvements, which are be yond the scope of the regional initiative

.

9 Retrofit efficiency measures are those improvements which are not pa rt of other planned facil ity upgrades and which are undertaken primarily to save energy and cut costs.

10 Efficiency Vermont tracks and reports savings from large re trofit 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 budge t 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 bu sinesses received from their investments.

Facility Type Efficiency Measures

Installed Customer

Investment Annual
Savings
(MWh) Weighted

Lifetime of

Investment Rate of Return on

Customer

Investment 12



### Commercial and Industrial New Construc tion, 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 sect ors overcome unique barriers to participation in energy efficiency. In 2002, we devoted special attenti on to two of Vermont’s critical market segments: Schools and water/wa stewater treatment f acilities. These market segments offered, and continue to offer, significant untapped potential for the delivery of costeffective efficiency services to an econom ically and geographically diverse population.

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

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

### School Facilities

The schools initiative continued th e work that Efficiency Verm ont began in 2001, addressing all 300+ Vermont K-12 public and private schools, re gardless of size. We focused on developing strategic partnerships with numerous market actor s, to discover if they were considering facility construction or renovation, equipment replacemen t 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 school s’ 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 co mpleted 24 schools projec ts, providing net annual savings of 2,536 MWh in 2002. The lifetime economi c 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 projec ts 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 effi ciency opportunities in municipal, industrial, and private water

and wastewater treatment facilit ies 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 targ eted 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 f acility decision-makers, enabling us to increase our involvement whenev er 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 I ndustrial Emerging Markets pr ograms, as appropriate.

### With these partners, Efficiency Vermont sponsor ed a facility operator training seminar called “Basics of Motor, Drives and Energy Efficiency ”. Held at Vermont Technical College, this highly successful seminar was booke d to capacity (22 attendees), a nd has since generated several new projects that utilized variable frequency dr ives (VFDs). Efficiency Vermont previously had funded the school’s purchase of VFDs to enhan ce their training facil ity and to encourage efficient motors training.

We also strengthened our partnership with the water and wastewater market through trade show displays and presentations target ing facility operators, engineer s, and other decision-makers, to

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

facilities overcome market barrie rs through data collection -- su ch as metering of efficiency upgrade projects and pilot testing technologies -- to validate savi ngs estimates before customers committed to installing new equipment.

Efficiency Vermont completed 12 water and wa stewater 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 Verm ont has engaged with 46 completed or active waste/wastewater facility projec ts since our inception in 2000. This project count is particularly notable in view of the nationally low participation in energy effi ciency by wastewater facilities. 14

14 The Consortium for Energy Efficiency reported in Market Tr ansformation News, winter 2003, that nationally, the wastewater industry “...is paying little atte ntion to [energy efficiency]”.

# 1.3. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SERVICES

Efficiency Vermont delivered services in the foll owing four residential e fficiency 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 ra ising the yield of electri city 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 measur es installed during the year. Since its inception in 2000, Efficiency Vermont has served 66,567 Ve rmont households, saving an average of $81 per participant annually.

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

the rest of the nation. The American C ouncil for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) selected several of Efficiency Vermont’s resi dential 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 E NERGY 

### S TAR ® 

### products and appliances met with continued su ccess in 2002. Signs of progress were particularly strong in the residential lighting market. E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### lighting products continued to sell extremely well in Vermont retail stores in 2002, despite a 25% reducti on in bulb and fixture re bates from the prior year. Vermont retailers demonstrated increasing commitment to stocking, selling, and promoting a wider variety of high-efficien cy lighting products. Retailers he ld a larger po rtion of sales events promoting efficient lighting on their pr emises 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 im plemented around the state in previous years. Efficiency Vermont supported these 2002 retailer events with co-op advertising, point of purchase materials, and banners.

### Market assessments 15 

### conducted in 2002 indicate that sale s of compact fluorescent lighting products in Vermont stores were 50 to 100 times hi gher than sales by counterpart stores in Maine (which has no turn-in program) in 2000 and 2001.

Efficiency Vermont’s efforts met with similar suc cess in the residential a ppliance market. At the close of 2002, as a result of these efforts, E fficiency Vermont was well positioned to meet two contractual performance indicators establishe d by the Vermont Public Service Board for this market. The first such indicator specifi ed a 6% increase in the number of E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled refrigerators and dishwashers on showroom floors. In 2002, the actual increase was 19.5%. According to sales data from national reta il chains, Vermont’s market share of E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled refrigerators ranke d seventh in the nation.

The second indicator specified the achie vement of a 27% market share of E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### clothes washers in 2002 in Vermont. In 2002, actual the market share at nati onal chain stores in

Vermont was 34%. Vermont had the third highest market share of E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### 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 E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled refrigerators.

• Vermont ranked first, nationwide, in market share for E NERGY 

### S TAR

### labeled room airconditioners.

• For the third year in a row, Efficiency Ve rmont, along with the ot her regional sponsors of efficient lighting and appliance initiatives, received a national E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### 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 applian ce markets proved to be the largest combined

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

15 Xenergy, Inc., Final Report of the Phase 1 Evaluation of E fficiency Vermont’s Products Progr am, submitted to the Vermont Department of Public Service, December 2002.

16 Provided by U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, E NERGY S TAR 2002 sales data at na tional chain stores.

17 This is based on sales data provided by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

### Vermont residential customers purchased one or mo re efficient lighting products or appliances in 2002, excluding the significant number of indivi duals who purchased qualifying products or appliances without claiming a rebate. 18 

### These participants collec tively produced net annualized savings of 12,292 MWh, providing an estimate d $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 E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### Homes label. Introduced in N ovember 2001, this approach was designed to integrate Vermont Gas Systems servi ces, 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 appl iances with home energy ratings in E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled homes. 20



### To help ensure that high-efficiency housing construction extends beyond the high growth area of Vermont’s northwest region, the Vermont Pub lic Service Board established contractual performance indicators for participating ne w 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 particip ating builder/developers to achieve E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### building performance ratings, we began offeri ng 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

E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled new homes. Vermont’s market share of E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled homes was between five and six times the national average. 21 

### The table below presents the results for 2002.

E NERGY S TAR Qualified Homes Constructed in 2002 with Efficiency Vermont Assistance Single-family homes 234
Market rate multifamily dwellings 163 Subsidized multifamily dwellings 150

Total E NERGY S TAR 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 Effi ciency Vermont budget approved by the Vermont Public Se rvice Board for 2002

20 Efficiency Vermont received recognition from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s E NERGY S TAR program for our efforts in the residential ne w construction market. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, the non-profit organization under contract to the Vermont Public Service Board to administer Efficiency Vermont,

was named E NERGY S TAR Partner of the Year in March 2002.

21 Estimates for the number of new homes built in Ve rmont in 2002 vary. The U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency reports 1,958 units through September 2002. A January 22, 2003 Burlington Free Press article cites 2,798 resident ial permits issued through November 2002.

### Efficiency Vermont achieved total electricity sa vings in the residentia l 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 ou r 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 effo rts in the last three of the above segments. 23



### Low-Income Single-Family Retrofit In partnership with Vermont’s statewide lo w-income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), Efficiency Vermont helped improve th e 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, Efficien cy Vermont provides financial and technical

assistance for electrical effici ency improvements recommended as cost-effective. Qualifying measures include efficient lighting, electric wa ter heating conservation, conversion of electric space and/or water heating equipment to less cost ly fuels, and early replacement of inefficient refrigerators with high-efficiency E NERGY 

### S TAR 

### labeled models.

In 2002, Efficiency Vermont began a partners hip 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 inco me level in Rutland County who failed to meet WAP income guidelines.

Total annual electricity savings among low-in come single-family households was 2,262 MWh from our expenditures of $1.2 million in 2002. Fo r customers who had both audits performed and efficiency measures installed, the averag e annual savings generated per household was 1,639 gross kWh. This is 1.6 times the associated cont ractual 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 Efficien cy Vermont budget approved by the Ve rmont Public Service Board for 2002

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

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

92.

### Vermont by the Vermont Public Service Board. Comb ined 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 effi ciency opportunities in th eir homes. We distributed this software on compact discs th rough our web site, at special ev ents, 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 s ealing 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 Efficien cy Vermont. During 2002, we launched a pilot of this concept with the Vermont Consumer Ener gy Cooperative, which served 72 households with electrical efficiency measures.

Targeted High Use Retrofit To yield maximum value from its budget, Effici ency Vermont offered a comprehensive retrofit service to Vermonters with historically hi gh electric usage. During 2002, we served 465 customers, of whom 46% (213) replaced electr ic space heating or el ectric water heating equipment. These customers received an on-sit e 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 value 26



### .

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 efficien t lighting applications, appliances, fuel use,

water conservation and building envelope measures. Effi ciency Vermont’s efforts target efficiency investments in major rehabilitation or renovation, and discretiona ry 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 s ources. By including all efficien cy opportunities, we are able to optimally leverage owner investment and t hus maximize electricity savings and lifetime economic value generated by each dollar of Efficiency Vermont expenditure.

In 2002, we completed 69 projects serving 1,657 i ndividual housing units, in cluding properties in every Vermont county. We also successfully in creased participation in the non-subsidized affordable housing market. By the end of 2002, E fficiency Vermont provided energy audits for a total of 23 private, non-s ubsidized 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 i nvestment on the part of property owners and third parties, resulti ng 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 a nd Vermont Gas Systems- provided 5% of the total investment. These investments will yiel d 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 s ubmitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Through these efforts, we ex ceeded the multifamily pe rformance 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 unde r contract in the low-income multifamily market involving 419 dwelling units sc heduled for future completion, including two new construction projects with 25 units. U pon 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 a pproximately 35% of all Vermont households ca n 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 mu ltifamily 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 Efficien cy Vermont budget approved by the Ve rmont 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 ta bles that follow this section. Aggregate data for Efficiency Vermont ac tivities is provided in tables 2.2. through 2.3.6.4. Activity totals for the Commercial & Industrial sector ar e 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 pr ograms that Efficiency Vermont offered in 2002. These programs relate to the markets addr essed 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 S avings 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 targetPrior Year A ctual 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 Activit y $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 20022002 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

A nnualized savings (increase) in O&M($) $339,869 $349,014 $2,922,860 Savings at meter 

## 2.3.2. Total Resource Benefits, overall2.3.3. Overall - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$101,763Air ConditioningEff.1,468 865 760 12,926 56 651 0 0 $128,795$669,937Cookingand Laundry3,437 1,226 912 17,029 243 178 4,764 22,702 $144,451$6,703Design Assistance80000000$25,417$240,712Hot Water Efficiency1,496 344 296 2,716 59 43 7,468 9,727 $25,872$299,599Hot Water Fuel Switch420 2,077 1,871 60,978 363 350 -7,600 182 $301,413$826,612Industrial Process Eff.20 3,568 3,137 59,654 1,844 234 -756 321 $302,970$1,225,428Lighting27,459 20,145 17,163 219,223 3,115 2,277 -4,937 0 $1,813,122$459,824Motors148 4,209 3,642 52,208 520 587 12,128 0 $329,882$97,608Other Efficiency6 267 251 9,650 30 29 0 0 $41,420$47,689Other Fuel Switch207 361 310 9,622 70 59 -1,104 37 $30,121-$81,227Other Indirect Activity638 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $183,526$348,208Refrigeration2,096 2,334 2,079 33,240 223 227 0 0 $414,975$844,488Space Heat Efficiency997 94 82 2,221 25 1 19,024 0 $1,709$609,692Space Heat Fuel Switch178 2,243 2,079 66,022 617 2 -7,816 0 $333,951$135,565Ventilation989 630 544 7,215 52 105 5,374 0 $123,655$7Water Conservation6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $038,363 33,127 552,705 7,215 4,745 26,545 32,983Totals$4,201,280 $5,832,6082.3.4. Overall - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$11,636Barton136 133 114 2,490 22 13 -229 67 $26,656$185,051Burlington139 1,465 1,381 27,020 109 42 -1,574 0 $89,408$398,317Citizens1,651 2,309 1,997 37,092 510 211 -57 1,330 $353,421$2,897,210CVPS14,659 16,149 13,875 226,297 2,880 2,133 7,176 15,736 $1,735,717$15,581EnosburgFalls237 217 181 3,218 34 21 -147 130 $33,116$1,391,233Green Mountain9,512 11,414 9,823 167,041 1,713 1,535 21,560 11,487 $1,225,706$21,738Hardwick540 314 258 3,523 49 36 -30 279 $47,539$46,494Hyde Park162 310 287 5,082 49 84 -111 31 $44,353$61,526Jacksonville29 165 153 4,725 27 37 6 30 $16,856$69,813Johnson97 165 149 4,028 37 8 -411 17 $25,711$77,523Ludlow207 669 599 7,598 100 94 -236 44 $50,208$20,972Lyndonville426 340 292 4,318 54 41 -330 165 $49,216$87,881Morrisville460 672 609 7,765 102 95 14 298 $60,530$7,522Northfield244 188 163 2,354 30 24 -86 56 $22,046$23,160Orleans60 102 92 2,102 19 8 -166 12 $16,650$220Readsboro4 1 1 9 0 0 1 7 $76$4,326Rochester41 39 33 620 6 5 60 44 $9,860$233,049Stowe264 1,205 1,037 17,619 1,072 82 297 290 $106,440$39,594Swanton395 544 485 8,080 76 60 -295 263 $39,076$163,355VT Electric Coop1,664 1,198 990 13,633 204 137 1,072 1,815 $174,956$20,288VT Marble58 62 53 1,185 13 5 -103 44 $5,278$56,118Washington Electric1,321 703 556 6,906 109 74 134 837 $68,46338,363 33,127 552,705 7,215 4,745 26,545 32,983Totals32,306$4,201,280 $5,832,6082.3.5. Overall - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$489,520Addison1,947 2,384 2,042 31,054 340 381 162 1,793 $288,921$510,769Bennington1,911 2,846 2,459 44,407 850 214 -307 1,915 $300,973$410,097Caledonia1,748 1,984 1,802 29,476 306 257 623 1,189 $235,382$1,134,317Chittenden6,018 8,549 7,530 141,295 1,132 1,112 10,085 9,533 $907,820$20,911Essex241 151 127 2,161 24 16 60 73 $37,815$333,319Franklin2,531 2,733 2,334 39,173 427 310 592 2,139 $369,869$22,363Grand Isle391 189 153 2,387 31 22 164 370 $25,335$495,400Lamoille1,524 2,727 2,390 38,885 1,334 310 183 1,132 $307,214$97,987Orange1,457 1,014 845 12,293 151 132 296 1,057 $112,004$302,079Orleans1,126 1,845 1,619 28,230 421 178 -1,492 765 $245,824$271,668Rutland3,942 2,716 2,248 34,070 453 329 -131 2,758 $291,937$490,545Washington4,159 4,284 3,637 57,426 661 544 11,490 3,217 $429,773$859,681Windham2,323 2,663 2,292 42,625 447 310 4,509 4,733 $260,498$393,952Windsor2,995 4,277 3,648 49,224 640 630 312 2,308 $387,91538,363 33,127 552,705 7,215 4,745 26,545 32,983Totals32,313$4,201,280 $5,832,608Sector Allocation PSBApproved Five-YearBudgetSector Allocation byCustomer RateRevenueTotal % Total % % %Commercial & Industrial$32,454,689 49% 48,18049% 50% 57%Residential$33,561,71651%49,87051%50%43%Total$66,016,406 100% 98,051 100% 100% 100%Annualized MWh Energy SavingsProgram to DateTotal Resource BenefitsProgram to Date2.3.6.2. Cumulative Distributions by Customer Sector[a]Total % Total % Total %Addison5.9% 4,3356.4% $3,131,977 4.6% 5,4825.4%Bennington6.1% 3,9215.8% 9,197,94813.5% 11,35711.2%Caledonia4.9% 3,4525.1% 2,757,2234.1% 4,1614.1%Chittenden24.1% 15,00722.1% 16,528,91724.3% 24,28823.9%Essex1.1% 4710.7% 188,2070.3% 3430.3%Franklin7.5% 5,4488.0% 3,771,9185.5% 6,4546.4%Grand Isle1.1% 9511.4% 401,3820.6% 6310.6%Lamoille3.8% 3,3835.0% 4,223,7936.2% 5,0415.0%Orange4.6% 2,7274.0% 1,322,8581.9% 2,3332.3%Orleans4.3% 2,5393.7% 3,175,0774.7% 4,7684.7%Rutland10.4% 7,97711.8% 5,849,3998.6% 9,7109.6%Washington9.5% 7,91711.7% 5,712,7568.4% 9,1979.1%Windham7.3% 4,1876.2% 6,384,7669.4% 8,9048.8%Windsor9.4%5,5648.2%5,355,2287.9%8,9158.8%Total100.0% 67,879 100.0% $68,001,449 100.0% 101,586 100.0%Number of ParticipantsProgram to DateTotal Resource BenefitsProgram to Date2.3.6.3. Cumulative Distributions by County[a]Annualized MWh EnergySavings Program toDate% of StatewidePopulationCounty% %Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %Barton0.62% 0.28% 3200.47% 3200.32% $189,643 0.28% $110,199 0.37% $111,598 0.44%Citizens6.28% 6.05% 3,6145.33% 5,5635.48% $3,749,319 5.51% $2,044,158 6.92% $1,539,776 6.07%CVPS43.71% 42.79% 29,32643.23% 45,51744.81% $30,898,435 45.44% $13,228,052 44.77% $10,956,231 43.16%Enosburg Falls0.46% 0.40% 4560.67% 6770.67% $340,509 0.50% $135,061 0.46% $200,587 0.79%GMP26.16% 38.73% 20,92330.84% 32,57132.06% $21,920,009 32.23% $9,715,894 32.88% $8,515,138 33.55%Hardwick1.21% 0.60% 1,2191.80% 8570.84% $411,136 0.60% $223,955 0.76% $194,536 0.77%Hyde Park0.36% 0.21% 3720.55% 4960.49% $277,391 0.41% $79,089 0.27% $114,837 0.45%Jacksonville0.19% 0.11% 670.10% 1870.18% $158,015 0.23% $44,481 0.15% $45,657 0.18%Johnson0.25% 0.31% 2030.30% 2730.27% $150,250 0.22% $124,630 0.42% $71,566 0.28%Ludlow1.06% 0.87% 3160.47% 2,3882.35% $1,677,446 2.47% $337,896 1.14% $525,683 2.07%Lyndonville1.54% 1.31% 8241.21% 7620.75% $350,591 0.52% $495,130 1.68% $212,523 0.84%Morrisville1.06% 0.85% 9411.39% 1,2121.19% $656,660 0.97% $313,086 1.06% $289,993 1.14%Northfield0.68% 0.51% 4630.68% 3680.36% $172,433 0.25% $188,334 0.64% $79,642 0.31%Orleans0.21% 0.34% 1060.16% 5120.50% $344,521 0.51% $121,531 0.41% $117,404 0.46%Readsboro0.12% 0.04% 240.04% 350.03% $23,574 0.03% $18,102 0.06% $6,639 0.03%Rochester0.25% 0.12% 1200.18% 1130.11% $78,085 0.11% $45,765 0.15% $30,886 0.12%Stowe1.04% 1.12% 5480.81% 1,7021.68% $2,126,488 3.13% $416,180 1.41% $356,338 1.40%Swanton0.98% 1.17% 8971.32% 1,2091.19% $645,490 0.95% $401,953 1.36% $308,193 1.21%VT Elec Coop4.82% 2.80% 4,2386.25% 3,3913.34% $2,245,195 3.30% $995,214 3.37% $922,525 3.63%Vt Marble0.27% 0.20% 1420.21% 1270.13% $66,856 0.10% $66,568 0.23% $24,276 0.10%WEC2.83%1.19%2,4713.64%1,5511.53%$779,2161.15%$136,7540.46%$293,2611.16%sub-Total94.10% 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%2510.37%1,7551.73%$740,1861.09%$305,6761.03%$466,2071.84%Total100.00% 100.00% 67,841 100.00% 101,586 100.00% $68,001,449 100.00%$29,547,708100.00% $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$1,733,353Total EEU Expenditures$29,547,708Annualized MWhEnergy SavingsProgram to DateEEU charges collected but not expended in Year 2002EVT Program andAdministrationExpendituresProgram to DateMWhSalesSubject toEEC2.3.6.4. Cumulative Distributions by Utility Service Territory[a]EE Charges Paid throughDecember 31, 2002[b]UtilityStatewideElectricCustomersNumber ofParticipantsProgram to DateTotal Resource BenefitsProgram to DatePrior Year A ctual 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 17,978 18,436 12,522 22,105 48,180 Lifetime MWh Savings 292,807 288,803 nav nap 757,971 Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 3,225 3,915 nav nap 10,318 Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 2,306 2,460 nav nap 5,716 Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 38.251 31.406 nav nap 37.848 Weighted Lifetime 16 16 nav nap 16

Loan Activit y $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 Summary2.4.2. Commercial & Industrial Energy Services - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$80,493Air ConditioningEff.50 777 686 11,533 56 241 0 0 $92,581$1,599Cookingand Laundry2 9 8 12 3 3 9 26 $228$6,703Design Assistance80000000$22,171$2,040Hot Water Efficiency2 16 14 159 1 2 0 0 $3,104$139,957Hot Water Fuel Switch35 438 403 11,919 86 174 -1,635 182 $52,509$826,612Industrial Process Eff.20 3,568 3,137 59,654 1,844 234 -756 321 $302,970$671,410Lighting360 6,000 5,740 78,187 931 946 -4,931 0 $474,638$458,636Motors108 4,202 3,636 52,108 518 587 12,128 0 $326,293$97,608Other Efficiency6 267 251 9,650 30 29 0 0 $41,420$46,418Other Fuel Switch7 137 120 2,903 26 26 -392 37 $18,476-$5,117Other Indirect Activity2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,267$293,227Refrigeration64 1,646 1,488 27,603 139 147 0 0 $167,948$21,478Space Heat Efficiency6 27 27 545 4 1 201 0 $1,319$271,360Space Heat Fuel Switch30 990 933 29,157 256 2 -3,469 0 $90,338$53,850Ventilation14 358 317 5,374 22 68 4,603 0 $55,67218,436 16,760 288,803 3,915 2,460 5,758 566Totals$1,654,935 $2,966,272Prior Year A ctual 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 Activit y $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 Summary2.5.2. Residential Energy Services - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$21,270Air ConditioningEff.1,418 87 75 1,393 0 410 0 0 $36,214$668,338Cookingand Laundry3,435 1,217 904 17,018 240 175 4,755 22,676 $144,223$0Design Assistance0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,246$238,672Hot Water Efficiency1,494 328 282 2,558 58 41 7,468 9,727 $22,768$159,642Hot Water Fuel Switch385 1,639 1,467 49,059 276 177 -5,965 0 $248,904$554,018Lighting27,099 14,145 11,423 141,036 2,184 1,331 -6 0 $1,338,484$1,189Motors40 7 6 100 2 0 0 0 $3,589$1,271Other Fuel Switch200 224 190 6,719 44 32 -712 0 $11,645-$76,110Other Indirect Activity636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $178,259$54,981Refrigeration2,032 688 591 5,637 84 80 0 0 $247,027$823,010Space Heat Efficiency991 67 55 1,676 21 0 18,823 0 $390$338,332Space Heat Fuel Switch148 1,253 1,146 36,865 361 0 -4,346 0 $243,614$81,716Ventilation975 272 228 1,841 30 37 770 0 $67,983$7Water Conservation6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $019,927 16,367 263,902 3,300 2,285 20,787 32,417Totals$2,546,345 $2,866,336Prior Year A c t ua l Y ear
2002 P ro j ec t e d

Year 2002 P rogram t o
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 14,724 13,481 9,300 38,703 Lifetime MWh Savings 239,655 195,551 nav 595,515 Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 2,500 3,299 nav 8,785 Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 2,004 1,845 nav 4,680 Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 40.452 26.025 nav 38.206 Weighted Lifetime 16 15 nav 15

Loan Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.0.2. Commercial Energy Opportunities Program Summary [a]3.0.3. Commercial Energy Opportunities - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$72,394Air ConditioningEff.48 737 648 10,927 56 229 0 0 $88,974$1,599Cookingand Laundry2 9 8 12 3 3 9 26 $228$0Design Assistance3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,565$2,040Hot Water Efficiency2 16 14 159 1 2 0 0 $3,104$44,026Hot Water Fuel Switch19 242 217 6,041 50 32 -950 0 $32,204$587,298Industrial Process Eff.10 2,605 2,226 43,962 1,775 98 0 0 $205,985$478,525Lighting342 4,632 4,452 58,562 748 747 -4,380 0 $367,779$335,110Motors103 3,442 2,915 42,340 463 512 12,128 0 $249,919$8,670Other Efficiency3 53 47 2,103 6 6 0 0 $8,801$42,193Other Fuel Switch3 108 93 2,162 20 21 -303 0 $15,477$244,663Refrigeration59 1,173 1,037 20,511 127 131 0 0 $142,704$21,428Space Heat Efficiency5 27 27 545 4 1 197 0 $1,319$7,772Space Heat Fuel Switch7 117 105 3,411 29 0 -422 0 $4,295$48,518Ventilation13 321 281 4,816 17 64 4,603 0 $50,60013,481 12,070 195,551 3,299 1,845 10,881 26Totals$1,175,953 $1,894,2353.0.4. Commercial Energy Opportunities - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$4,852Barton3 18 16 229 3 1 -13 0 $2,006$175,051Citizens36 759 656 11,862 232 35 -415 0 $59,967$919,675CVPS218 6,195 5,551 90,387 1,295 846 -1,851 26 $551,766$7,643EnosburgFalls4 46 40 587 6 3 0 0 $5,346$446,349Green Mountain155 4,387 3,950 63,454 550 715 13,499 0 $332,369$5,710Hardwick7 39 37 578 6 5 -44 0 $8,836$42,428Hyde Park1 226 219 4,114 36 72 -109 0 $33,716-$185Johnson4 2 2 35 0 0 -2 0 $893$9,096Ludlow2 222 193 2,065 34 36 -39 0 $9,491$10,548Lyndonville16 112 100 1,194 18 16 -133 0 $11,702$349Morrisville5 28 32 404 5 5 -37 0 $3,624$760Northfield2 34 38 623 6 7 -45 0 $3,860$2,892Orleans2 31 27 479 3 3 0 0 $3,044$109Rochester1 12 10 177 2 1 0 0 $3,511$189,823Stowe15 953 830 13,994 1,023 51 225 0 $82,729$14,513Swanton6 78 67 1,166 11 8 0 0 $11,514$63,917VT Electric Coop35 330 294 4,070 66 38 -153 0 $50,009$703Washington Electric6 9 8 133 1 1 -2 0 $1,57013,481 12,070 195,551 3,299 1,845 10,881 26Totals518$1,175,953 $1,894,2353.0.5. Commercial Energy Opportunities - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$220,417Addison47 1,058 933 15,573 164 181 -279 26 $127,421$292,533Bennington29 1,430 1,247 23,713 615 51 -96 0 $123,464$163,606Caledonia30 992 976 16,749 145 146 -896 0 $101,110$220,048Chittenden100 2,626 2,385 40,942 302 415 2,621 0 $167,943$1,826Essex2 12 11 232 2 1 -50 0 $3,023$136,241Franklin62 861 758 11,487 114 114 -170 0 $107,835$1,412Grand Isle2 6 5 111 1 1 -1 0 $1,319$264,915Lamoille32 1,311 1,170 19,875 1,096 139 54 0 $138,002$30,306Orange15 272 252 4,766 36 47 -170 0 $31,371$176,500Orleans37 726 637 11,056 231 32 -483 0 $54,805$23,018Rutland34 218 198 2,690 38 46 -281 0 $24,365$140,532Washington52 1,145 1,045 15,316 156 197 11,399 0 $119,764$68,516Windham46 617 542 9,701 83 82 -123 0 $39,402$154,365Windsor30 2,208 1,912 23,340 316 393 -643 0 $136,13013,481 12,070 195,551 3,299 1,845 10,881 26Totals518$1,175,953 $1,894,235Prior Year A ctual 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 5,467 2,873 nav 12,632 Lifetime MWh Savings 94,186 44,486 nav 203,117 Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 1,021 348 nav 3,124 Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 693 483 nav 1,291 Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 71.002 51.306 nav 74.744 Weighted Lifetime 17 15 nav 16

Loan Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.1.2. CEO New Construction Program Summary3.1.3. CEO New Construction - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$6,236Air ConditioningEff.24 292 255 4,178 6 103 0 0 $36,285$265Cookingand Laundry1 9 8 12 3 3 0 0$228$0Design Assistance3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,565$22,960Hot Water Fuel Switch3 30 27 898 11 11 -95 0 $4,327$2,100Industrial Process Eff.1 37 34 738 0 27 0 0 $2,130$194,900Lighting50 1,328 1,298 20,329 201 203 -1,323 0 $145,287$54,083Motors13 694 593 9,045 70 78 0 0 $30,063$40,843Other Fuel Switch1 93 79 1,860 17 18 -257 0 $13,812$17,891Refrigeration6 240 206 4,683 24 29 0 0 $16,279$4,136Space Heat Efficiency3 3 5 60 0 0 15 0 $0$597Space Heat Fuel Switch2 32 29 968 8 0 -113 0 $599$21,697Ventilation6 114 99 1,717 8 11 3,801 0 $21,2542,873 2,633 44,486 348 483 2,029 0Totals$274,829 $365,7083.1.4. CEO New Construction - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$262Citizens1 1 1 15 0 0 -1 0 $0$53,370CVPS16 490 481 7,455 71 81 -31 0 $61,342$260,628Green Mountain25 2,028 1,806 30,841 226 303 2,247 0 $159,591$0Hardwick10000000$254$42,428Hyde Park1 226 219 4,114 36 72 -109 0 $33,716$25Johnson1 1 1 18 0 0 -1 0 $325$0Morrisville2 12 15 205 2 2 -15 0 $1,999$4,247Stowe3 39 39 580 4 10 -13 0 $8,883$4,154VT Electric Coop3 68 64 1,143 8 14 -48 0 $7,351$595Washington Electric3 8 7 116 1 1 -1 0 $1,3702,873 2,633 44,486 348 483 2,029 0Totals56$274,829 $365,7083.1.5. CEO New Construction - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$68,907Addison5 233 206 3,520 32 34 -114 0 $26,588$8,681Bennington2 73 63 1,075 8 8 434 0 $9,433$3,072Caledonia3 144 161 2,434 24 24 -176 0 $23,740$93,182Chittenden16 1,106 978 17,415 102 168 2,762 0 $56,457$1,404Franklin3 37 42 588 5 9 -29 0 $6,990$262Grand Isle1 1 1 15 0 0 -1 0 $0$49,858Lamoille9 307 299 5,468 45 93 -161 0 $50,112$5,112Orange3 61 60 546 9 8 -68 0 $5,881$0Orleans10000000$254$6,978Rutland1 28 24 425 5 7 -35 0 $0$104,403Washington9 786 716 11,348 102 113 -465 0 $88,239$3,386Windham1 17 15 243 2 1 -19 0 $0$20,464Windsor2 80 68 1,411 14 18 -99 0 $7,1362,873 2,633 44,486 348 483 2,029 0Totals56$274,829 $365,708Committed MWh as of 12/31/02 Committed Measure

Incentive as of 12/31/02 Participants with Committed Projects
4,063 $912,642 24

Track Committed Projects as

of 12/31/02 Completed Projects Year

2002 Completed Projects
Program to Date

Act 250 10 58 172

New Construction 8 27 77 Comprehensive Act 250 6 2 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 SummaryPrior Year A c t ua l Y ear
2002 P ro j ec t e d

Year 2002 P rogram t o
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 9,257 10,608 nav 26,071 Lifetime MWh Savings 145,469 151,065 nav 392,399 Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 1,479 2,951 nav 5,661 Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 1,311 1,362 nav 3,389 Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 32.256 22.961 nav 30.890 Weighted Lifetime 16 14 nav 15

Loan Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.2.2. CEO Market Opportunities Program Summary3.2.3. CEO Market Opportunities - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$66,158Air ConditioningEff.24 445 392 6,749 50 126 0 0 $52,689$1,334Cookingand Laundry1 0 0 0 0 0 9 26 $0$2,040Hot Water Efficiency2 16 14 159 1 2 0 0 $3,104$21,066Hot Water Fuel Switch16 212 191 5,143 40 21 -855 0 $27,877$585,198Industrial Process Eff.9 2,568 2,192 43,224 1,775 71 0 0 $203,855$283,625Lighting292 3,304 3,154 38,233 547 544 -3,058 0 $222,491$281,027Motors90 2,748 2,323 33,296 393 434 12,128 0 $219,856$8,670Other Efficiency3 53 47 2,103 6 6 0 0 $8,801$1,350Other Fuel Switch2 15 14 302 3 2 -47 0 $1,665$226,772Refrigeration53 933 831 15,829 103 102 0 0 $126,425$17,292Space Heat Efficiency2 24 22 485 4 1 182 0 $1,319$7,175Space Heat Fuel Switch5 84 76 2,444 21 0 -310 0 $3,696$26,821Ventilation7 207 182 3,098 9 53 803 0 $29,34610,608 9,437 151,065 2,951 1,362 8,852 26Totals$901,124 $1,528,5273.2.4. CEO Market Opportunities - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$4,852Barton3 18 16 229 3 1 -13 0 $2,006$174,789Citizens35 758 655 11,846 232 34 -414 0 $59,967$866,306CVPS202 5,706 5,070 82,932 1,225 765 -1,820 26 $490,424$7,643EnosburgFalls4 46 40 587 6 3 0 0 $5,346$185,722Green Mountain130 2,359 2,145 32,613 324 412 11,251 0 $172,778$5,710Hardwick6 39 37 578 6 5 -44 0 $8,583-$210Johnson3 1 1 18 0 0 -1 0 $568$9,096Ludlow2 222 193 2,065 34 36 -39 0 $9,491$10,548Lyndonville16 112 100 1,194 18 16 -133 0 $11,702$349Morrisville3 16 17 200 3 3 -22 0 $1,625$760Northfield2 34 38 623 6 7 -45 0 $3,860$2,892Orleans2 31 27 479 3 3 0 0 $3,044$109Rochester1 12 10 177 2 1 0 0 $3,511$185,577Stowe12 914 791 13,415 1,020 41 238 0 $73,845$14,513Swanton6 78 67 1,166 11 8 0 0 $11,514$59,763VT Electric Coop32 262 230 2,928 57 24 -105 0 $42,658$108Washington Electric3 1 1 17 0 0 -2 0 $20110,608 9,437 151,065 2,951 1,362 8,852 26Totals462$901,124 $1,528,5273.2.5. CEO Market Opportunities - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$151,510Addison42 825 726 12,053 133 147 -165 26 $100,833$283,852Bennington27 1,357 1,184 22,638 608 44 -530 0 $114,031$160,534Caledonia27 849 815 14,316 121 122 -720 0 $77,370$126,866Chittenden84 1,519 1,407 23,527 200 246 -141 0 $111,485$1,826Essex2 12 11 232 2 1 -50 0 $3,023$134,837Franklin59 824 716 10,899 108 105 -141 0 $100,845$1,150Grand Isle1 5 4 96 0 1 0 0 $1,319$215,058Lamoille23 1,003 871 14,408 1,050 46 215 0 $87,890$25,194Orange12 211 192 4,220 28 39 -102 0 $25,490$176,500Orleans36 726 637 11,056 231 32 -483 0 $54,551$16,040Rutland33 189 174 2,265 33 39 -246 0 $24,365$36,130Washington43 359 329 3,968 54 83 11,864 0 $31,525$65,130Windham45 601 527 9,458 81 81 -104 0 $39,402$133,902Windsor28 2,128 1,844 21,930 302 375 -544 0 $128,99410,608 9,437 151,065 2,951 1,362 8,852 26Totals462$901,124 $1,528,527Committed MWh as of

12/31/02 Committed Measure

Incentive as of 12/31/02 Participants with Committed Projects
2,719 $259,267 28

Track Committed Projects as

of 12/31/02 Completed Projects

Year 2002 Completed Projects
Program to Date

Custom 25 92 222

Farm 3 93 93 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 110Prior Year A ctual 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 976 nap nap 2,246 Lifetime MWh Savings 13,481 nap nap 29,533 Winter Coincident Peak KW Savings 150 nap nap 343 Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings 100 nap nap 220 Annualized MWh Savings/Participant 12.053 nap nap 13.289 Weighted Lifetime 14 nap nap 13

Loan Activit y $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 SummaryTrack 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 A ctual 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 2,277 4,955 3,223 7,232 Lifetime MWh Savings 39,671 93,252 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 Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.4.2. C&I Emerging Markets Program Summary3.4.3. C&I Emerging Markets Initiatives - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$8,099Air ConditioningEff.2 41 38 606 0 12 0 0 $3,607$6,703Design Assistance50000000$17,605$95,931Hot Water Fuel Switch16 196 186 5,878 36 142 -684 182 $20,305$239,314Industrial Process Eff.10 964 911 15,692 69 136 -756 321 $96,985$192,885Lighting18 1,368 1,289 19,625 183 199 -551 0 $106,860$123,526Motors5 760 721 9,768 56 75 0 0 $76,375$88,938Other Efficiency3 214 203 7,547 24 24 0 0 $32,620$4,225Other Fuel Switch4 29 27 741 6 6 -89 37 $2,999-$5,117Other Indirect Activity2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,267$48,564Refrigeration5 473 451 7,091 12 16 0 0 $25,244$50Space Heat Efficiency1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 $0$263,588Space Heat Fuel Switch23 873 828 25,746 227 2 -3,047 0 $86,043$5,332Ventilation1 37 36 559 4 4 0 0 $5,0734,955 4,690 93,252 616 615 -5,123 540Totals$478,981 $1,072,0383.4.4. C&I Emerging Markets Initiatives - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$125,551Burlington6 992 944 14,149 8 8 0 0$54,242$80,221Citizens7 389 366 5,151 63 65 -214 0 $66,875$437,368CVPS26 1,574 1,488 36,798 232 291 -2,232 55 $203,577$960EnosburgFalls1 5 4 139 1 1 -14 0 $446$138,275Green Mountain16 718 676 14,696 122 86 -1,772 485 $59,718$60,250Jacksonville2 154 145 4,635 26 36 0 0 $14,964$68,575Johnson1 93 88 2,792 24 0 -331 0 $8,953$42,358Ludlow2 273 259 2,885 30 39 0 0 $23,579$71,421Morrisville4 415 393 5,151 60 59 -42 0 $33,175$1,050Orleans1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,065$23,900Stowe1 55 52 1,642 15 2 -174 0 $4,159$3,774Swanton1 255 243 4,269 29 28 -234 0 $5,083$18,335VT Marble1 31 30 945 8 0 -112 0 $3,1454,955 4,690 93,252 616 615 -5,123 540Totals69$478,981 $1,072,0383.4.5. C&I Emerging Markets Initiatives - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$189,048Addison4 361 340 6,014 20 81 -21 0 $63,679$51,830Bennington5 361 342 7,144 57 42 -455 0 $43,123$3,620Caledonia2 53 48 795 10 11 -71 0 $5,797$238,177Chittenden17 1,386 1,317 25,330 64 154 -409 0 $108,425$5,000Essex10000000$10,145$30,724Franklin4 321 305 6,140 46 33 -446 55 $16,254$163,896Lamoille6 563 534 9,585 99 62 -546 0 $46,288$54,142Orleans6 345 325 3,853 49 65 -68 0 $50,312$68,614Rutland9 217 206 6,360 54 4 -731 0 $21,516$112,177Washington6 540 507 11,135 88 71 -1,489 485 $41,231$100,070Windham6 416 393 12,220 90 42 -887 0 $41,108$54,740Windsor3 392 373 4,676 40 51 0 0 $31,1044,955 4,690 93,252 616 615 -5,123 540Totals69$478,981 $1,072,038Prior Year A ctual 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 1.565 1.906 0.736 1.594 Weighted Lifetime 18 18 nav 18

Loan Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.5.2. Residential New Construction Program Summary3.5.3. Residential New Construction - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$75Air ConditioningEff.114 22 18 540 0 64 0 0 $127$38,922Cookingand Laundry452 59 46 796 12 8 371 1,084 $1,775$0Design Assistance0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,246$177,866Hot Water Efficiency537 0 0 0 0 0 3,090 493 $0$33,120Lighting668 1,016 889 19,183 147 85 0 0 $166,891$69Other Fuel Switch82 22 19 672 4 3 -76 0 $3,354-$97,360Other Indirect Activity511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $177,143$7,787Refrigeration401 24 20 404 3 3 0 0 $4,639$186,800Space Heat Efficiency593 55 45 1,377 17 0 9,468 0 $0$16,352Ventilation480 137 112 1,368 15 15 44 0 $33,9441,334 1,149 24,339 199 178 12,897 1,578Totals$391,119 $363,6323.5.4. Residential New Construction - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$7,185Citizens18 31 27 574 5 3 381 2 $12,291$161,357CVPS276 522 451 9,476 76 75 4,505 341 $129,363$1,025EnosburgFalls2 4 3 74 1 0 34 0 $796$160,342Green Mountain332 648 558 11,886 97 87 6,424 1,093 $192,455$460Hardwick1 2 2 42 0 0 34 0 $1,329$380Hyde Park1 2 2 34 0 0 34 0 $994$905Morrisville2 4 4 71 1 0 69 0 $2,384$640Northfield1 2 2 49 0 0 18 0 $609$1,955Rochester2 3 3 65 0 2 68 0 $918$3,136Stowe7 15 13 283 2 2 209 23 $8,965$749Swanton2 2 2 35 0 0 27 0 $1,030$25,498VT Electric Coop56 97 83 1,750 15 8 1,094 117 $39,9861,334 1,149 24,339 199 178 12,897 1,578Totals700$391,119 $363,6323.5.5. Residential New Construction - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$10,810Addison21 35 30 627 5 3 307 24 $9,272$3,499Bennington8 14 12 247 2 1 75 1 $3,031$1,107Caledonia4 7 6 131 1 1 69 0 $3,146$173,086Chittenden341 656 564 11,953 99 89 6,789 1,132 $196,461$150Essex1 3 2 53 0 0 0 0$304$15,656Franklin35 56 48 991 9 5 740 18 $22,927$2,754Grand Isle7 14 12 255 2 1 172 1 $5,170$11,256Lamoille29 60 51 1,091 10 6 658 108 $32,178$2,895Orange5 8 7 150 1 1 87 0 $1,808$1,596Orleans6 8 7 147 1 1 87 0 $3,614$43,272Rutland61 228 198 4,012 31 22 958 179 $32,943$10,085Washington18 27 23 487 4 2 383 16 $9,816$57,815Windham65 100 86 1,967 14 36 1,132 24 $13,666$29,651Windsor99 119 102 2,227 19 11 1,441 73 $56,7851,334 1,149 24,339 199 178 12,897 1,578Totals700$391,119 $363,632Indicator 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

A verage number of efficient fixtures installed in Vermont Star and Vermont Energy

Star Homes: 11.66

A verage 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 InstalledPrior Year A ctual 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 0.513 0.479 nav 0.599 Weighted Lifetime 10 9 nav 10

Loan Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.6.2. Efficient Products Program Summary3.6.3. Efficient Products - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$21,195Air ConditioningEff.1,203 65 56 842 0 344 0 0 $35,834$607,690Cookingand Laundry2,767 1,155 854 16,164 227 167 3,881 20,513 $140,773$444,712Lighting21,784 11,039 8,681 91,731 1,740 1,074 0 0 $655,147$855Refrigeration545 33 28 563 4 4 0 0$13,847$13,399Ventilation87 1 1 20 0 4 0 0 $2,35912,292 9,621 109,320 1,971 1,592 3,881 20,513Totals$847,960 $1,087,8513.6.4. Efficient Products - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$2,001Barton70 21 17 170 3 3 7 37 $1,474$3,616Burlington51 63 50 666 9 5 0 0 $4,171$44,327Citizens1,126 442 346 4,133 69 59 154 814 $32,434$455,186CVPS11,484 5,439 4,254 46,541 877 713 1,772 9,368 $365,392$3,715EnosburgFalls189 83 65 687 13 9 13 67 $5,504$369,201Green Mountain7,753 3,784 2,961 34,837 607 501 1,245 6,579 $267,650$14,956Hardwick450 202 159 1,872 32 24 39 207 $14,277$2,966Hyde Park140 60 47 530 9 10 4 22 $4,177$1,276Jacksonville17 6 4 62 1 1 6 30 $515$1,123Johnson57 25 20 192 4 4 1 7 $1,676$5,224Ludlow180 110 87 849 18 16 8 44 $6,224$6,520Lyndonville289 104 82 876 16 11 13 67 $7,191$14,884Morrisville375 196 154 1,753 31 27 55 289 $13,807$4,709Northfield210 116 91 962 18 14 10 52 $7,162$606Orleans31 12 9 103 2 1 0 0$756$220Readsboro3 1 1 8 0 0 1 7 $70$1,637Rochester32 13 10 139 2 1 8 44 $1,102$15,279Stowe235 175 137 1,561 30 27 50 266 $9,361$9,762Swanton327 149 116 1,319 24 19 42 222 $10,226$73,277VT Electric Coop1,399 623 487 5,633 100 76 293 1,547 $45,876$1,953VT Marble51 30 23 236 5 5 8 44 $1,834$55,415Washington Electric1,219 640 502 6,191 100 67 151 799 $47,08012,292 9,621 109,320 1,971 1,592 3,881 20,513Totals25,688$847,960 $1,087,8513.6.5. Efficient Products - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$65,974Addison1,701 782 612 6,646 126 100 263 1,391 $52,592$54,272Bennington1,429 634 496 5,353 103 94 237 1,251 $43,153$33,431Caledonia1,243 562 442 4,973 89 64 80 422 $37,761$261,696Chittenden4,767 2,068 1,613 18,561 337 316 1,037 5,483 $151,315$3,563Essex138 57 45 484 9 6 7 37 $3,509$74,964Franklin2,012 923 722 8,342 146 115 300 1,584 $66,359$15,635Grand Isle335 128 100 1,212 20 17 60 318 $9,694$51,889Lamoille1,212 630 493 5,623 102 89 183 969 $42,140$51,636Orange1,200 599 470 5,873 95 71 162 858 $43,976$28,320Orleans694 265 207 2,340 43 38 98 518 $18,574$108,043Rutland3,068 1,609 1,259 13,089 261 216 427 2,257 $101,819$160,332Washington3,599 2,051 1,609 19,793 323 229 389 2,057 $144,580$78,097Windham1,760 818 640 6,839 133 92 241 1,273 $51,915$100,000Windsor2,536 1,168 914 10,191 187 146 396 2,094 $80,57212,292 9,621 109,320 1,971 1,592 3,881 20,513Totals25,694$847,960 $1,087,851Indicator 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 CountsPrior Year A ctual Year

2002 Projected

Year 2002 Program to

Date

# participants with installations [a] 1,254 1,657 nav 2,579 # participants with audit/analysis 1,126 808 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 1.453 1.360 nav 2.417 Weighted Lifetime 22 21 nav 23

Loan Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.7.2. Low Income Multifamily (REEP) Program Summary3.7.3. Low Income Multi-Family (REEP) - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$0Air ConditioningEff.100 1 1 6 0 2 0 0$254$21,726Cookingand Laundry216 4 4 58 1 1 504 1,079 $1,674$60,486Hot Water Efficiency409 54 46 483 12 7 4,304 6,978 $754$31,397Hot Water Fuel Switch108 297 253 8,791 49 31 -1,070 0 $38,148$76,007Lighting1,145 1,196 1,070 21,815 160 101 -6 0 $221,394$1,189Motors40 7 6 100 2 0 0 0 $3,589$1,202Other Fuel Switch118 202 171 6,048 40 29 -635 0 $8,291$21,000Other Indirect Activity124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,015$42,691Refrigeration753 126 108 2,145 15 15 0 0 $34,346$633,668Space Heat Efficiency396 8 7 242 3 0 9,342 0 $288$62,554Space Heat Fuel Switch47 228 194 6,362 65 0 -773 0 $59,365$51,964Ventilation407 133 114 435 15 15 726 0 $31,191$7Water Conservation6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 $02,253 1,972 46,484 360 201 12,393 8,071Totals$400,309 $1,003,8913.7.4. Low Income Multi-Family (REEP) - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$55,943Citizens62 245 209 6,170 53 15 951 178 $74,118$775,442CVPS988 945 829 16,213 135 90 7,364 4,938 $114,828$172,314Green Mountain565 1,056 928 24,003 172 94 4,077 2,955 $209,318$192Johnson19 4 4 83 1 0 0 0 $1,775$0Morrisville23 2 2 15 0 0 0 0$2702,253 1,972 46,484 360 201 12,392 8,071Totals1,657$400,309 $1,003,8913.7.5. Low Income Multi-Family (REEP) - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$828Addison6 4 3 63 0 0 4 14 $1,116$62,296Bennington189 137 118 2,391 16 11 538 664 $17,536$195,406Caledonia152 121 110 2,365 19 12 1,834 486 $25,090$100,462Chittenden373 808 714 17,671 121 74 3,241 2,745 $153,769$9,905Essex12 23 19 578 4 2 169 0 $4,011$46,539Franklin82 207 177 5,087 47 11 844 203 $69,137$1,382Lamoille89 13 12 176 2 1 28 0 $5,554$13,150Orange53 36 31 676 5 4 230 105 $5,975-$100Orleans5 18 15 529 3 2 -53 0 $1,871$16,266Rutland305 101 86 1,901 14 9 -39 0 $5,002$52,398Washington175 296 255 7,048 56 24 1,106 576 $49,785$488,380Windham180 420 373 5,909 62 42 4,697 3,279 $46,145$16,980Windsor36 70 59 2,091 12 8 -207 0 $15,3192,253 1,972 46,484 360 201 12,392 8,071Totals1,657$400,309 $1,003,891Committed 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 2 7 9

Retrofit/Rehab 16 62 108 

## 3.7.6.2. Low Income Multifamily Project Counts 3.7.6.1. Low Income Multifamily Committed Projects SummaryUnique Utility Account Number Year 2002 Unique Utility Account Number Program to Date

571 1,019 

## 3.7.6.3. Low Income Multifamily Utility Account CountsPrior Year A ctual 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 18 16 nav 16

Loan Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.8.2. Low Income Single Family Program Summary3.8.3. Low Income Single Family - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$70Hot Water Efficiency475 255 218 1,944 43 32 64 2,169 $20,199$9,254Hot Water Fuel Switch106 606 517 18,190 102 65 -2,108 0 $140,368$0Lighting3,084 718 614 7,252 110 58 0 0 $255,115$0Refrigeration326 496 425 2,480 61 58 0 0 $192,963$0Space Heat Fuel Switch18 185 158 5,560 51 0 -649 0 $71,410$0Ventilation1 1 1 18 0 3 0 0$4882,262 1,934 35,444 366 215 -2,692 2,169Totals$680,544 $9,3243.8.4. Low Income Single Family - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$1,228Barton53 75 64 1,621 13 7 -164 30 $19,656$0Burlington1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6$1,648Citizens359 298 254 5,254 54 27 -456 324 $86,027$3,114CVPS1,499 1,032 883 15,886 161 98 -1,179 994 $310,308$481EnosburgFalls35 67 57 1,426 11 7 -144 59 $19,142$346Green Mountain547 296 253 3,757 50 27 -227 356 $94,235$612Hardwick72 62 53 985 10 6 -60 65 $21,472$0Hyde Park17 16 14 273 3 2 -27 5 $4,531$0Jacksonville10 4 4 28 1 0 0 0 $1,377$109Johnson16 41 35 926 9 3 -80 9 $12,414$0Ludlow18 5 4 30 1 0 0 0 $1,112$0Lyndonville92 85 73 1,465 13 9 -121 87 $24,116$0Morrisville48 19 16 155 3 2 0 9 $6,893$499Northfield30 28 24 500 4 3 -41 0 $9,697$0Orleans14 5 4 23 1 0 0 0 $1,284$0Readsboro1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6$625Rochester6 11 10 239 2 1 -17 0 $4,329$0Stowe41160000$314$0Swanton42 16 14 112 2 2 0 41 $4,635$663VT Electric Coop170 146 125 2,172 23 15 -162 151 $38,879$0VT Marble60040000$299$0Washington Electric96 54 46 581 8 5 -15 38 $19,8132,262 1,934 35,444 366 215 -2,692 2,169Totals3,136$680,544 $9,3243.8.5. Low Income Single Family - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$819Addison160 129 110 1,802 20 16 -76 337 $33,332$409Bennington230 137 117 2,003 23 12 -171 0 $54,050$612Caledonia251 163 139 2,840 26 17 -222 255 $48,977$288Chittenden211 160 137 2,541 22 13 -193 165 $43,632$467Essex72 49 42 764 8 5 -67 36 $14,871$1,286Franklin287 253 217 4,231 41 25 -361 267 $68,984$0Grand Isle43 28 24 459 5 3 -32 50 $7,081$109Lamoille140 127 109 2,026 21 11 -138 51 $39,768$0Orange182 98 84 821 14 10 -14 94 $28,646$2,408Orleans328 320 274 5,960 57 29 -559 231 $90,322$1,457Rutland435 270 231 4,182 40 27 -275 322 $95,206$845Washington297 170 145 2,102 25 17 -115 76 $55,909$0Windham232 182 156 3,132 36 13 -258 154 $51,417$625Windsor269 177 151 2,582 27 16 -212 129 $48,3512,262 1,934 35,444 366 215 -2,692 2,169Totals3,137$680,544 $9,324Prior Year A c t ua l Y ear
2002 P ro j ec t e d

Year 2002 P rogram t o
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 Activit y $0 $0 $0 $0 

## 3.9.2. Residential Emerging Markets Program Summary3.9.3. Residential Emerging Markets Initiatives - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$0Hot Water Efficiency72 20 19 131 3 2 7 87 $1,815$118,992Hot Water Fuel Switch171 736 697 22,078 126 80 -2,788 0 $70,388$0Lighting417 176 167 1,034 27 14 0 0 $39,926$3,648Refrigeration7 9 9 45 1 1 0 0 $1,233$2,291Space Heat Efficiency1 4 4 56 1 0 0 0$101$275,778Space Heat Fuel Switch83 840 794 24,943 245 0 -2,925 0 $112,8381,784 1,689 48,286 403 98 -5,706 87Totals$226,301 $400,7093.9.4. Residential Emerging Markets Initiatives - Utility Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsUtility$3,556Barton10 19 18 471 3 2 -59 0 $3,519$55,884Burlington81 409 387 12,205 92 28 -1,574 0 $30,989$33,943Citizens43 145 137 3,948 33 9 -458 12 $21,709$144,138CVPS167 440 417 10,967 104 18 -1,219 14 $60,371$1,756EnosburgFalls6 12 12 305 2 1 -36 4 $1,881$104,405Green Mountain144 525 497 14,408 115 25 -1,686 20 $69,961$0Hardwick10 8 8 46 1 1 0 6 $1,625$720Hyde Park3 6 6 131 1 1 -13 4 $934$20,845Ludlow5 60 56 1,770 17 2 -205 0 $9,803$3,905Lyndonville29 39 37 783 6 4 -88 11 $6,207$323Morrisville3 8 7 216 1 1 -31 0 $377$914Northfield1 8 7 220 1 1 -28 4 $718$18,613Orleans12 55 52 1,497 13 3 -166 12 $10,502$910Stowe2 5 5 132 1 1 -13 0 $911$10,797Swanton17 44 42 1,179 11 2 -130 0 $6,590$0VT Electric Coop41170000$2061,784 1,689 48,286 403 98 -5,706 87Totals537$226,301 $400,7093.9.5. Residential Emerging Markets Initiatives - County Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsCounty$1,624Addison8 14 14 329 4 0 -35 0 $1,510$45,932Bennington21 134 127 3,556 34 3 -434 0 $16,616$12,315Caledonia66 86 82 1,623 16 7 -170 25 $13,501$140,562Chittenden209 846 801 24,296 188 51 -3,002 8 $86,276$0Essex15 8 8 49 1 1 0 0 $1,952$27,909Franklin49 112 106 2,896 25 7 -315 12 $18,373$2,562Grand Isle4 13 12 351 3 1 -35 0 $2,071$1,953Lamoille16 23 22 507 4 2 -57 4 $3,283$0Orange21160000$229$39,213Orleans50 163 154 4,344 36 11 -514 16 $26,326$10,998Rutland30 74 70 1,837 15 5 -190 0 $11,087$14,176Washington12 57 54 1,545 9 3 -184 6 $8,688$65,874Windham33 109 103 2,829 30 3 -308 4 $16,735$37,590Windsor22 144 136 4,117 39 4 -463 12 $19,6531,784 1,689 48,286 403 98 -5,706 87Totals537$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 criter ia. The program enables customers with the capability and resources to iden tify, analyze, and undertake efficiency projects to selfimplement energy efficiency measures with financial assistance from Efficiency Vermont (EVT). CCP customers can apply for financia l incentives for any retrofit or marketdriven project that saves electrical ener gy and passes the Verm ont 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 contri bution to the statewide energy efficiency fund at any time.

Customers can draw on contribut ions from the current year and either the previous or ensuing year. Market-driven projects are elig ible for incentives e qual to 100% of the incremental measure cost. For retrofit proj ects, 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 e fficiency 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 A ctual 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 595 2,194 nav 3,536 Weighted Lifetime 15 13 nav 14 

## 4.2.2. Customer Credit Program Summary4.2.3. Customer Credit - End Use Breakdown# ofParticipantsNetMWHSavedGrossMWHSavedNetLifetimeMWHSavedNetWinterKWSavedNetSummerKWSavedNetOtherFuelMMBTUNetWaterCCFSavedIncentivesPaidParticipantCostsEnd Use$0Motors1 2,194 1,884 28,603 252 251 0 0 $426,8932,194 1,884 28,603 252 251 0 0Totals$426,893 $02002 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 BenefitsPrior Year A ctual 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 Activit y $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 a nd savings values provide d 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 in curred 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 particip ants is not the sum of partic ipants 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 pr ogram, 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” appe ars in program summa ry 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 ba sed on financial data from Vermont Energy Investment Corporation's accoun ting 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 Departme nt. Two major table formats, program summary

and breakdown tables are used thr oughout 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 Prio r
Yea r A ctual

200 2 Projecte d

200 2 Estimate d

200 3 Progra m
to Dat e (1) (2) (3) (4) # participants with installation s (5) # participants with audit/analysi s (6) # of audits/analyses with pending actio n (7) # of audits/analyses with installation s (8)

Program Costs

Administratio n
General (11) Implementatio n (12) Program Plannin g (13)

Marketin g (14) IT Development (15)

sub-Total Administratio n (10)

Implementation Cost s Services to Participant s (17)

Services to Trade Allie s (18) sub-Total Implementation Cost s (16)

Incentive Cost s Incentives to Participant s (20)

Incentives to Trade Allie s (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 Cost s (25)

Total Measure Costs (26)

Total Cost of Service s (27)

Annualized MWh Saving s (28) Lifetime MWh Saving s (29) Winter Coincident Peak KW Saving s (30) Summer Coincident Peak KW Savings (31) Annualized MWh Savings/Participant (32) Weighted Lifetim e (33)

Loan Activit y (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 curren t report year. Projections for categories identified as (5) to (8), (22) to (27) and (2 9) 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 follo wing reports: Program Summary plus CC; Program Summary, overall (no CC); Program Summary, C&I (no CC); Program Su mmary, 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 Cont ract, 2003 estimates at the program level will not be provided in the 2002 Annual Report.

(4) Program to date activity. For particip ation [(5) to (8)], the pr ogram-to-date column counts each customer (premise) only once, regardless of participation in previous years. The executive summar y counts each customer (premise) only once, even if a customer was serv ed 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, financia l 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 serv ices provided to entities other than individual program participants, such as trade allies, manufactur ers, wholesalers, bu ilders, 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 paym ent 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 capita l 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 participan ts, 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-relate d services, such as technical assistance or energy ratings. Note: The costs reflected in footnotes (1 6), (19), (22), (23) are equal to the costs in footnotes (26) and (27), i.e., implementation (services) costs plus EVT incentives plus par ticipant 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 appr oved 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 sy stem 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 adjust ment 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 th ere are loans, EVT will provide a Utility Loan Activity Summary (a-e) for customer loan (s hared 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 re porting 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 in clude 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 ar e the sum of the product of net annual measure water or fossil fuel savings multiplied by the measure lifetime.

2.3.6.2. CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION S 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 program s 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 program s 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 se parately to the Vermont Public Service Board. The charges paid by BED in the table represent th e amount of funds that BE D directs to Efficiency Vermont Emerging Markets programs, the Efficien t 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 & Indus trial New Constructi on 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 ha ve received materials from EVT and who distribute prescriptive measure forms fo r efficient lighting, motors and HVAC equipment to prospective customers.

### 3.3.2. DAIRY FARMS PROGRAM SUMMARY [a] In December 2001, Dairy Farm projects that we re not complete were transferred to the CEO Market Opportunities Program. Count s of participants with audi ts or pending action were also transferred to CEO Marketing O pportunities 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 par ticipants with committed projects were also transferred to CEO Marketing Oppor tunities 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 afte r 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 hi gh use analysis survey is

conducted. [b] Pending jobs currently are not reported by weatherization agencies.