# Cape Light Compact

Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2008

Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources

August 27, 2009

### This page intentionally blank.

# Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 B. Report Organization ........................................................................................... 3 C. Summary of Results ........................................................................................... 4 D. Summary of Results by Sector........................................................................... 6

II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology...................................................................... 13

III. Impacts by BCR Activity......................................................................................... 17
A. Residential........................................................................................................ 17
B. Low-Income ..................................................................................................... 21
C. Commercial & Industrial.................................................................................. 24

Appendices..................................................................................................................... .. 27 Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations.............................................. 28 Appendix 2. 2008 Evaluation Impact Parameters................................................. 32 Appendix 3. Post Program Savings A ttributed to Selected 2008 Market Transformation Initiatives...................................................................................... 35 Appendix 4. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive............................................... 36 Appendix 5. Summary of 2008 Energy E fficiency Evaluation Reports ............... 37

### 1 

# I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction
Since July 2001 the Cape Light Compact has de livered energy efficiency programs to all member towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. This Annual Report provides detailed information on the Compact’s energy efficiency activities and savings during the course of calendar year 2008.
The Compact’s 2008 EEP was approved when the 2007-2012 Energy Efficiency Plan was approved on December 24, 2007. This funding will be referred to henceforth as the core 2008 funding.

However, on August 15, 2008, the Compact f iled the Proposal of the Cape Light Compact Seeking Increased Funding for Re sidential Energy Efficiency Programs for 2008 and Amendment to the Approved Ener gy Efficiency Plan: 2007 – 2012 in response to a DPU request to increase spending for re sidential heating progr ams to cover the 2008 winter season. The updated 2008 programs included in the EEP Update were: (a) baseload, weatherization and heating system repair/retrofits for low-income Single Family customers, (b) weatherization for low-income Multi-Family customers, (c) residential weatherization and heating sy stem retrofits through the RCS/MassSAVE program and, (d) increased public educati on and outreach effort s that underlie the delivery of all of the Compact’s progra ms. On October 1, 2008, $357,000 of incremental funding was approved for these programs by the DPU. This funding will be referred to henceforth as the incremental 2008 funding.

Using the core and incremental 2008 fundi ng as approved by the Department, the Compact implemented the following se t of efficiency programs in 2008:

• 

### The Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

### New Construction Program , which provides home buyers, home builders, and construction trade allies with technical assistance and financial incentives to increase the efficiency of homes that are newly built or undergo major renovations. Results of this program are shown in the Residential Lost Opportunity row of Table 2 and in Section III. Results of the Low-Income New Construction Program, which provi des low-income housing development agencies, weatherization assistance progr am (“WAP”) providers, and residential construction trade allies with incentives to increase the home energy rating of new low-income housing, are also included. In 2007, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative approved a $1.5 million grant to the Cape Light Compact in s upport of the Green Affordable Housing Initiative. $1.2 million of the total funds are earmarked for renewable energy systems to be installed on newly constructed affordable homes. The remainder of the funds is for advanced building technology. The Compact was one of six grantees throughout the state.

### 2 The grant funds are for new construction homes that are designated affordable, consistent with the state guidelines. This program builds on the Cape Light Compact’s already successful Residential New Construc tion Demonstration Pilot, which supported four homes built to “green ” standards in Chatham, Orleans, and Falmouth in 2003-2004. The Compact’s program will help affordable housing developers find ways to shrink the “environm ental footprint” of homes and result in lower greenhouse gas emissions, including th e cost of energy for those homes. The Green Affordable Housing Initiative ai ms to catalyze the affordable housing financing, development, and builder comm unities to include more green design and renewable energy in future developments.
Between 2008 and 2010, the program is expected to help build as many as 55 affordable housing units on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. In 2008, this funding aided in the construction of 12 units in Provincetown that were the first to achieve LEED for Homes Platinum in the nation and 6 units that were the first single-family LEED for Homes Platinum units in the nation.

• 

### The Residential Conservation Services RCS/MassSAVE Program , which provides all interested residential customers with energy savings education, the opportunity for a home energy audit and financial in centives for numerous electric and nonelectric efficiency measures, including financial support to switch electric space heating systems to more efficient systems that use alternative fuels. Results of this program are shown in the Residential Retrof it 1-4 row of Table 2 and in Section III.

• 

### The Residential ENERGY STAR Products and Services Program , which seeks to increase the availability and use of ENERGY STAR qualified lighting and appliances, including: clothes washers, room air conditioners, dehumidifiers and refrigerators. This program is used to implement the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (“NEEP”) initiativ es and other regional market transformation efforts. Although the clothes washer initiative ende d in program year 2007, certain eligible rebates from 2007 were paid and reported in 2008. Results of this program are divided appropriately between the Resident ial Lighting and Residential Appliances rows of Table 2 and in Section III.

• 

### The Low-Income Single Family Program , which provides low-income customers in single-family dwellings with assistance in purchasing and in stalling efficient lighting, appliances, and weat herization measures. These services are similar to, but more extensive in ability to leve rage program benefits and offer higher incentives to eligible customers, than in the RCS/MassSAVE program. Results of this program are shown in the Low Inco me Retrofit 1-4 row of Table 3 and in Section III.

• 

### The Low-Income Multi-Family Program , which provides owners and managers of low-income multi-family dwellings with assistance in purchasing and installing efficient lighting, appliances and space heat ing measures. Results of this program are shown in the Low Income Retrofit Multifamily row of Table 3 and in Section III.

### 3 • 

### The Commercial and Industri al New Construction Program , which provides technical assistance and financial incentiv es to increase the efficiency in the construction, renovation, and/or remode ling of all commerc ial, industrial, government and multi-family housing facili ties. Results of this program are included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row of Table 4 and in Section III.

• 

### The Medium and Large Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which provides technical and financ ial assistance to medium and large commercial and industrial (“C&I”) customers seeking to do discretionary replacements of existing operating equipment and processes in th eir facilities with high-efficiency alternatives. Results of th is program are included in the C&I Large Retrofit row of Table 4 and in Section III.

• 

### The Small Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which provides technical assistance, financial incentiv es and direct installation to small C&I customers to replace existing operating equipment and syst ems with high-efficiency equipment. Results of this program are included in the C&I Small Retrofit row of Table 4 and in Section III.

• 

### The Government Agencies Program , which provides technical assistance and financial incentives 1 

### to all government facilities, including municipal, state and federal facilities. For the purposes of repor ting the results of this program in this Annual Report, in Table 4 and in Section III, the results of efficiency activities with small government customers are included in the C&I Small Retrofit row, while the results of efficiency activities with large government customers are included in the C&I Large Retrofit row. The results of government new construction activities are included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row.

• 

### The Commercial and Industrial Products and Services Program , which seeks to increase the availability and use of more efficient motors, lighting designs, and HVAC systems. This program is used to implement NEEP and other regional market transformation initiatives. The resu lts of this program are included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row of Table 4 and in Section III.



## B. Report Organization
This Executive Summary provides an overvie w of the Compact’s energy efficiency programs’ (referred to as BCR Activities) bene fits and costs. For each sector there are tables summarizing the lifetime energy sa vings, lifetime capacity savings, the nonelectric benefits (NEBs), and the dollar values of the total benefits 2 

### and the total costs.

1 Unlike the Compact’s other C&I Programs, where a customer co-pay is required, the Government program covers the entire cost of eligible energy effici ency services resulting from an audit up to a cap of $75,000 per project.

2 The Compact is submitting, consistent with other Program Administrators practice and statewide guidance from the Department of Energy Resources, its benefit-cost ratios for its 2008 energy efficiency

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

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

impact factors that were used in the 2007 Annual Report and the Proposal of the Cape Light Compact Seeking Increased Funding for Resi dential Energy Efficiency Programs for 2008 and Amendment to the Approved Energy Efficiency Plan: 2007 – 2012 (referred to henceforth as the Amended 2008 EEP). 3 

### Using this data allows for the most direct comparison with the estimated savings from the Amended 2008 EEP.

• 

### The evaluated data refers to savings results that are based on evaluation impact factors from all of the program evaluations that have been prepared since the EEP was filed. Thus, the evaluated data presen ts our best estimate of the efficiency savings, based on all the evaluation informa tion available at this time. Appendix 2 presents the impact factors that were used to prepare the evaluated results.
Section II of this Annual Report provides a di scussion of the methodology that is used for program monitoring and evalua tion. It presents a brief summary of the types of evaluations that are used, and a descripti on of the methodology for estimated net energy savings. It also includes a list of the evaluation studies that were used to prepare the 2008 evaluated efficiency savings results. These evaluation studies are also used to inform program design and delivery.
Section III of this Annual Report provides more detailed results of the program activities. The tables in this section include info rmation regarding the number of program participants, the annual efficiency savings and non-electric benefits, the benefit-cost ratio of the program, and the savings impacts by type of end-use (lighting, HVAC, motors, refrigeration, hot water, and end-user behavior). This se ction also summarizes recent evaluation report findings where relevant. Finally, the appendices provide more detail regarding the monitoring and evaluation result s and the program savings. Of particular interest in this Annual Repor t, Appendix 3 provides greater detail of program budgets (by category) and savings (by type).



## C. Summary of Results
Table 1 provides a summary of the program e xpenses and savings. It also presents the percent change between the final evaluated results and (a) the preliminary evaluated results, and (b) the estimates of expenses and savings targets in the Compact’s Amended 2008 EEP. The values in the “Amount” colu mn are the 2008 results, based on all evaluations available at this time.

programs with additional capacity benefits in th e form of a demand reduction induced price effect (“DRIPE”).

3 D.P.U. 07-47, Proposal of the Cape Light Compact Seeking Increased Funding for Residential Energy Efficiency Programs for 2008 and Amendment to the Approved Energy Efficiency Plan: 2007 – 2012 (August 15, 2008) (the “Amended 2008 EEP”).

### 5 (Eval-Pre)/Eval (Eval-Plan)/Eval Prorgram Implementation Expenses $5.367 $ - Millions 0% -4% Total Expenses $5.486 $ - Millions 0% -6% Annual Energy Savings 10.070 GWh -31% -20% Annual Summer Demand Savings 1.954 MW -4% -11% Annual Winter Demand Savings 2.357 MW -38% -5% Lifetime Energy Savings 104.291 GWh -17% -10% Lifetime Demand Savings 25.551 MW-Years -1% -25% Total Resource Cost Test 3.362 Benefit / Cost -8% 4% Performance Incentive - After Taxes - $ - Millions - 0% SAVINGS AND EXPENSES FOR 2008 TABLE 1

Measurement Amount Percent Change Comparison Units

Program implementation expenses include all of the co sts incurred by the Compac t, except for monitoring and verification costs. Total expenses include pr ogram implementation costs, plus monitoring and verification costs, plus customer contributions.



### The Compact’s 2008 program implementation e xpenses were roughly 4% lower than the budgets in the Amended 2008 EEP and the tota l expenses were roughly 6% lower than the budgets in the Amended 2008 EEP. The lower program implementation expenses were primarily due to reduced program ad ministrative costs. The reduced program administrative costs were due to the reorga nization of functions, including bringing the customer call center 800# in-house in August, 2008, that not only provide cost efficiency but also increase customer service th rough direct access to program support staff. Additionally, a portion of planned cust omer incentives and technical assistance that was unspent in 2008 was due to timing of co mpletion of payments and will be carriedover to 2009. The lower total expenses were due to reduced evaluation costs. The reduced evaluation costs were due to the continued benefits of shared costs among all program administrators participating in jo int statewide and regional studies.
The annual and lifetime energy savings achieve d in 2008 were lower th an those estimated in the Amended 2008 EEP (by 20% and 10%, re spectively). Also, the annual summer, annual winter, and lifetime capacity savings achieved in 2008 were lower than those estimated in the Amended 2008 EEP (by 11% , 5%, and 25%, respectively). Savings declines were primarily experienced in the Residential Lighting, Residential Appliances and Low Income Retrofit 1-4 programs. In the Residential Lighti ng program, CFL and outdoor fixture uptake was lower than projecte d. However, the primary drivers of the savings declines were decreases in m easure lives for coupon bulbs, savings for markdown bulbs, and the net to gross ratios for all lighting products. In the Residential Appliances program, uptake of room air cond itioners and dehumidifiers was significantly lower than estimated. In the Low Income Re trofit 1-4 program, uptake on weatherization and refrigerators was lower than estimated.
The benefit-cost ratio of the 2008 programs in total was 3.36. This indicates that the Compact’s programs in total are highly co st-effective, where ev ery $1.00 spent reduces the net cost of electricity by $3.36.

### 6 

## D. Summary of Results by Sector

1. Residential Programs
Table 2 presents the lifetime energy savings , lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime nonelectric benefits for each of th e residential programs. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2008 present value dolla rs. These total benefits and costs are used to determine whether each program is cost-e ffective, based on th e total resource cost (TRC) test.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Activit y Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Benefits $-Costs A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 2,255 2,188 133 133 $1,059,477 $1,059,477 $1,259,638 $561,557 A02b Residential HVAC - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0 A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 20,311 20,311 7,046 7,046 $3,976,992 $3,976, 992 $6,933,659 $1,794,286 A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A03c Residential Load Response NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A04a Residential Lighting 39,004 21,654 2,545 2,238 $341,556 $202,156 $2,452,127 $365,406 A04b Residential Appliances 692 694 287 288 $50,594 $50,594 $165,894 $155,032 Total 62,262 44,847 10,013 9,706 $5,428,620 $5,289, 220 $10,811,317 $2,876,281 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW TRC Values Lifetime $ NEB



### Figures 1 through 4 present the same information as Table 2. They indicate that most of the residential energy and capacity savings are obtained from the Residential Retrofit 1-4 and Residential Lighting programs; that most of the non-electric bene fits come from the Residential Retrofit 1-4 program; and that all residential programs are cost effective.
The evaluated lifetime MWh savings is lower than the preliminary lifetime MWh savings for the Residential Lost Opportunity progr am due to the application of a savings adjustment factor. The evaluated lifetime MWh and lifetime kW savings is lower than the preliminary lifetime MWh and lifetime kW sa vings for the Residential Lighting program due to the decreases in measure lives fo r coupon bulbs, savings for markdown bulbs, and the net to gross ratios for all lighting products. The evaluated lifetime non-electric benefits are lower than the preliminary lifetim e non-electric benefits for the Residential Lighting program due to the decrease in the measure life for coupon bulbs. The evaluated lifetime MWh savings and lifetime kW savings is higher than the preliminary lifetime MWh and lifetime kW savings for the Resi dential Appliances program due to the application of a dehumidifier savings adjustment factor.

### 7 FIGURE 1 RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH

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

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily
A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity



### FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME kW

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily
A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

### 8 FIGURE 3 RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME $ NEB

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB A04b Residential Appliances A04a Residential Lighting A03c Residential Load Response A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily
A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4
A02b Residential HVAC A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 4 RESIDENTIAL TRC VALUES

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

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS$ TRC VALUE A04b Residential Appliances A04a Residential Lighting A03c Residential Load Response A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily
A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4
A02b Residential HVAC A02a Residential Lost Opportunity



### 2. Low-Income Programs
Table 3 presents the lifetime energy savings , lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime nonelectric benefits for each of the low-income programs. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2008 presen t value dollars. These total benefits and costs are used to determine whether each pr ogram is cost-effective, based on the total
resource cost test.

### 9 Benefit-Cost Ratio Activit y Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Benefits $-Costs B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0 B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 6,032 6,032 420 420 $2,184,424 $2,184,424 $2,708,448 $647,520 B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 3,381 3,381 74 74 $383,481 $383,481 $630,360 $97,565 Total 9,412 9,412 494 494 $2,567,905 $2,567,905 $3,338,808 $745,085 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF LOW-INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW TRC Values Lifetime $ NEB



### Figures 5 through 8 present the same informati on graphically as liste d in Table 3. They indicate that most of the energy and capacity savings and non-electric benefits are coming from the Low Income Retrofit 1-4 pr ogram and all of the programs are costeffective. There is no difference between the evaluated and preliminary results for low income programs since there were no upda tes from evaluation studies this year.

FIGURE 5 LOW-INCOME LIFETIME MWH

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

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily
B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity

### 10 FIGURE 6 LOW-INCOME LIFETIME kW

- 100 200 300 400 500 600

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily
B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 7 LOW-INCOME LIFETIME $ NEB

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily
B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity

### 11 FIGURE 8 LOW-INCOME TRC VALUES

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS$ TRC VALUE B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily
B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity



### 3. Commercial & Industrial Programs
Table 4 presents the lifetime energy savings , lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime nonelectric benefits for each of the Commercial & Industrial programs. It also presents the total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2008 pr esent value dollars. These total benefits and costs are used to determine whether each program is cost-effective, based on the total resource cost (TRC) test.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Activit y Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Benefits $-Costs C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 10,998 10,998 2,708 2,708 $71,775 $71,775 $1,492,024 $337,348 C03a Large C&I Retrofit 10,660 10,660 4,673 4,673 $13,587 $13,587 $1,824,816 $700,254 C03b Small C&I Retrofit 28,375 28,374 7,970 7,970 $165,302 $165,300 $4,090,215 $1,752,271 Total 50,032 50,032 15,351 15,351 $250,663 $250,662 $7,407,055 $2,789,873 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF C&I BCR ACTIVITIES Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW TRC Values Lifetime $ NEB



### Figures 9 through 12 present the same informati on as Table 4. They indicate that much of the energy and capacity savings and non-el ectric benefits come from the Small C&I Retrofit program; and that all of the programs are cost-effective.
The evaluated lifetime MWh savings is slight ly lower than the preliminary lifetime MWh savings for the Small C&I Retrofit program due to the application of what was previously a lighting realization rate as a savings adjustment factor. 4 

### This change also impacted the calculation of the lifetime non-el ectric benefits and explains why the evaluated lifetime non-electric benefits are slightly lower than the preliminary lifetime non-electric benefits for this program.

4 It was determined that the results from the Multiple Small Business Services Programs Impact Evaluation 2007, Final Report Update, by Summit Blue Consulting, September 2, 2008 only apply to energy savings and not demand savings.

### 12 FIGURE 9 C&I LIFETIME MWH

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

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03a Large C&I Retrofit C02a C&I Lost Opportunity



### FIGURE 10 C&I LIFETIME kW

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03a Large C&I Retrofit C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

### 13 FIGURE 11 C&I LIFETIME $ NEB

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03a Large C&I Retrofit C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 12 C&I TRC VALUES

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENFITS VERSUS COSTS$ TRC VALUE C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03a Large C&I Retrofit C02a C&I Lost Opportunity



# II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology
Preliminary versus Evaluated Results
As noted above, the savings data in this report are presented in terms of both “preliminary” and “evaluated” data.

### 14 • 

### The preliminary data refers to savings estimates that are based on the evaluation impact factors 5 

### that were used in the 2007 A nnual Report and the Proposal of the Cape Light Compact Seeking Increased Funding for Resi dential Energy Efficiency Programs for 2008 and Amendment to the Approved Energy Efficiency Plan: 2007 – 2012 (referred to as the Amended 2008 EEP). 6 

### Using this data allows for the most direct comparison with the estimate d savings from the Amended 2008 EEP.

• 

### The evaluated data refers to savings results that are based on evaluation impact factors from all of the program evaluations that have been prepared since the 2008 EEP was filed. Thus, the eval uated data presents our best estimate of the efficiency savings, based on all the evaluation informa tion available at this time. Appendix 2 presents the impact factors that were used to prepare the evaluated results.

Evaluation Studies Used in Pr eparing 2008 Evaluated Results
Since its inception in July 2001, the Compact has participated in many state-wide and regional monitoring and evaluation studies, al ong with other energy efficiency Program Administrators. The Compact has also conduc ted several evaluation studies specific to its own programs. It is common for energy efficiency program evaluators to update parameters on a multi-year cycle, unless significant program changes warrant more frequent study.
The evaluation studies completed in 2008 that were used to u pdate impact factors or to inform the process of program delivery are li sted below. In 2008 the studies included a mix of process and impact evaluation and ot her research. The executive summaries of these reports are included in Appendix 5.

• Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Findings and Analysis" by Nexus Market Research and Dorothy Conant, July 2, 2009.

• The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR Program 2008 Progress Report, by Dorothy Conant, July 6, 2009.

• Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, Inc, and GDS Associates, January 20, 2009.

• Massachusetts Residential Appliance Saturation Survey, FINAL, by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, April 2009.

5 Evaluation impact factors include measure lives, free- ridership rates, spillover rates, in-service rates, and realization rates.

6 D.P.U. 07-47, Proposal of the Cape Light Compact Seeking Increased Funding for Residential Energy Efficiency Programs for 2008 and Amendment to the Approved Energy Efficiency Plan: 2007 – 2012 (August 15, 2008) (the “Amended 2008 EEP”).

### 15 Types of Evaluations
The evaluation of 2008 energy efficiency progr am impacts reflects the Compact’s efforts to apply appropriate methodologies and adjust them for individual program characteristics. The diverse nature of the programs, includi ng the magnitude of preliminary kW and kWh impacts, the numbe r of customers served, and the end uses affected, calls for the adoption of different evaluation approaches. Evaluations of some programs use several methodologies to deve lop overall impact results and provide meaningful feedback on program delivery a nd direction. Some of these methodologies are briefly described below.
Survey-Based Impact Parameter Studies . Survey-based impact parameter studies focus on the analysis of information collected th rough customer surveys. They are generally used to measure free-ridership and spillover. These studies provide timely feedback to program managers as well as input to the impact evaluations.
Billing Analyses . Billing analyses involve the analys is of billing data, combined in some cases with survey data, to determine imp acts for programs where a large number of participants install similar measures. Since billing data are available for all customers, billing analysis techniques may include repr esentative samples of both participants and non-participants in an evaluation.

• In 2008, the Massachusetts program admini strators jointly funded evaluation of New Homes with ENERGY STAR include d a billing analysis to develop a heating savings adjustment factor.
Site Specific Measurement Analysis . Impact evaluations for many of the end uses and programs covered in this report rely on engi neering estimates that are based on sitespecific metering and on-site telephone a ssessments of measure performance and persistence.

Process and Market Pr ogress Evaluation Studies . Process evaluations review energy efficiency program design and implemen tation, and recommend modifications to program delivery. The scope of these evalua tions includes all aspects of the program including administrative efficiency, the quali ty of service provided, and the databases used for program tracking and reporting. Pro cess evaluations assess the early stages of energy efficiency programs. They specifica lly provide an assessment of (a) whether actual operations resemble the intended program design and operation plan, and (b) whether real-world experience shows that the original program design and implementation plan are appropriate given the existing field conditions.

• In 2008, the Cape Light Compact co-s ponsored a Residential Appliance Saturation Survey that characterizes current penetrations and saturations of energy consuming equipment by residential customers in Massachusetts. Results from this study can help inform impact calc ulations and planning assumptions.
Economic Modeling and Analysis Studies. The benefits and cost -effectiveness of energy efficiency programs are based on modeling and an alysis that values energy efficiency in relation to the avoided costs of energy supply projected ove r the life of the programs and measures installed. Avoided costs are typica lly projected based on forecasting models.

### 16 The cost-effectiveness results presented in th is report – both prelim inary and evaluated – are all based on the avoided cost estimates th at were used in preparing the Amended 2008 EEP. This approach allows for a more direct comparison of the economic results between the Amended 2008 EEP and the 2008 Annual Report. The avoided cost estimates used for both of these studies ar e taken from the following report: Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., Avoided Energy Supply Costs in New England, 2007 Final Report, prepared for the Avoided En ergy Supply Component (AESC) Study Group, Revised - January 3, 2008.

Generic Impact Equations
The general form of the impact equation fo r most of the measures installed is:
Net Impacts = Gross Impacts * Realizati on Rate*(1-Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Persistence Factor.

Realization Rates are study-specific parameters, whic h typically compare the energy or demand performance of installed equipment to in itial estimates of performance. They are typically based on engineeri ng or billing analysis.
Free-ridership includes both partial and pure free-ri dership, where such information is available, as required by D.T.E 98-100.
In energy efficiency programs, spillover may occur among both participants and nonparticipants. Both participant and nonpa rticipant spillover were used in the calculation of savings for commer cial and industrial programs, consistent with D.T.E. 98- 100. The nonparticipant spillover impact used in this report is based on the combined results of National Grid and Compact surveys.

Persistence indicates the continued presence of sa vings over time as indicated by followup surveys that confirm the measure remain s installed, and verify it is operating as intended. As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study, “Savings persistence is the percent change in expected savings due to changed operating hours, changed process operation, and/or degradation in equipment efficiency relative to the baseline efficiency option”.

Measure lives are applied to net annual kW and kW h to calculate lifetime kW and kWh. As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study 7 

### , measure life is “The median number of years that a measure is installed and operati onal. This definition implicitly includes equipment life and measure persistence, but not savings persiste nce....In addition, this definition conforms in letter or in spirit with the definition of measure life used by most national utilities.”

7 Measure Life Study Report prepared for the Massachusetts Join t Utilities by Energy Resource Solutions (ERS), October 10, 2005.

### 17 Performance Metrics
As a not-for-profit inter- governmental organization, the Compact does not require shareholder performance incentives, and thus does not need to monito r or track any form of performance metrics.



# III. Impacts by BCR Activity

A. Residential

1. By BCR Activity
Table 5 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the costs incurred for the residential programs. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. The costs and benefits used to derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 2.

The Residential Retrofit 1-4 and Residential Lighting Programs provide the greatest annual energy and capacity savings. All of the residential programs are cost-effective. However, the Residential Lighting program is particularly cost-effective and remained highly cost-effective, despite the updates to the impact factors by an evaluation study that reduced the savings and be nefits of this program.

Benefit-Cost Ratio BenefitCost

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

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 91 267,831 2,943 17.05 $46,528 2,188 133 $1,059,477 $561,557 $6,171 2.24 A02b Residential HVAC - - NA - $0 - - $0 $0 NA NA A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 2,462 2,068,460 840 388.29 $236,229 20,311 7,046 $3,976,992 $1,794,286 $729 3.86 A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A03c Residential Load Response NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A04a Residential Lighting 3,309 3,279,409 991 335.56 $31,214 21,654 2,238 $202,156 $365,406 $110 6.71 A04b Residential Appliances 476 64,371 135 26.83 $4,644 694 288 $50,594 $155,032 $326 1.07 Total 6,338 5,680,072 896 767.73 $318,614 44,847 9,706 $5,289,220 $2,876,281 $454 3.76 TABLE 5 IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime CostParticipant



### 2. By End Use
Table 6 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the residential programs. Lighting and HVAC provide the majority of energy and capacity savings from the residential programs. Most of the residentia l non-electric benefits are from HVAC.
The residential impact factors were updated by evaluation studies. There are significant differences between preliminary and eval uated results for Lighting. The evaluated lifetime MWh and lifetime kW savings and non-el ectric benefits are substantially lower than the preliminary lifetime MWh and lifetim e kW savings and non-electric benefits for Lighting measures due to adjustme nts to several impact factors.

### 18 End Use Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Lighting 50,480 33,130 3,295 2,988 $428,626 $289,226 HVAC 10,673 10,674 6,462 6,463 $3,774,612 $3,774,612 Refrigeration 312 312 26 26 $0 $0 Hot Water 797 731 230 230 $1,225,381 $1,225,381 Motors 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA Total 62,262 44,847 10,013 9,706 $5,428,620 $5,289,220 TABLE 6 IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL END-USES Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB



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

FIGURE 13 RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

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

Preliminary Report

Lifetime MWH

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH End User Behavior
Motors
Hot Water Refrigeration
HVAC Lighting

### 19 FIGURE 14 RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME kW - END-USE

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

Preliminary Report

Lifetime kW

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW End User Behavior
Motors
Hot Water Refrigeration
HVAC Lighting

FIGURE 15 RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME $ NEB - END- USE

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000

Preliminary Report
Lifetime $ NEB

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTSLIFETIME $ NEB End User Behavior
Motors
Hot Water Refrigeration
HVAC Lighting

### 20 3. Program Evaluation

The Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

### New Construction Program 

### In 2009, the Joint Management Committee (JMC) completed an evaluation report. 8 

### The evaluation included:

• A billing analysis of homes built through the Program in 2006 and 2007 (which provided adjustment factors for both the User-Defined Reference Home and the As-Built ENERGY STAR-Q ualified Home); and,

• An estimation of the value to homeowners of 7 non-electric impacts; and interviews with the owners of buildi ngs who participated in the free CFL component of the program.
The billing analysis generated an adjustment factor for the gross energy savings from the heating end-use. This adjustment factor was applied to the savings assumption and impacted the savings and benefits calculated for this program. This adjustment factor calibrates savings derived from the simulation model for to estimate savings for each participating home with actual weather-nor malized energy consumption as observed on customer bills.
The evaluation report also found that the re cession and housing mark et decline of 2008 had significant effects on the program, both in terms of a reduction in the number of qualified homes built, and an increase in builders’ perceptions of the value of the ENERGY STAR label on a home. Additionall y, the evaluation also found that the Program’s steps toward a market-driven m odel, having builders choose their own HERS raters and giving them the option to select and install CFLs themselves, also appear to be working well.

The Residential Lighting Program 

### In 2009, an impact evaluation 9 

### was conducted to provide updated information on markdown and buydown programs in New England states. The study developed load shapes, coincidence factors, delta watts, daily and annual hours of use, and first-year and lifetime installation rates. Re sults are based on a telephone su rveys and on-site visits of randomly selected and sampled homes that were conducted for the sole purpose of finding recently purchased and installed markdown CFLs. The methodology was selected to ensure that winter load shape a nd coincidence factor re sults could be obtained.

8 Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Findings and Analysis" by Nexus Market Research and Do rothy Conant, July 2, 2009.

9 Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, Inc, and GDS Associates, January 20, 2009.

### 21 The Residential ENERGY STAR Products and Services Program 

### In 2009, an applian ce saturation survey 10 

### was conducted, based on a mail/internet survey and in-home verification of a subset of the survey respondents’ residences. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the pe netration and saturati on of Massachusetts homes with appliances and other energy using equipment. The study was conducted statewide, though program administ rator-specific results were also provided. Cape Light Compact had the highest response rate (28%) of any population stratu m/service territory included in the survey. While information from this survey is useful in planning and in understanding baseline levels of penetrati on and saturation of appliances and other residential end-use equipment in the state and in service providers’ territories, the results of this study did not influence the impact factors used to esti mate the savings and benefits from this program. However, the study inform ed an adjustment factor for dehumidifier savings in the Cape Light Compact service territory. 11



## B. Low-Income

1. By BCR Activity
Table 7 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the costs incurred for the low-income programs. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. The costs and benefits used to derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 3.
The Low Income Retrofit 1-4 Program contribut es greater annual and lifetime energy and capacity savings and non-electric benefits due to the fact that there are a greater number of participants in this program. All of the programs are cost effective.

Benefit-Cost Ratio BenefitCost

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

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity - - NA - $0 - - $0 $0 NA NA B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 481 475,894 989 47.17 $166,399 6,032 420 $2,184,424 $647,520 $1,346 4.18 B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 81 157,048 1,939 6.70 $20,633 3,381 74 $383,481 $97,565 $1,205 6.46 TOTAL 562 632,942 1,126 53.86 $187,032 9,412 494 $2,567,905 $745,085 $1,326 4.48 TABLE 7 IMPACT BY LOW-INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime CostParticipant



### 2. By End Use
Table 8 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the low-income programs. Most of the energy and capacity savings for low income are from the Lighting and HVAC end

10 Massachusetts Residential Appliance Saturation Survey, FINAL, by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, April 2009.

11 The Massachusetts Residential Appliance Saturation Survey, FINAL, by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, April 2009 showed higher hours of operation for dehumidifiers in the Cape Light Compact’s territory as compared to other territories and the state as whole. This adjustment f actor was applied to account for this difference.

### 22 uses. Most of the low-income non-electric be nefits come from the HVAC measures. This is because the home energy audits result in benefits associated with (a) improved property values, (b) reduced fire, illness and moving costs, and (c) fossil-fuel savings. All of the low-income programs also have non-electric benefits as a result of reduced usage of the low-income discount rate. The low income programs also have non-electric benefits that are experienced by non-low-income residential customers, such as lighting O&M savings and reduced water usage.

There is no difference between the evaluate d and preliminary results for low income programs since there were no updates from evaluation studies this year.

Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Lighting 4,990 4,990 325 325 $102,807 $102,807 HVAC 4,059 4,059 85 85 $2,121,876 $2,121,876 Refrigeration 309 309 53 53 $37,186 $37,186 Hot Water 54 54 31 31 $306,037 $306,037 Motors 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA Total 9,412 9,412 494 494 $2,567,905 $2,567,905 TABLE 8 IMPACT BY LOW-INCOME END-USES Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB End Use



### Figures 16 through 18 present the same information as Table 8.

FIGURE 16 LOW-INCOME LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

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

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH End User Behavior
Motors
Hot Water Refrigeration
HVAC Lighting

### 23 FIGURE 17 LOW-INCOME LIFETIME kW - END-USE

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW End User Behavior
Motors
Hot Water Refrigeration
HVAC Lighting



### FIGURE 18 LOW-INCOME LIFETIME $ NEB - END-USE

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB End User Behavior
Motors
Hot Water Refrigeration
HVAC Lighting

### 24 3. Program Evaluation

No new evaluation activities have been c onducted since the 2004 pr ocess evaluation of the low income program and the addition, in 2006, of low income non-electric benefits (NEBs) to the estimates of low in come multifamily program impacts.



## C. Commercial & Industrial

1. By BCR Activity
Table 9 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the lifetime savings, and the costs in curred for the commercial & i ndustrial programs. It also presents the benefit-cost ratio, based on th e total resource cost test. The costs and benefits used to derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 4.
The Small C&I Retrofit Program contribute s the most annual and lifetime energy and capacity savings and non-electric benefits due to high participation in this program. All of the programs are cost-effective.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Benefit-Cost

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

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 31 735,008 23,710 181.04 $4,785 10,998 2,708 $71,775 $337,348 $10,882 4.42 C03a Large C&I Retrofit 23 754,391 32,800 322.76 $1,045 10,660 4,673 $13,587 $700,254 $30,446 2.61 C03b Small C&I Retrofit 214 2,267,301 10,595 629.10 $12,715 28,374 7,970 $165,300 $1,752,271 $8,188 2.33 TOTAL 268 3,756,699 14,018 1,132.91 $18,546 50,032 15,351 $250,662 $2,789,873 $10,410 2.65 TABLE 9 IMPACT BY C&I BCR ACTIVITIES Annual Lifetime CostParticipant



### 2. By End Use
Table 10 presents a summary of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the co mmercial & industrial
programs. Most of the energy and capacity savings ar e obtained primarily fr om lighting measures and, to a lesser extent, from motors/drives m easures. The non-electric benefits in the C&I sector are primarily from reduced O&M costs as a result of efficient light bulbs with longer operating lives.

There is no difference between the evaluate d and preliminary results for C&I programs since there were no updates from evaluation studies this year.

### 25 Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Lighting 33,495 33,495 8,589 8,589 $250,663 $250,662 HVAC 2,696 2,696 743 743 $0 $0 Motors / Drives 9,656 9,656 4,965 4,965 $0 $0 Refrigeration 3,637 3,637 997 997 $0 $0 Hot Water 548 548 58 58 $0 $0 Compressed Air NA NA NA NA NA NA Process NA NA NA NA NA NA End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA Total 50,032 50,032 15,351 15,351 $250,663 $250,662 TABLE 10 IMPACT BY C&I END-USES Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB End Use



### Figures 19 through 21 present the same information as Table 10.

FIGURE 19 C&I LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

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

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH End User Behavior
Process Compressed Air
Hot Water Refrigeration
Motors / Drives
HVAC Lighting

### 26 FIGURE 20 C&I LIFETIME kW - END USE

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW End User Behavior
Process Compressed Air
Hot Water Refrigeration
Motors / Drives
HVAC Lighting



### FIGURE 21 C&I LIFETIME $ NEB - END-USE

$250,661 $250,662 $250,662 $250,663 $250,663 $250,664

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB End User Behavior
Process Compressed Air
Hot Water Refrigeration
Motors / Drives
HVAC Lighting



### 3. Program Evaluation
The Cape Light Compact conducted no new ev aluations pertaining to commercial and industrial programs.

### 27 

# Appendices

### 28 

## Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 12



### Annual kWh Reduction Expected net annual energy savi ngs after all impact factors have been taken into consideration.
AMP Appliance Management Program
BBRS Board of Building Regu lations and Standards
CAP Community Action Program
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamps
Coincident Peak Demand Demand for electricity at the time of the Company’s peak demand.
Delta Watts The difference in the wattage between pre-existing or baseline lighting equipment and energy efficient lighting equipment.
Demand The amount of electric energy used by a customer or a piece of equipment at a specific tim e, expressed in kilowatts. Demand Adjustment Factor This factor is a combination of one or more evaluation impact parameters applied to gross demand savings in the calculation of net demand savings. Diversity That characteristic of a variety of electric loads whereby individual maximum demands usually occur at different times. Diversity Factor Percent of savings available atthe time of the Company’s peak demand.
DOE Department of Energy
DOER Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources
D&R D&R International, the contra ctor to DOE and EPA that monitors sales of ENERGY STAR® appliances.
DSM Demand Side Management
DTE Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy
EFLH Equivalent Full Load Hours

12 Much of this glossary was taken from Massachusetts Electric and Nantucket Electric, 2003 Energy Efficiency Annual Report , submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy, September 2004. In addition to this glossary, a glossa ry completed in March 2009 for the Regional EM&V Forum with additional terms and acronyms is now available at: http://www.neep.org/EMVinfo.html

### 29 Energy Adjustment Factor A factor made up of one or more evaluation impact parameters applied to gross kW h savings in the calculation of net kWh savings.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPACT Energy Policy Act
ENERGY STAR® Brand name for the voluntary energy efficiency labeling initiative sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy.
Free Riders Customers who participate in an energy efficiency program but would have installed the sa me measure(s) on their own if the program had not been available. Free-Ridership Rate The percent of savings attr ibutable to Free Riders.
Gross kW Expected demand reduction based on a comparison of standard or replaced equipment, and equipment installed through an energy efficiency program.
Gross kWh Expected kWh reduction based on a comparison of standard or replaced equipment, and e quipment installed through an energy efficiency program.
GWh Gigawatt-hour – a measure of electricity usage over time equal to 1,000 megawatt-hour s or 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours.
Hours of Use The estimated number of hours per year that a measure operates.
Hours of Use Realization Rate Ratio of actual metered hours of use data to estimated hours of use data.
HP Horsepower
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Impact Factor Generic term for persistence, realization rates, in-service rates, non-coincid ent connected demand factors, etc., developed during the evaluation of energy efficiency programs and used to calculate net savings.
JMC The Joint Management Committee of utility and non-utility parties that manages the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program.
kWh Kilowatt-hour – The basic unit of electric energy usage over time. One kWh is equal to one kW of power supplied to a circuit for a period of one hour.
kW Kilowatt – A measure of electric demand – 1000 watts
kW – Years See: Lifetime kW
Lifetime The expected length of time, in years, that an installed measure will be in service and producing savings.
Lifetime kW The expected demand savings over the lifetime of an

### 30 installed measure, calculated by multiplying the annual peak kW reduction associated with a measure by the expected lifetime of that measure. It is expressed in units of kWyears. Lifetime MWh The expected energy savings over the lifetime of an installed measure, calculated by multiplying the annual MWh reduction associated with a measure by the expected lifetime of that measure.
LIHEAP Low Income Heating Assistance Program
Maximum Annual kW Savings Peak annual demand savings of a measure. At the program level, this equals the sum of the annual peak demand savings across all measures.
Measure Specific technology or practice that produces energy and/or demand savings for which the company provides financial incentives.
MPER Multi-Year Program Evaluation and Market Progress Reporting, or Market Progre ss and Evaluation Report, developed for various residential programs.
MW Megawatt – a measure of electric demand equal to 1,000 kilowatts.
MWh Megawatt-hour – a measure of energy use over time equal to 1,000 kilowatt-hours.
NATE North American Technician Excellence Program
NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
O&M Operation and Maintenance Off-Peak energy kWh The kWh reduction that occurs during the Company’s offpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. and all day of weekends and holidays) On-Peak Energy kWh The kWh reduction that occurs during the Company’s onpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., except holidays)
Persistence Rate Percentage of first year ener gy or demand savings expected to persist over the life of the installed energy efficiency equipment; developed by conducting surveys of installed equipment several years after installation to determine presence and operational capab ility of the equipment.
RCS Residential Conservation Services. Formerly Energy Conservation Services or ECS Seasonal (Winter/Summer) kW The net demand reduction during either the Winter or Summer seasons. Spillover Additional energy efficient equipment installed by customers

### 31 that were influenced by the Company’s sponsored program, but without direct fi nancial or technical assistance from the program. Spillover is separated into Participantand Nonparticipant factors. Non-participating customers may be influenced by product availabi lity, publicity, education, and other factors that are affected by the program. Spillover Rate Estimate of energy savings attributable to spillover effects expressed as a percent of savi ngs installed by participants through an energy efficiency program.
VSD Variable Speed Drive
WAP Weatherization Assistance Program
Watt The basic electrical unit of power.

### 32 

## Appendix 2. 2008 Evaluation Impact Parameters
The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated savings for the Commercial & Industrial programs in 2008. Comm ercial & Industrial impact factors were not evaluated in 2008.

Table A2.1 Commercial & Industrial Program Evaluation Impact Factors

BCR Activity Program End Use Measure Life Free Ridership

Rate Spillover [Participant] Rate Spillover[NonParticipant] Rate InService

Rate C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction ALght 15 13.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction BHVAC 15 14.80% 5.90% 2.60% 100% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction CMoDr 20 100.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction ALght 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit ALght 13 35.20% 0.70% 2.60% 100% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit BHVAC 12 12.50% 5.20% 2.60% 100% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit CMoDr 15 19.30% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large BHVAC 12 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large DRefr 13 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit ALght 13 7.70% 0.30% 2.60% 86% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit BHVAC 10 2.10% 25.40% 2.60% 100% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit DRefr 10 7.80% 0.40% 2.60% 100% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit EHoWa 10 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small ALght 13 0.60% 3.40% 2.60% 89% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small BHVAC 10 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small DRefr 10 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 100% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services ALght 15 27.90% 13.40% 2.60% 100% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services BHVAC 13 14.80% 5.90% 2.60% 100% C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services CMoDr 15 28.80% 9.20% 2.60% 100%

Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% for the In-Service Rate nor 0% for the Free Ridership, Participant Spillover, or Non-Participant Spillover Rates.

### 33 The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated savings for residential programs offered by the Cape Light Compact in 2008. Impact factors shown below for most programs repr esent the common assumptions developed by Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information on measures in statewide programs. The Resi dential Lighting program impact factors in bold were updated in 2008.

Table A2.2 Residential Program Evaluation Impact Factors

BCR Activity Measure Measure Life Free Ridership Rate Spillover [Participant] Rate Spillover[NonParticipant] Rate InService

Rate A02a Residential Lost Opportunity CFL 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 90% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSC 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSD 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSS 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSCCP 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSDCP 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERSSCP 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LIHERSC 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LIHERSD 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LIHERSS 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LIHERSCCP 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LIHERSDCP 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LIHERSSCP 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

BCR Activity Measure Measure Life Free Ridership

Rate Spillover [Participant] Rate Spillover[NonParticipant] Rate InService

Rate

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 CFL 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 90% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Torchiere 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 BOILRWATER 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 ECM HEAT (CLC-specific) 18 15.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (retirement value) 1 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (energy star value) 13 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Oil 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Gas 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Electric 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Other Fuels 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Oil 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Gas 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Electric 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Other Fuels 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 TSTATS 10 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Heating System Replacement, Oil 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Heating System Replacement, Other Fuels 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 BOILER RESET CONTROLS 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Indirect Water Heater, Oil 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Solar Hot Water, Electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 DHW ISMs, Oil 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 DHW ISMs, Electric 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 WINDOWS 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

### 34 BCR Activity Measure Measure Life Free Ridership

Rate Spillover [Participant] Rate Spillover[NonParticipant] Rate InService

Rate A04a Residential Lighting CFL - Markdown 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97% A04a Residential Lighting CFL - Coupon 5 6.00% 25.00% 0.00% 84% A04a Residential Lighting Indoor Fixture 20 8.00% 4.00% 0.00% 76% A04a Residential Lighting Outdoor Fixture 6 12.00% 7.00% 0.00% 52% A04a Residential Lighting Torchiere 8 6.00% 3.00% 0.00% 33% A04b Residential Appliances AC (retirement value) 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A04b Residential Appliances AC (energy star value) 11 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A04b Residential Appliances AC (retirement value) turn-in 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A04b Residential Appliances AC (energy star value) turn-in 11 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A04b Residential Appliances CLOTHESWASHERS 11 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27% A04b Residential Appliances Dehumidifiers (retirement value) turn-in 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% A04b Residential Appliances Dehumidifiers (energy star value) turn-in 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%
Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% for the In-Service Rate nor 0% for the Free Ridership, Participant Spillover, or Non-Participant Spillover Rates.



### The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated savings for low income programs offered by the Cape Light Compact in 2008. Impact factors shown below for most programs repr esent the common assumptions developed by Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information on measures in statewide programs. Low Inco me impact factors were not evaluated in 2008.

Table A2.3 Low Income Program Evaluation Impact Factors

BCR Activity Measure Measure Life Free Ridership

Rate Spillover [Participant] Rate Spillover[NonParticipant] Rate InService

Rate

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL - electric 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL - oil 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL - gas 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION - electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION - gas 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION - oil 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Heating System Retrofit 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 CFL's 16 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Torchiere 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (retirement value) 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (energy star value) 13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 DHWater Measure (elec) 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 DHWater Measure (gas&other) 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 WINDOWS 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Refrigerator (retirement value) 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Refrigerator (energy star value) 13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily WINDOWS 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Insulation & Air Sealing - electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% for the In-Service Rate nor 0% for the Free Ridership, Participant Spillover, or Non-Participant Spillover Rates.

### 35 

## Appendix 3. Post Program Saving s Attributed to Selected 2008 Market Transformation Initiatives
The Compact has not developed estimates of post program savings associated with market transformation initiatives. It is our understanding that this issue has not been considered a high priority for DOER or other Program Administrators.

### 36 

## Appendix 4. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive
The Cape Light Compact does not require shareholder incentives to implement its energy efficiency programs. Therefore, this section is not relevant to the Compact.

### 37 

## Appendix 5. Summary of 2008 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Reports
The following studies were used in prepari ng the evaluated results presented in this Annual Report. The executive summaries of th ese reports are attached below. The full copies of these reports are available from the Compact upon request.

• Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Findings and Analysis" by Nexus Market Research and Dorothy Conant, July 2, 2009.

• The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR Program 2008 Progress Report, by Dorothy Conant, July 6, 2009

• Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, Inc, and GDS Associates, January 20, 2009

• Massachusetts Residential Appliance Saturation Survey, FINAL, by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, April 200922 Haskell Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 Phone: (617) 497-7544 Fax: (617) 497-7543 www.nexusmarketresearch.com 

# Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program
2008 Findings and Analysis

Final Report
Executive Summary



# July 2, 2009

Submitted to: 

## Joint Management Committee

Submitted by: 

# Nexus Market Research Dorothy ConantMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR—2008 Overall Report



## Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.............................................................................................................................. ........... 1

P ROGRAM O VERVIEW

.............................................................................................................................. .................. 1

C ONCLUSIONS

.............................................................................................................................. .............................. 2

R ECOMMENDATIONS

.............................................................................................................................. .................... 3

Nexus Market ResearchMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR: 2008 Overall Report Page 1



# Executive Summary

This document summarizes the evaluation work completed on the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

### Program run by the Joint Ma nagement Committee (JMC) in Massachusetts for 2008. Individual evaluation re ports on which the findings and analysis contained in this document are based are includ ed as appendices. The evaluation work conducted for the 2008 Program includes:

• PRISM billing analyses of homes built through the Program in 2006 and 2007 providing adjustment factors for both the User-defined Reference Home (UDRH) and the as-built ENERGY STAR-qualified home that may be ap plied to Beacon software-based estimates of energy usage in order to calculate energy savings from the Program. (Billing Analyses, Appendix A)

• Estimation of the value to homeowners of seven non-energy impacts (NEIs) of ENERGY STAR homes using a survey of 70 homeowners who have purchased ENERGY STARqualified homes over the past two years, and in-depth interviews with 30 builders who participated in the Program in 2008. (NEI Analysis, Appendix B)

• Interviews with 30 ENERGY STAR builder s who participated in the free Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) component of the Program in 2008 assessing the builders’ experience selecting, ordering and installing CF Ls on their own rather than having HERS raters do installations as we ll as the impact of the 2008 prot ocol on the number and type of CFLs installed. (CFL Process, Appendix C)

• Interviews with the 30 ENERGY STAR build ers who participated in the free CFL component of the Program assessing their sa tisfaction with the Program, marketing ENERGY STAR homes, choosing a HERS rater and Program training offerings with comparisons to findings from 2007 intervie ws. (Builder Interviews, Appendix D)



## Program Overview

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY ST AR Program qualified more than 980 housing units in 2008, bringing the to tal number of housing units EN ERGY STAR qualified since Program inception to more than 14,300. The total number of housing units ENERGY STAR qualified in 2008 is 23% lower th an in 2007, the number of total building permits issued in Massachusetts in 2008 is 36% lo wer and the estimated number of housing units completed in Massachusetts in 2008 is 33% lower. With the number of statewide co mpleted housing units falling more sharply than the number of homes qualified, the penetration of ENERGY STAR housing units climbed. The estimated percen tage of new housing units completed in Massachusetts that are ENERGY STAR qualified increased from 9% in 2007 to 10% in 2008, the penetration of single family ENERGY ST AR homes climbed from 7% to 10%, and the penetration of multi-family ENERGY STAR units fell from 14% to 11%.

Nexus Market ResearchMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR: 2008 Overall Report Page 2



## Conclusions
Evaluations of the 2008 Program covered relativ ely diverse areas—adjustment factors from billing analysis, valuation of NE Is, and review of the CFL instal lation process. These evaluations do, nonetheless, point to several ove rall conclusions and recommendations.
The recession and housing market decline of 2008 has, not surprisingly, had significant effects on the Program. The number of ENERGY ST AR homes qualified dropped, even as the penetration of ENERGY STAR ho using increased, reflecting a much sharper percentage drop in the estimated number of housing units complete d statewide than in the number of ENERGY STAR-qualified housing units built. However, 2008 also saw increases in the builders’ and, likely, the homeowners’ percepti ons of the value of having the ENERGY STAR label on a home. More specifically,

• The builders’ perception of the value of having the ENERGY STAR label on a home has increased with almost all (93%) of interv iewed builders saying th at building ENERGY STAR homes and being able to market them as ENERGY STAR qualified is very (70% of builders) or somewhat (23% of builders)va luable in today’s housing market. This is a marked improvement from 2007 when 78% of builders called for the Program to conduct more consumer marketing because of low homebuyer interest in ENERGY STAR homes.

• While homeowner awareness of ENERGY STAR homes was not directly measured in 2008, over one-half (57%) of interviewed builder s say awareness of and/or interest in buying ENERGY STAR homes has increased, a nd the percentage of builders saying almost all homebuyers are aware of ENERGY STAR homes doubled from 5% in 2007 to 10%.

• Homeowners who know they have bought ENERGY STAR homes place high values on non-energy impacts (NEIs) with close to nine out of ten believing their homes offer more thermal comfort than other new homes and valu ing this feature, on average, almost as much as yearly energy bill savings. Homeow ners also place a high value on energy bill protection—a feature they say they largely figure out on their own.
The Program’s steps toward a market-driven model, having builders chose their own HERS raters and giving them the option to select and install CFLs themselves, also appear to be working well. More specifically,

• Builders like being able to choose their HERS rater. Most builders stayed with the HERS raters they were assigned in 2007; the 14% of interviewed builders who opted to change HERS raters have successfully selected and established good working relationships with different raters.

• A majority (55%) of the 22 in terviewed builders who have installed free CFLs under both the old and new processes like selecting, orderi ng and installing the free CFLs themselves better than having their HERS rater select and install the CFLs, since under the new process the builders are able to install the CF Ls on their schedule, typically at the same

Nexus Market ResearchMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR: 2008 Overall Report Page 3



### time the lighting fixtures are installed. Just over one-fourth (27%) prefer having their HERS raters select and install CFLs and 18% are indifferent, sayi ng both processes work equally well.

• Listing marketing support offerings on the a pplication form and asking builders to check the options they are interested in is very lik ely a factor contributi ng to the likelihood of builders taking advantage of available marke ting support. The percen tage of interviewed builders taking advantage of available marke ting support options incr eased from 18% of builders interviewed in 2007 to 50% of builders interviewed in late 2008 and early 2009.



## Recommendations

The overall conclusions of the 2008 evaluations lead to several recommendations aimed at maintaining the Program’s effectiveness as it continues its transition to a market-based model in a recessionary housing market. Several recommenda tions deal with marketing the Program.

• Continue marketing the Program to consumers to increase homebuyer awareness of and interest in the importance of energy effi ciency and the benefits of buying and living in an ENERGY STAR home.

• Continue to encourage builders to take advantage of marketing support available through the Program. In particular, encourage all pa rticipating builders to display ENERGY STAR signs at their projects—signs are relatively inexpensive and builders say the signs bring in customers and make it more likely they will ask about what goes into building an ENERGY STAR home.

• Produce more case studies appropriate for use in marketing to builders and homebuyers. There are now several builders saying they have homebuyers coming to them looking for an ENERGY STAR home an d several builders saying buyers are very happy with the low operating cost of their ENERGY STAR homes.

• NEIs should be an integral part of marketing for ENERGY STAR homes. Builders should be especially encourag ed to talk to pr ospective buyers a bout noise reduction, indoor air quality, and safety (or make sure their salespeople do so). Consider sharing some of the results of the NEI study with bu ilders, in particular to show them the differences between home buyers’ ratings of NEI values compared to how builders think buyers would rate them.
It is also important to maintain flexib ility and prepare for future developments.

• The Program’s plan going forward to give builders the option of selecting, ordering and installing the free CFLs themselves or having their HERS rater select and install them is a good step. With the Program now requiring builders to install CFLs in at least 50% of all hard-wir ed screw-based fixtures, offe ring both approaches allows experienced ENERGY STAR builders who are comfortable selecting CFLs on their own and prefer having the CFLs on site to install wh en the light fixtures ar e installed to do so.

Nexus Market ResearchMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR: 2008 Overall Report Page 4

Nexus Market Research 

### Builders who are new to the Program or who are not very knowledgeable about the variety of CFLs available or which ones work best in specific applications will benefit from having their HERS raters choose and install the CFLs. Offering both processes will likely maximize the number of CFLs installed through the Program.

• Start planning for training builders to meet ENERGY ST AR 2011 requirements. Educating builders in 2009 about changes likely to be implemented in 2011 and assuring them that in 2010 the Program will provide the training needed to ensure they can meet the new requirements will help maintain builder participation and the increasing penetration rate of ENERGY ST AR homes in the market.Dorothy Conant Independent Consultant 46 Ontario Drive Hudson, MA 01749 

# The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program
2008 PROGRESS REPORT

FINAL REPORT Date July 6, 2009

Submitted to: 

# The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR Program Joint Management Committee

Submitted by: 

# Dorothy Conant, ConsultantMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report



## Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... ...........................1

1.1 M ETRICS

............................................................................................................................... ...........................1

1.1.1 Zero Energy Home Demonstration Project......................................................................................... ...1

1.1.2 Support Residential New Constr uction Code development...................................................................1

2 OVER THE YEARS................................................................................................................. ..........................2

2.1 M ASSACHUSETTS H OUSING P ERMITS ...............................................................................................................2

2.2 A NNUAL S IGNED H OUSING U NITS ...................................................................................................................4

2.2.1 Recruited Housing Units Compared to Statewide Pe rmits Issued .........................................................4

2.3 P ARTICIPATING H OUSING U NITS AS P ERCENTAGE OF S TATEWIDE C OMPLETED H OUSING U NITS ....................5

2.4 HERS R ATINGS

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

2.5 S PENDING PER P ARTICIPATING H OUSING U NIT ..............................................................................................10

3 2008 HOUSING UNITS CO MPLETED................................................................................................... ......13

4 DISTRIBUTION OF COMPLETIONS AC ROSS SPONSOR TE RRITORIES ........................................16

4.1 E LECTRIC S PONSOR T ERRITORIES ..................................................................................................................17

4.2 G AS S PONSOR T ERRITORIES ...........................................................................................................................18

5 2008 PROJECTS AND HOUSING UNITS RECRUITED ...........................................................................19

5.1 2008 R ECRUITED P ROJECTS BY S IZE —N UMBER OF U NITS ............................................................................20

6 DISTRIBUTION OF SIGNINGS ACROSS SPONSOR TERRITORIES...................................................22

6.1 E LECTRIC S PONSOR T ERRITORIES ..................................................................................................................23

6.2 G AS S PONSOR T ERRITORIES ...........................................................................................................................25

7 LIGHTING....................................................................................................................... .................................27

7.1 C HANGES IN T YPES OF CFL S I NSTALLED —2007 TO 2008 .............................................................................28

8 ENERGY STAR WINDOWS AND HVAC EQUIPMENT ..........................................................................29

9 ENERGY STAR-QUALIFIED VERSUS CODE PLUS HOMES................................................................30

10 DUCT LEAKAGE ................................................................................................................... .........................31

11 ENVELOPE LEAKAGE............................................................................................................... ...................32

12 HERS RATERS .................................................................................................................... ............................33MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report



## Tables

TABLE 2-1: ANNUAL PROG RAM SPENDING, SIGNINGS AND COMP LETIONS.....................................10
TABLE 4-1: ELECTRIC SP ONSOR 2008 COMPLETED HOUSING UNITS ..................................................16
TABLE 4-2: GAS SPONSOR 2008 COMPLETED HOUS ING UNITS...............................................................16
TABLE 6-1: ELECTRIC SPON SOR SIGNED PROJECTS AND HOUSIN G UNITS ......................................22
TABLE 6-2: GAS SPONSOR SIGNED PROJECTS AN D HOUSING UNITS...................................................22
TABLE 12-1: 2008 PARTIC IPATING HERS RATERS..................................................................................... ..33



## Figures

FIGURE 2-1: MASSACHUS ETTS HOUSING PERMITS IS SUED 1980 – 2008.................................................2
FIGURE 2-2: YEAR-TO-DATE TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED 2002 – 2009 ..........................................................3
FIGURE 2-3: YEAR-TO-DATE SINGLE FAMI LY PERMITS ISSUED 2002 – 2009........................................3
FIGURE 2-4: YEAR-TO-DATE MULTI-FAMIL Y PERMITS ISSUED 2002 – 2009 .........................................4
FIGURE 2-5: ANNUAL SIGNED HOUSING UNITS AS PERCENT OF STATEWIDE PERMITS ................4 FIGURE 2-6: ENERGY STAR, EMU AND CODE PLUS HOUSIN G UNITS CO MPLETED ...........................6
FIGURE 2-7: ENERGY STAR COMPLETION S AS PERCENT OF STATEWIDE COMPLETI ONS .................................................................................................................... ..............6 FIGURE 2-8: ENERGY STAR, EMU AND CO DE PLUS COMPLETIONS AS PERCENT OF STATEWIDE CO MPLETIONS .........................................................................................................6
FIGURE 2-9: 1999 – 2008 AVERAGE HERS RATINGS ................................................................................... ....7
FIGURE 2-10: 2007 AND 2008 HERS INDICES* ....................................................................................... ............8
FIGURE 2-11: 2008 HERS IN DICES—ALL HOUSING UNITS...........................................................................9
FIGURE 2-12: 2008 HERS INDI CES—SINGLE FAMILY HOMES....................................................................9
FIGURE 2-13: 2008 HERS IN DICES—MULTI-FAMILY UNITS........................................................................9
FIGURE 2-14: ANNUAL PROGRAM SPENDING........................................................................................... ....11
FIGURE 2-15: ANNUAL SPENDING PER HOUSING UNIT.............................................................................12
FIGURE 3-1: ALL 2008 COMP LETIONS BY HOUS ING TYPE .......................................................................13
FIGURE 3-2: 2008 MARKET RATE COMPLETIONS BY HO USING TYPE..................................................14
FIGURE 3-3: 2008 LOW INCOME COMPLETIONS BY HO USING TYPE....................................................15
FIGURE 4-1: ELECTRIC SPONSOR 2008 CO MPLETED ENERGY STAR AND CODE PLUS HOUSING UNITS .................................................................................................................. ............17
FIGURE 4-2: GAS SPONSOR 2008 COMPLETED ENERGY STAR AND CO DE PLUS HOUSING UNITS.......................................................................................................................... ........................18
FIGURE 5-1: PERCENT OF 2003–2008 MARKET RATE VERSUS LOW INCOME PROJECTS SIGNED......................................................................................................................... ......................19
FIGURE 5-2: PERCENT OF 2003–2008 MA RKET RATE VERSUS LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS SIGNED................................................................................................................... ...............19
FIGURE 5-3: 2003—2008 SIGNED PROJECTS BY NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS PER PROJECT........................................................................................................................ ....................20MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report

FIGURE 5-4: 2003—2008 SIGNED HO USING UNITS BY PROJECT SIZE....................................................20
FIGURE 5-5: 2008 SIGNED PROJECTS BY NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS...............................................21 FIGURE 6-1: ELECTRIC SPONSOR SIGNED TOTAL, MARKET RATE AND LOW INCOME PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................... ..................23
FIGURE 6-2: ELECTRIC SP ONSOR SIGNED TOTAL, MA RKET RATE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS .................................................................................................................. ............24
FIGURE 6-3: GAS SPONSOR SIGNED TOTAL, MARKET RATE AND LOW INCOME PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................... ..................25
FIGURE 6-4: GAS SPONSOR SIGNED TOTAL, MARKET RATE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS .................................................................................................................. ............26 FIGURE 7-1: PERCENT OF QUALIFIED HOUS ING UNITS INSTALLING CFLS 200 2 – 2008 .................27
FIGURE 7-2: TYPE OF CFLS INSTALLED—2007 AND 2008 ..........................................................................28
FIGURE 8-1: PERCENT OF ENERGY STAR -QUALIFIED HOUSING UNITS INSTALLING ENERGY STAR WINDOWS, HEATING SYSTEMS, AND CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING 2002 – 2008 ....................................................................................................... ...29
FIGURE 9-1: COMPARISON OF 2008 ENERGY STAR VERSUS CODE PLUS HOUSING UNITS INSTALLING FREE CFLS AND ENERGY STAR HEATING SYSTEMS, WINDOWS AND AIR CONDITIONING ........................................................................................................... ..30
FIGURE 10-1: 2008 DUCT LEAKAGE................................................................................................. .................31
FIGURE 11-1: ENVELO PE LEAKAGE (ACH50).......................................................................................... ......32
FIGURE 11-2: PERCENT OF 2008 HOUSING UNITS WITH ACH50 GR EATER THAN 5..........................32
FIGURE 12-1: RATER PERCENTAGES OF ENERGY STAR AND CODE PLUS HOUSING UNITS.......................................................................................................................... ........................34
FIGURE 12-2: PERCENTAGES OF SIGNED PROJECTS AND UNITS RATERS WORKING WITH........................................................................................................................... ........................34MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 1



# 1 Introduction

The annual Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

### Program 2008 Progress Report is a summary of 2008 Program activity. Program performan ce information includes historical as well as current information to show the growth of the Program over time.



## 1.1 Metrics

There were two residential new construction metric s for 2008. The Program achieved the exemplary level for both metrics



### 1.1.1 Zero Energy Home Demonstration Project

Threshold : Develop and provide a pilot design for Zero Net Energy Homes. Include renewable energy, innovative technologies and products , and ‘best practice’ HVAC installations. Provide incentives, comprehensive technical assistance, and other appropria te support to encourage builders to participate. The maximum modeled energy performance rating of homes will be HERS index 35 or better.
Design : Recruit at least three builders to participate in the pilot with at least one of their homes. Builders will sign an MOU indicating their intention to participate and agreeing that all participating homes are scheduled to be substantially co mpleted by December 31, 2009.
Exemplary–Achieved : One of the participating pilot homes is considered “affordable”, using the HUD income guidelines (80% of area median income). Provide a pilot status update memo documenting 2008 pilot accomplishments.



### 1.1.2 Support Residential New Construction Code development

Threshold : Develop a strategy to examine and pursue opti ons for adopting a residential energy code at least as stringent as the national ENERGY STAR Home s standard in Massachusetts municipalities, and facilitate one introductory meeting among communities.
Design : Encourage at least three municipalities to pu rsue the adoption of an ENERGY STAR equivalent code and support the process toward adoption in each municipality.
Exemplary–Achieved : For at least one municipality, provide the technical specifications and support necessary so the town could develop an ordinance and/or law that will put in place a building code at least as stringent as the national ENERGY STAR Homes standard.MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 2



# 2 Over the Years
The figures on the following pages show historical data on housing permits issued, housing units recruited, housing units Energy star qualified, and the Program’s achievements since 1999. They show the number of housing units recruited each year, the average HERS ratings of homes completed in each year, the average cost per signed housing unit and per completed housing unit each year, and completed housing units each year as a percentage of es timated total annual housing units completed in Massachusetts. As these figures will show, while the num ber of housing permits issued and the number of housing units completed in 2008 are both lower than in 2007, the number of new housing units signed in 2008 is more than twice as high. Also, despite th e drop in the number of homes completed through the Program in 2008, completed ENERGY STAR-qualified hom es increased their share of estimated homes completed statewide. As of the end of 2008, the Program has completed over 14,300 ENERGY STARqualified housing units.



## 2.1 Massachusetts Housing Permits
The numbers of both single family and multi-family permits issued in Massachusetts fell for the third year in a row. Single family permits issued in 2008, at 5,368 permits, are at their lowest level during the 1980 to 2008 period. (Figure 2-1) Annual multi-family permits issued, which grew consistently from 2002 through 2005, also dropped in each of the last th ree years, but remain above 1990 through 2002 levels. Compared to 2005, the number of total permits issued in 2008 is down by 59%, the number of single family permits issued is down by 62% and the numb er of multi-family permits issued is down by 55%.

Figure 2-1: Massachusetts Housing Permits Issued 1980 – 2008

9,883 24,171

15,358 19,580 45,215

5,368 28,110

4,515 17,105

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Massachusetts Housing Permits Issued



### Multi-family 

## Single Family Total Massachusetts PermitsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 3



### Figure 2-2, Figure 2-3, and Figure 2-4 show year-to- date total, single family and multi-family permits issued from 2002 through May 2009. 1 

### Total permits issued in 2008 are 36% lower, single family permits 40% lower and multi-family permits 30% lower than in 2007. Total permits issued January through May 2009 are 31% lower, single family permits 34% lowe r and multi-family permits 27% lower than in the first five months of 2008.

Figure 2-2: Year-to-Date Total Permits Issued 2002 – 2009

17,465 20,257 22,477 24,171

19,580

15,358

9,883

2,721

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

## Total Permits Y ear-to-Date

Figure 2-3: Year-to-Date Single family Permits Issued 2002 – 2009

13,636 13,037 14,842 14,223

10,916

8,928

5,368

1,399
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



## Single Family Permits Year-to-Date

1 Total permits for each year are the final revised annual totals which may be higher or lower than the published December year-to-date totals.MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 4



### Figure 2-4: Year-to-Date Multi-family Permits Issued 2002 – 2009

3,829 7,220 7,635

9,948

8,664

6,430

4,515

1,322

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



## Multi-family Permits Year-to-Date



## 2.2 Annual Signed Housing Units

2.2.1 Recruited Housing Units Compar ed to Statewide Permits Issued Figure 2-5 shows new housing units recruited to partic ipate in the Program as a percentage of all housing permits issued in the state climbed sharply in 2008—from 13% in 2007 to 49% in 2008. The number of housing units signed in 2008 is almost two and a half times the number signed in 2007. Prior to 2006, signings include only housing units signed and committe d to being built to ENERGY STAR standards; 2006 signings include both ENERGY STAR and Ener gy Measure Upgrade (EMU) housing units; 2007 and 2008 signings include both ENERGY STAR and C ode Plus housing units. From 2003 through 2006 signings were tracked by housing type—single fami ly or multi-family; for 2007 and 2008 no breakdown of signings by housing type is available.

Figure 2-5: Annual Signed Housing Units as Percent of Statewide Permits

5% 12% 16% 14% 15% 20%

8% 12% 49% 4,854

13% 1,994 13% 10% 28% 30%

16% 14%

8% 11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

### Multi-family

Single Family 

### Signings as Percent of Permits

Total SigningsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 5



## 2.3 Participating Housing Units as Percentage of Statewide Completed Housing Units
Figure 2-6 on the following page shows the number of housing units completed through the Program each year. Figure 2-7 shows annual ENERGY STAR housing un its qualified each year through the Program as a percentage of estimated total annual complete d housing units in Massachusetts. From 1999 through 2006 both the number of housing units qualified through the Program and their percentage of estimated statewide completed housing units increased each y ear, peaking in 2006 at 2, 610 housing units and 16% of the market. In 2007, both the number of total housing units qualified and their share of total estimated housing units completed in Massachusetts dropped sharpl y. In 2008, the number of total housing units ENERGY STAR qualified fell farther, by 300 hou sing units or 23%. However, completed ENERGY STAR housing units as a percentage of estimated tota l housing units completed in Massachusetts climbed from 9% in 2007 to 10% in 2008, reflecting a sharper drop in estimated statewide home completions (33%) than in ENERGY STAR-qualified home completions (23%). Using Census Bureau definitions of single family and multi-family housing 2 

### , the number of single family homes ENERGY STAR qualified fell by 75 homes or 10% in 2008, while their share of estimated statewide single family homes completed in Massachusetts climbed from 7% in 2007 to a new high of 10% in 2008; the number of multi-family housing units ENERGY STAR qualified fell by 225 units or 41% in 2008, while their share of estimated statewide multi-family units completed in Massac husetts fell from 14% in 2007 to 11% in 2008.
Figure 2-8 is the same as Figure 2-7 except that the 2006 through 2008 data include housing units completed through the Program under the EMU and C ode Plus participation paths. Including housing units participating th ough non-ENERGY STAR paths increases the number of housing units completed through the Program from 2,610 to 3,318 in 2006, from 1,286 to 1,616 in 2007, and from 986 to 1,396 in 2008. Completed ENERGY STAR, EMU and Code Plus ho using units as a percentage of estimated total housing units completed in Massachusetts climbed fro m 11% in 2007 to 15% in 2008; single family homes completed through the Program climbed from 8% to 12% of estimated statewide single family home completions; multi-family units completed thr ough the Program remained constant at 20% of estimated statewide multi-family unit completions.

2 In 2003, the Program began tracking recruited and completed homes under the Census Bureau single family and multi-family housing category definitions , which is how housing permit data ar e reported. Under the Census Bureau definitions, single family includes fully detached housing units, semi detached (semi attached, side-by-side) housing units, row houses, and townhouses. In the case of attached units, each must be separated from the adjacent unit by a ground-to-roof wall and must not share heating/air-conditioni ng systems or inter-structural public utilities such as water supply, power supply, or sewage disposal lines. Because housing units qualified as ENERGY STAR since 2003 are tracked using the Census Bureau definitions, it is possible to separately calculate the estimated percentages of multi-family and single family housing units completed in the state that participated in the Program.MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 6



### Figure 2-6: ENERGY STAR, EMU and Code Plus Housing Units Completed

Figure 2-7: ENERGY STAR Completions as Percent of Statewide Completions

1% 3% 4% 6% 9% 9% 10% 12% 16%

9% 18% 19% 35%

6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 10% 11% 25%

14%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

### Multi-family

Single Family 

### Program ENERGY STAR Completions as Percent of Statewide Completions

Total Completions



### Figure 2-8: ENERGY STAR, EMU and Code Plus Completions as Percent of Statewide Completions

1% 3% 4% 6% 9% 9% 10% 12% 18% 19%

6% 6% 20%

11% 15% 48%

20% 25%

20%

8% 7% 7% 12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Multi-family

Single Family Program ENERGY STAR, EMU & Code Plus Completions as Percent of Statewide Completions

Total CompletionsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 7



## 2.4 HERS Ratings
Through 2005, all ENERGY STAR-qualified housing un its were rated using the classic HERS score. 3 

### In 2006, the HERS index 4 

### approach to rating homes was introdu ced; most homes qualified in 2006 (92%) were rated using the classic HERS score. Homes comp leted in 2007 and 2008 were rated using the HERS index approach.
Figure 2-9 shows the average classic HERS score for housing units ENERGY STAR qualified in 1999 through 2006 and the average HERS index for housing units ENERGY STAR qualified in 2007 and 2008. As shown, the average HERS rating has improve d each year. The average classic HERS score of housing units qualified in 1999 was 86.7 and by 2006 cl imbed to 89.3; this 2.6 point increase in the average classic HERS score equates to an increase of 13% in energy efficiency. The average HERS index improved from 68.1 in 2007 to 64.8 in 2008 representing a 3.3% increas e in energy efficiency. The average 64.8 HERS index corresponds to a home 34.2% more energy efficient than the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code reference home.

Figure 2-9: 1999 – 2008 Average HERS Ratings



### 86.7 87.2 87.0 87.2 88.1 88.2 89.0 89.3

68.1 64.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



### 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Classic HERS Score or HERS Index 

### Average Classic HERS Score Average HERS Index

3 For homes rated before July 1, 2006, the rating score is known as a “HERS Score.” The HERS Score is a system in which a home built to the specifications of the HERS Reference Home (based on the 1993 Model Energy Code) has a HERS Score of 80. Unlike the HERS Index, each 1-point in crease in a HERS Score is equivalent to a 5% increase in energy efficiency. Source: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm? c=bldrs_lenders_raters.nh_HERS
4 The HERS Index is a scoring system established by the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) in which a home built to the specifications of the HERS Reference Home (based on the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code) scores a HERS Index of 100, while a net zero energy home scores a HERS Index of 0. The lower a home’s HERS Index, the more energy efficient it is in comparison to the HE RS Reference Home. Each 1- point decrease in the HERS Index corresponds to a 1% reduction in energy consumption compared to the HERS Reference Home. Source 

### : http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bldrs_lenders_raters.nh_HERSMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 8



### Figure 2-10 compares the percentage of ENERGY ST AR-qualified housing units falling into five HERS index ranges in 2007 and 2008. As shown, the biggest differences between the two years are that the percentage of qualified housing units with HERS indices of 66 to 74 fell sharply from 42% in 2007 to 28% in 2008; the percentage of qua lified housing units with HERS indices of 51 to 57 grew from 5% to 14%; and the percentage of qualified housing units with HERS indices of 50 or lower grew from 3% to 8%. (A HERS index of 50 is considered an indicati on that a home could qualify for the $2,000 federal tax credit.). A likely factor in the increased percentage of homes achieving HERS indices of 65 or lower in 2008 is the 2008 Program’s strategy to encourage builder s to build to higher efficiency levels by paying a higher incentive for homes achieving HERS indices of 65 or lower.

Figure 2-10: 2007 and 2008 HERS Indices*

22% 42%

27% 25% 28% 24%

14%

8% 5% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

HERS Index 75 or Higher HERS Index 66 to 74 HERS Index 58 to 65 HERS Index 51 to 57 HERS Index 50 or LowerPercent of Qualified Housing Units 

### 2007 (n=1,227 homes) 2008 (n=973 homes)

• Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.



### Figure 2-11, Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13 on the next pa ge show the individual HERS indices achieved by homes qualified in 2008 for all qualif ied homes, qualified single family homes and qualified multi-family units, respectively. As shown, the average HERS inde x for all housing units is the same as the average for multi-family units, at 65; the average HERS index for single family homes is slightly higher at 66. The median HERS index for all housing units is 66, for si ngle family homes is 67 and for multi-family units is 65. The range of HERS indices achieved by single fa mily homes is much larger than for multi-family units: HERS indices achieved by multi-family units range from 85 to 44, while HERS indices achieved by single family homes range from 85 to 20.MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 9



### Figure 2-11: 2008 HERS Indices—All Housing Units

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

973 ENERGY STAR-Qualified Housing UnitsHERS Index

Minimum (best) 20 Median

66

Average and Tier II Incentive

Level

65 2008 HERS Indices Tax Credit 50



### Figure 2-12: 2008 HERS Indices—Single Family Homes

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

645 ENERGY STAR-Qualified Single Family HomesHERS Index

Minimum (best) 20 Median

67 Average 66

2008 HERS Indices Tax Credit 50 Tier II Incentive

Level

65



### Figure 2-13: 2008 HERS Indices—Multi-family Units

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

328 ENERGY STAR-Qualified Multi-family UnitsHERS Index

Minimum (best) 44 Average Median & Tier II Incentive

Level

65 2008 HERS Indices Tax Credit 50MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 10



## 2.5 Spending per Participating Housing Unit
Table 2-1 shows that the number of housing units signed in one year peaked in 2005 at 4,761. Beginning in 2006, homes were signed under non-ENER GY STAR as well as ENERGY STAR participation paths—ENERGY STAR and EMU paths in 2006 and ENERGY STAR and Code Plus paths in 2007 and 2008. The total number of housing units signed dropped sharply in 2006 and again in 2007, reflecting the impacts of not recruiting multi-family units in buildings over three stories and the slow down in the new construction market. The sharp increase in housi ng units signed in 2008 likely reflects the combined impact of increased Program marketing and aggressi ve recruiting by participating HERS raters.
The annual number of housing units completed through the Program rose steadily through 2006, then plunged in 2007. The drop in 2007 completions again reflects the impacts of the depressed market for new housing and the Program not qualifying multi-fam ily units in buildings over three stories. The number of housing unit completed in 2008 is 220 or 14% lower than in 2007. However, as described earlier, the estimated number of housing units comp leted statewide in 2008 fell by more than the percentage of housing units completed through the Pr ogram (33% vs. 14%) resulting in the penetration of housing units completed through the Program growing from 11% in 2007 to 15% in 2008.

Table 2-1: Annual Program Spending, Signings and Completions

Year Spending $Thousands Housing Units Signed Housing Units Completed

2000 $3,160 2,085 565
2001 $3,434 2,715 965
2002 $4,078 2,423 1,435
2003 $4,160 2,063 1,630
2004 $5,193 3,320 1,854
2005 $5,284 4,761 2,358
2006* $5,390 2,580 3,318
2007* $3,610 1,994 1,616
2008* $3,848** 4,854 1,396


### * 2006–2008 include ENERGY STAR, EMU and Code Plus housing units. 

### ** Preliminary EstimateMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 11



### Figure 2-14 shows annual spending by electric Progr am Sponsors increased each year from 2000 to 2006, then declined sharply in 2007, predominantl y due to a decrease in low income spending. 5 

### Spending for both low income and market rate components of the Program increased in 2008.

Figure 2-14: Annual Program Spending

5 The cost data are from annual reports filed with the Di vision of Energy Resources (DOER) by the electric utilities and Cape Light Compact. The cost data include customer incentives plus in-house and contracted out expenses for planning and administration, marketing, and implementation. The cost data do not include evaluation expenses, market research expenses, performance incentives, other costs or participant costs.MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 12



### Figure 2-15 shows the annual spending per signed housing unit and per completed housing unit. The dramatic decrease in spending per completed housing un it from the early years of the Program is largely a reflection of the lag between the time housing units are signed up and the time they are qualified. 2006 through 2007 include housing units signed and completed under both ENERGY STAR and nonENERGY STAR paths. The sharp decline in 2008 spe nding per signed housing unit is the result of the number of units signed increasing by a higher percen tage than spending—the number of housing units signed more than doubled from 2007 to 2008 while spending increased by only 7%. Conversely, the increase in 2008 spending per completed housing unit is the result of the number of completed housing units decreasing while spending increased— the number of completed housing units dropped 14% while spending increased by 7%.

Figure 2-15: Annual Spending per Housing Unit

$2,801 $2,241 $2,757

$1,515 $1,265 $1,683 $2,016 $1,564 $1,110 $793 $2,552 $2,842 $5,592

$3,558

$1,624 $2,234 $2,089

$1,810

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000



### 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

### Year Housing Unit Signed or Completed ( 2006 - 2008 Include ENERGY STAR, EMU and Code Plus Housing Units 

### ) 

### Cost Per Completed Housing Unit

Cost Per Signed Housing UnitMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 13



# 3 2008 Housing Units Completed
Figure 3-1 shows the allocation of 2008 completi ons between single family and multi-family for combined ENERGY STAR and Code Plus comple tions; only ENERGY STAR completions; and only Code Plus completions.

Figure 3-1: All 2008 Completions by Housing Type



## 2008 Total Completions

ENERGY STAR & Code Plus (n=1,396)

## Multifamily

41% Single Family

59%

2008 Completions ENERGY STAR (n=986) 

### Single Family

67% Multifamily

33%

2008 Completions Code Plus

(n=410)

### Multifamily

59% Single Family

41%MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 14



### Figure 3-2 shows the allocation of 2008 market rate completions between single family and multi-family for combined ENERGY STAR and Code Plus comp letions; only ENERGY STAR completions; and only Code Plus completions.

Figure 3-2: 2008 Market Rate Completions by Housing Type



## 2008 Market Ra te Completions ENERGY STAR & Code Plus (n=943) 

### Multifamily

27% Single Family

73%

2008 Market Rate Completions ENERGY STAR (n=670)

### Multifamily

21% Single Family

79%

2008 Market Rate Completions Code Plus

(n=273) 

## Single Family

59% Multifamily

41%MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 15



### Figure 3-3 shows the allocation of 2008 low income completions between single family and multi-family for combined ENERGY STAR and Code Plus comp letions; only ENERGY STAR completions; and only Code Plus completions.

Figure 3-3: 2008 Low Income Completions by Housing Type



## 2008 Low Income Completions ENERGY STAR & Code Plus (n=453)

### Multifamily

69% Single Family

31%

2008 Low Income Completions ENERGY STAR (n=316) 

### Multifamily

58% Single Family

42%

2008 Low Income Completions Code Plus

(n=137) 

### Sin g le Family

7%



### Multifamily

93%MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 16



# 4 Distribution of Completions across Sponsor Territories
This section shows the distribution of housing units completed through the Program in 2008 by electric and gas Sponsors. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 show the data used to generate the figures on the following
pages.
Table 4-1: Electric Sponsor 2008 Completed Housing Units

Code Plus Completions EN ERGY STAR Completions


### Electric Sponsors Total Units Market Rate Units Low Income

Units Total Units Market Rate Units Low Income

Units Total Completions:

ENERGY STAR and Code Plus

National Grid 81 75 6 305 257 48 386

NSTAR 323 197 126 493 270 223 816
Western Mass Electric ( WMECo ) 0 0 0 87 56 31 87
Cape Light Compact (CLC) 6 1 5 79 65 14 85

Unitil 0 0 0 13 13 0 13
Municipals (Muni) 0 0 0 9 9 0 9

Totals: 410 273 137 986 670 316 1,396



### Table 4-2: Gas Sponsor 2008 Completed Housing Units

Code Plus Completions EN ERGY STAR Completions


### Gas Sponsors Total Units Market Rate Units Low Income

Units Total Units Market Rate Units Low Income

Units Total Completions: ENERGY STAR and Code Plus
Bay State Gas 21 20 1 125 91 34 146

National Grid 360 227 133 495 268 227 855
Berkshire Gas (BRKSH) 0 0 0 37 23 14 37

NSTAR 25 22 3 208 179 29 233
New England (NE) 3 3 0 9 9 0 12
No Gas Sponsor 1 1 0 112 100 12 113

Totals: 410 273 137 986 670 316 1,396MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 17



## 4.1 Electric Sponsor Territories
Figure 4-1 shows the percentage of total ENERGY STAR and Code Plus housing units completed in 2008 in each of the electric Sponsors’ service areas and in municipal electric service areas; the percentage of total ENERGY STAR-qualified housing units comple ted in 2008 in each of the electric Sponsors’ service areas and in municipal electric service areas; a nd the percentage of total Code Plus housing units completed in 2008 in each of the electric Sponsors’ ser vice areas and in municipal electric service areas.

Figure 4-1: Electric Sponsor 2008 Completed ENERGY STAR and Code Plus Housing Units



# NSTAR 58% WMECO 6% Unitil 1%



## National Grid 28% Muni 1% CLC 6%



## 2008 Total Units Completed ENERGY STAR & Code Plus ( n=1,396 )

CLC 8%

Muni 1% 

### National Grid 31% Unitil 1%

WMECO 9% 

## NSTAR 50%

2008 ENERGY STAR Units Completed (n=986) 

# NSTAR 79%

National Grid 20% CLC 1%



### 2008 Code Plus Units Completed (n=410)MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 18



## 4.2 Gas Sponsor Territories
Figure 4-2 shows the percentage of total ENERGY STAR and Code Plus housing units completed in 2008 in each of the gas Sponsors’ service areas and in areas not served by the gas Sponsors; the percentage of total ENERGY STAR-qualified housi ng units completed in 2008 in each of the gas Sponsors’ service areas and no gas Sponsor areas; a nd the percentage of total completed Code Plus housing units in 2008 in each of the gas Spons ors’ service areas and no gas sponsor areas.

Figure 4-2: Gas Sponsor 2008 Completed ENERGY STAR and Code Plus Housing Units

Bay State 10% B R K S H 3 % 

## National Grid 61% NSTAR 17%

No Gas Sponsor 8% NE 1%



## 2008 Total Units Completed ENERGY STAR & Code Plus (n=1,396)

Bay State 13%BRKSH 4% 

## National Grid 50% NSTAR 21%

No Gas Sponsor 11% NE 1%



## 2008 ENERGY STAR Units Completed (n=986) Bay State 5% 

## National Grid 88% NSTAR 6% NE 1%



## 2008 Code Plus Units Completed (n=410)MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 19



# 5 2008 Projects and Housing Units Recruited
Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show, respectively, the a nnual percentages of market rate and low income projects and housing units recruited from 2003 through 2008. Low income projects are defined as any project that includes at least one low income unit. As shown, in 2008 the percentages of both projects and housing units recruited that are low income are higher than in previous years.

Figure 5-1: Percent of 2003–2008 Market Rate versus Low Income Projects Signed

94% 91% 89% 96% 81% 77% 6% 9% 11% 19% 23% 4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Percent of Projects Signed

Market Rate Projects Low Income Projects



### Figure 5-2: Percent of 2003–2008 Market Rate versus Low Income Housing Units Signed



### 79% 83% 79% 93% 84% 72% 21% 17% 21% 16% 28% 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Percent of Units Signed

Market Rate Units Low Income UnitsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 20



## 5.1 2008 Recruited Projects by Size—Number of Units
Figure 5-3 and 

### Figure 5-4 show the annual percentages of projects and housing units signed from 2003 through 2008 falling into various size categories based on the number of housing units in the project. Figure 5-3 shows single homes account for over half of all signed projects in each year but 2007 (48% in 2007). Projects with more than 25 units account for 15% or less of signed projects in each year. However,

as 

### Figure 5-4 shows, in every year a majority (65% to 80% ) of signed housing units are in the large, over 25 unit projects and 10% or fewer in one- to five-unit projects.

Figure 5-3: 2003—2008 Signed Projects by Number of Housing Units per Project

70% 55% 56% 64% 48% 53% 8%

14% 7% 12%

18% 16% 8% 19% 22% 16% 23% 19% 13% 12% 15% 8% 11% 12%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Large Over 25 Unit Projects

Mediium 6-25 Unit Projects

Small 2-5 Unit Projects

Single Homes

Percent of Signed Projects



### Figure 5-4: 2003—2008 Signed Housing Units by Project Size

7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 4% 4% 

### 11% 25% 20% 22% 25% 23% 80% 65% 75% 69% 67% 69%

4% 4%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Large Over 25 Unit Projects

Mediium 6-25 Unit Projects

Small 2-5 Unit Projects

Single Homes

Percent of Signed UnitsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 21



### Figure 5-5 is another way of showing the very high pe rcentage of projects signed in 2008 that have very few housing units and includes the number of units in th e individual very large projects. Going forward it will be interesting to see if the percentage of on e- and two-unit projects decreases as the Program moves further toward a market driven model using independen t HERS raters to recruit projects. HERS raters will likely target multiple unit projects because those proj ects are more profitable, requiring less time per housing unit to service than single-home projects. On th e other hand, if the number of one- and two-unit projects is predominantly driven by small builder s who want to participate in the Program and homeowners who want their custom home built to EN ERGY STAR standards the percentage of one and two unit projects may continue to be high.

Figure 5-5: 2008 Signed Projects by Number of Housing Units

114 138 149 188 233 276

0 50 100 150 200 250 300



### 432 Projects Signed in 2008Number of Housing Units in Project

61% of Projects Signed in 2008 Have Only One or Two Housing Units 16% of Projects Have 3 to 10 Units 11% of Projects Have 11 to 25 Units 11% of Projects have 26 to 100 Units 

### 1% of Projects (6 projects) Have

Over 100 UnitsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 22



# 6 Distribution of Signings across Sponsor Territories
This section shows the distribution of housing units signed in 2008 by electric Sponsor and gas Sponsor. Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 show the data used to generate the figures on the following pages.

Table 6-1: Electric Sponsor Signed Projects and Housing Units

All 2008 Signed Projects and Units

Electric Sponsors And Municipals Total Projects Market Rate Projects Low Income Projects Total Units Market Rate Units Low Income

Units

National Grid 167 126 41 1,747 1,343 404

NSTAR Electric 145 108 37 2,585 1,812 773
Western Mass Electric (WMECo) 48 39 9 280 211 69
Cape Light Compact (CLC) 58 47 11 179 86 93

Unitil NA NA NA NA NA NA
Municipals (Muni) 14 12 2 63 58 5

Totals: 432 332 100 4,854 3,510 1,344



### Table 6-2: Gas Sponsor Signed Projects and Housing Units

All 2008 Signed Projects and Units



### Gas Sponsors Total Projects Market Rate Projects Low Income Projects Total Units Market Rate Units Low Income

Units

Bay State Gas 73 49 24 858 613 245

National Grid 190 139 51 2,685 1,827 858
Berkshire Gas (BRKSH) 18 14 4 199 146 53

NSTAR 74 64 10 838 720 118
New England Gas (NE) 7 5 2 12 9 3
No Gas Sponsor 70 61 9 262 195 67

Totals: 432 332 100 4,854 3,510 1,344MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 23



## 6.1 Electric Sponsor Territories
Figure 6-1 shows the percentage of total projects, mark et rate projects and low income projects signed in 2008 in each of the electric Sponsors’ service areas and in municipal electric service areas. Figure 6-2 shows the percentage of total housing units, market rate housing units and low income housing units signed in 2008 in each of the electric Sponsors’ servi ce areas and in municipal electric service areas.

Figure 6-1: Electric Sponsor Signed Total, Market Rate and Low Income Projects

Muni 3% 

# NSTAR 34%

National Grid 39% WMECo 11%


## CLC 13%



# 2008 Total Signed Projects (n=432)



# NSTAR 33%

National Grid 38% M u n i

4 % 

### CLC 14% WMECo 12%



## 2008 Signed Market Rate Projects (n=332) 

# National Grid 41% NSTAR 37%

Muni 2% 

### CLC 11% WMECo 9%



## 2008 Signed Low Income Projects (n=100)MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 24



### Figure 6-2: Electric Sponsor Signed Total, Market Rate and Low Income Housing Units

Mun 1% 

# NSTAR 53%

National Grid 36% W

M

E

C

o 6 %

C L C 4 %



# 2008 Total Signed Units (n=4,854)



# NSTAR 52% W M

E

C

o 6 %

C L C 2 %

Muni 2% 

## National Grid 38%

2008 Signed Mark et Rate Units (n=3,510) CLC 7% W

M

E

Co 5 %



## National Grid 30% 

## NSTAR 58%

2008 Signed Low Income Units (n=1,344)MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 25



## 6.2 Gas Sponsor Territoriesm.
Figure 6-3 shows the percentage of total projects, mark et rate projects and low income projects signed in 2008 in each of the gas Sponsors’ service areas and in areas where natural gas is not available or gas providers do not sponsor the Program. Figure 6-4 shows the percentage of total housing units, market rate housing units and low income housing units signed in 2008 in each of the gas Sponsors’ service areas and in areas where natural gas is not available or gas providers do not sponsor the Program.

Figure 6-3: Gas Sponsor Signed Total, Market Rate and Low Income Projects

No Gas Sponsor 16%



### Bay State 17% 

## NSTAR

17%



## National Grid 44% NE 2%

B R K S H 4 % 

# 2008 Total Signed Projects (n=432)

No Gas Sponsor 18%



## Bay State 15% NSTAR

19%



## National Grid 42% NE 2%

B R

K

S

H

4 %



## 2008 Signed Market Rate Projects (n=332) No Gas Sponsor 9%



## Bay State 24% NSTAR

10%



## National Grid 51% NE 2%

B R K S H 4 %


## 2008 Signed Low Income Projects (n=100)MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 26



### Figure 6-4: Gas Sponsor Signed Total, Market Rate and Low Income Housing Units

N o G a s 5 %



### Bay State 18% 

## NSTAR 17% 

## National Grid 55%
B R K S H 4 % 

# 2008 Total Signed Units (n=4,584)

No Gas Sponsor 6%



### Bay State 17% 

## NSTAR

21%



## National Grid 52% B R

K

S

H

4 %



## 2008 Signed Mark et Rate Units (n=3,510) No Gas Sponsor 5%



### Bay State 18% NSTAR

9% 

## National Grid 64%

B R K S H

4 %


## 2008 Signed Low Income Units (n=1,344)MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 27



# 7 Lighting

Prior to 2008 builders could have their HERS raters install free compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in all appropriate sockets when the final inspection was co nducted; builders did not pay anything for the CFLs and there was no limit to the number of CFLs that could be installed. In 2008, builders became responsible for selecting, ordering and installing th e free CFLs and received an incentive of $2 for each CFL they installed. Figure 7-1 shows the percenta ge of ENERGY STAR-qualified housing units in each year from 2002 through 2006 and 2008 that installed CFLs through the Program. (ICF was not able to provide the number of homes installing lighting me asures in 2007.) The drop in the percentage of ENERGY STAR-qualified homes installing CFLs in 2008 likely reflects many builders deciding not to install CFLs if they had to select, order and install th e CFLs themselves rather than have their HERS rater install them at the final inspection.

Figure 7-1: Percent of Qualified Housing Units Installing CFLs 2002 – 2008



### 70% 72% 80%

49% 45%

6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent of ENERGY STAR Homes Installing CFLsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 28



## 7.1 Changes in Types of CFLs Installed—2007 to 2008
ICF provided data on the number of CFLs, by bulb type , they installed and verifi ed in participating homes in the 2007 and 2008 Program years. Almost all (91% ) of the bulbs installed in 2008 were ordered and installed by builders. Figure 7-2 shows that spirals re main the most frequently installed type of CFL, but that they accounted for a much smaller percentage of CFLs in 2008 (38% vs. 49% in 2007). Globes also accounted for a smaller percentage of 2008 CFLs (3% vs. 7% in 2007). Ca psules accounted for 22% of all CFLs in both 2007 and 2008. Reflectors and floods, candelabra-based bulbs, 3-way bulbs, and dimmable floods and spirals all accounted for larger percentage s of bulbs in 2008 than in 2007, though some of the percentages are very low. The drop in the percentage of spirals installed likely reflects builders becoming more familiar with and comfortable with the variety of CFL choices now available to them. ICF installed an average of 25 CFLs per housing unit installing C FLs in 2007. In 2008, the average number of CFLs installed per housing unit installing CFLs was 44.

Figure 7-2: Type of CFLs Installed—2007 and 2008

49%

20% 22% 27%

22%

2% 0.2% 

### 7% 3% 38%

2% 3% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Spirals Reflectors & Floods Capsules Candelabra Base Globes 3-Way CFLS Dimmable Floods &

SpiralsPercent of CFLs Installed 

### 2007 (n=19,545 bulbs)
2008 (n=24,814 bulbs)MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 29



# 8 ENERGY STAR Windows and HVAC Equipment
Figure 8-1 shows the percentages of ENERGY STAR -qualified housing units that installed ENERGY STAR windows, heating systems and central air cond itioning. As shown, the percentage of homes installing ENERGY STAR windows has varied over the years. In 2005, almost three-fourths (73%) of all qualified homes installed ENERGY STAR windows; in 2006 the percentage of homes installing ENERGY STAR windows fell sharply to 56%, then rebounded in 2007 to 83% of qualified homes and rose to 86% in 2008. Window U-values in 2008 ENER GY STAR-qualified housing units range from 0.22 to 0.82; the average is 0.33.
The percentage of ENERGY STAR housing units with ENERGY STAR heating systems increased steadily from 2003 through 2006 to 87%, fell to 72% in 2007 and climbed to 77% in 2008. In 2008, boiler Average Fuel Utilization Efficiencies (AFUEs) range from 80.0 to 98.5; the average is 85.4. Natural gas and propane furnace AFUEs range from 91. 9 to 98.0; the average is 91.9.
The percentage of housing units installing ENER GY STAR central air conditioning remains low. The percentages of ENERGY STAR homes installing ENER GY STAR central air conditioning in 2007 and 2008 are percentages of homes with central air cond itioning. (Comparable percentages are not available prior to 2007 because data on the number of ENERGY STA R central air conditioning units installed were available, but not on the number of homes with cen tral air conditioning.) The percentage of ENERGY STAR-qualified homes with central air conditioning was 55% in 2007 and 58% in 2008. The average SEER of central air conditioning systems insta lled in ENERGY STAR-qualifie d housing units in 2008 (567 homes) is 12.8; the minimum SEER is 9.4 and the maximum SEER is 21.4.

Figure 8-1: Percent of ENERGY STAR-Qualified Housing Units Installing ENERGY STAR Windows, Heating Systems, and Central Air Conditioning 2002 – 200852%69%73%77%56%87%83%72%86%77%19%77%37%66%53%12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



### Windows Heating Systems Central A/CPercent of ENERGY STAR-Qualified Homes



### 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Notes : 2007 & 2008 Central A/C is Percent of Homes with Central A/CMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 30



# 9 ENERGY STAR-qualified versus Code Plus Homes
Figure 9-1 shows that virtually the same percen tages of ENERGY STAR-qualified and Code Plus housing units installed ENERGY STAR heating syst ems in 2008, and Code Plus housing units with central air conditioning were more likely than EN ERGY STAR-qualified housing units with central air conditioning to have ENER GY STAR air conditioning systems. At the same time, Code Plus housing units were much less likely than ENERGY STAR-qualif ied housing units to have installed free CFLs through the Program or have ENERGY STAR windows.

Figure 9-1: Comparison of 2008 ENERGY STAR versus Code Plus Housing Units Installing Free CFLs and ENERGY STAR Heating Systems, Windows and Air Conditioning



### 19% 26% 86% 77%

49%

21% 60% 78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Installed CFLs ENERGY STAR Heating System ENERGY STAR Windows ENERGY STAR Central A/C (Homes with CAC)Percent of Housing Units

2008 ENERGY STAR Housing Units 2008 Code Plus Housing UnitsMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 31



# 10 Duct Leakage
Standards for ENERGY STAR qualification require that ducts be sealed and tested to have leakage at or below 6 cfm25 to outdoors per 100 square feet of c onditioned floor area. However, duct leakage testing is not required if all ducts and air handling equipment are in conditione d space and envelope leakage is 3 ACH50 or less. The majority of homes particip ating in the Program have ducts—98% of ENERGY STAR and 100% of Code Plus homes co mpleted through the Program in 2008.
The Program encourages builders to install ducts in conditioned space and, based on findings from the 2005 Baseline study, it has been successful. In the 2005 Baseline Study, only 11% of the single family homes with ducts had all ducts installed in conditioned space. In 2007, 42% of all ENERGY STARqualified housing units had all ducts installed in conditioned space. In 2008, 77% of ENERGY STARqualified housing units and 64% of C ode Plus housing units had all ducts installed in conditioned space. In addition, in 2008, 72% of the ENERGY STAR-qua lified housing units and 45% of the Code Plus housing units with all ducts in conditioned space had e nvelope leakage of 3 ACH50 or less, which means duct leakage testing could be waived.
The average duct leakage in 2007 for ENERGY STAR-qualified housing units with ducts in unconditioned space was 4.3 cfm25 per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area. In 2008, duct leakage testing was required in 427 EN ERGY STAR-qualified housing units and 219 Code Plus housing units that had ducts in unconditioned space or had ducts in conditioned space, but envelope leakage was greater than 3 ACH50. Figure 10-1 shows the average, mi nimum and maximum duct leakage measured in the 2008 housing units where duct leakage testing was re quired. As shown, duct leakage in ENERGY STAR homes requiring duct leakage testing ranged from 0.3 to 6.0 and averaged 4.0 cfm25 per 100 square feet of conditioned space, which is 0.3 lower than in 20 07. Average duct leakage in 2008 Code Plus homes requiring testing is 6.4 and the average over all EN ERGY STAR and Code Plus homes requiring testing is 5.0 cfm25 per 100 square feet of conditioned space.

Figure 10-1: 2008 Duct Leakage

6.0 8.1 8.1

4.0 6.4

5.0

0.3 1.2

0.3

- 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

2008 ENERGY STAR (n=427) 2008 Code Plus (n=292) 2008 All Homes (n=719)CFM25 per 100 Sq. Ft. of Conditioned Space Maximum Average MinimumMA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 32



# 11 Envelope Leakage
For many years the Massachusetts Program required hous ing units to have envelope leakage of 5 ACH50 or lower to be ENERGY STAR qualified—this is not a requirement of the national ENERGY STAR Homes Program performance path. In 2007, the Massac husetts Program dropped the envelope leakage requirement. Figure 11-1 shows the average, minimu m and maximum ACH50 measur ed in Code Plus and ENERGY STAR housing units completed in 2008. As shown, and not surprisingly, average envelope leakage is lower in the groups of housing with lowe r HERS indices. Figure 11-2 shows the percentages of Code Plus and ENERGY STAR housing units with ACH50 greater than 5. As shown, 56% of Code Plus housing units, 31% of ENERGY STAR I housing units and 3% of ENERGY STAR II housing units with HERS indices over 50 have ACH50 greater than 5. All ENERGY STAR housing units with HERS indices of 50 or lower have ACH50 below 5.

Figure 11-1: Envelope Leakage (ACH50)

5.3 4.4
3.1 2.7 3.7 4.2

1.4 1.6
0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 8.0 9.7

7.5

4.6 9.7 9.7

- 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

Code Plus (n=410) ENERGY STAR I (n=515) ENERGY STAR II HERS > 50

(n=379) ENERGY STAR II Tax Credit HERS ≤ 50

(n=79) All ENERGY STAR (n=973) All ENERGY STAR & Code Plus (n=1,383)Envelope Leakage–ACH50 

### Average
Minimum
Maximum



### Figure 11-2: Percent of 2008 Housing Units with ACH50 Greater than 5



## 56%

31%

13% 26%
3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Code Plus (n=410) ENERGY STAR I (n=515) ENERGY STAR II HERS > 50

(n=379) All ENERGY STAR (n=973) All ENERGY STAR & Code Plus

(n=1,383) 

### Percentage of Housing Units with ACH50 > 5MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 33



# 12 HERS Raters
Eleven HERS rating companies participated in th e Program in 2008. These HERS raters worked with builders that completed ENERGY STAR and/or Code Plus housing units and/or are working with new projects. Table 12-1 shows how many Code Plus and ENERGY STAR housing units each rater completed in 2008, the average HERS index of co mpleted ENERGY STAR housi ng units and the number of housing units signed in 2008 that each rater is working with. The num ber of HERS raters working with participating builders is increasing and, as Table 12- 1shows, includes a mix of small and large rating companies, offering builders a wide choice of raters. By HERS rater, the average HERS index for rated ENERGY STAR housing units ranges from 49 to 73.

Table 12-1: 2008 Participating HERS Raters 2008 Completed Housing Units

HERS Rater Code Plus ENERGY STAR* Total Housing

Units Average ENERGY

STAR HERS Index 2008 Signed Housing

Units

Rater A 248 435 683 67 2,089 Rater B 145 281 426 64 1,603 Rater C 0 111 111 61 514 Rater D 7 80 87 73 266 Rater E 3 32 35 61 288 Rater F 0 22 22 63 0 Rater G 0 10 10 49 0 Rater H 7 0 7 NA 29 Rater I 0 1 1 70 2 Rater J 0 0 0 NA 62 Rater K 0 0 0 NA 1
Totals: 410 972 1,382 65 4,854MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 34



### Figure 12-1 shows the percentage of housing units comp leted by each rater in 2008 that were Code Plus, ENERGY STAR I and ENERGY STAR II. Figure 12-2 s hows the percentage of projects and housing units signed in 2008 that each rater is working with.

Figure 12-1: Rater Percentages of ENERGY STAR and Code Plus Housing Units

Others* (n=41) 59% Others* (n=41) 24%

Rater E (n=35) 60% Rater E (n=35) 31%

Rater D (n=87) 25% Rater D (n=87) 67%

Rater C (n=111) 67% Rater C (n=111) 33%

Rater B (n=426) 36% Rater B (n=426) 30% Rater B (n=426) 34%

Rater A (683) 24% Rater A (683) 40% Rater A (683) 36%

All Raters 33% All Raters 37% All Raters 30%

Others* (n=41) 17% Rater E (n=35) 9% Rater D (n=87) 8% Rater C (n=111) 0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent ENERGY STAR II Percent ENERGY STAR I Percent Code Plus

*Others includes raters F, G, H and I.



### Figure 12-2: Percentages of Signed Projects and Units Raters Working With



### 33% 23% 19% 2% 43% 33%

2% 9% 13% 11% 6% 5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



### Rater A Rater B Rater C Rater E Rater D Raters H, I, J & KPercent of Unitsand Projects Signed



### Signed Projects (n=432) Signed Units (n=4,854)22 Haskell Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 Phone: (617) 497-7544 Fax: (617) 497-7543 www.nexusmarketresearch.com 

# RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING MARKDOWN IMPACT EVALUATION

FINAL

January 20, 2009

Submitted to:
Markdown and Buydown Program Sponsors in Connecticut, Massachusetts, R hode Island, and Vermont

Submitted by:

Nexus Market Research, Inc.
RLW Analytics, Inc.

GDS AssociatesFINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation 1/20/2009 Page i

Nexus Market ResearchFINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 1

Nexus Market Research 

# 1 Executive Summary The purpose of this study was to provide updated information to the sponsors of markdown and buydown programs (hereafter markdown programs) in the New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont that woul d assist in their calcu lations of demand and energy savings for CFLs obtained through th ese programs (hereafter, markdown CFLs). Specifically, the report presents load shapes, co incidence factors, delt a watts, daily and annual hours of use, and first-year and lifetime installa tion rates. Tasks completed toward the estimation of these parameters for calculating energy savings include:

• The development of a sample of markdown participants through a random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey

• An on-site survey and lighting inventory to gather information on factors related to lighting use (especially product placement and usage) and

• The logging of markdown CFLs installed in par ticipating homes at the time of the on-site
survey.
This executive summary summarizes the highlig hts and key findings of these activities.

It is important to note that th e evaluation team designed the R DD survey and sampled homes for the on-site visits with the sole purpose of finding recently purchased and installed markdown CFLs. This reflects a directive from the sponsor s; the fact that the evaluation team was under tight time constraints related to the timing of the kickoff meeting (October 19, 2007), the need to identify a panel of participants and install loggers in their homes in time for the winter peak lighting period, and the sponsors’ requirement that we provide preliminary winter load shape and coincidence factor results by February 28, 2008 n ecessitated the use of this method. The survey questionnaire and sampling techniques explicitly eliminated households that did not have recently purchased markdown CFLs installed in the home. The RDD and on-site surveys, furthermore, included very few questions on dem ographics, housing characteristics, or other issues that may help explain some of th e findings reported below (although we provide breakdowns when possible and relevant by such variables as the number of recently obtained markdown CFLs in the home). In short, this study focused on finding and logging a representative sample of mar kdown CFLs to obtain the necessary information to update demand and energy savings parameters. It was not design ed to provide a representative sample of households—or even all markdown purchases—in the region, nor was it meant to provide detailed information on all factors th at may affect lighting in the home. 

## 1.1 Task 2: Develop Sample of Prod uct Purchasers (Chapter 3) The NMR team relied on a brief RDD survey desi gned solely to determine if respondents had recently purchased and installed any markdown CF Ls. We fielded the survey twice: the first from December 5 to December 16, 2007, to recr uit households for the winter on-site logging panel, and the second in February 11 to Ma rch 10, 2008, to recruit households for the summer on-site logging panel. As soon as the inte rviewer could determine whether or not a respondentwas eligible for the on-site portion of this study and determined if the respondent was willing to do so, the call was terminated. The aver age respondent spent less than five minutes onFINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 2

Nexus Market Research 

### the phone. It is important to keep in mind that th e panel season refers to when the products were logged and not when they were obtained . Respondents purchased produc ts logged for the winter panel between August and early December 2007, while products logged in the summer panel were obtained between November 2007 and February 2008.

Figure 1-1 presents the results of the recruitment efforts. Overa ll, about 10% of the respondents surveyed were both eligible for th e on-site study and willing to take part in it. The lack of any recent purchases (43%) served as the most co mmon reason for exclusion from the on-site study. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, a slightly greater percentage of winter panel respondents were eligible for and willing to take part in the on-sites (12%) than summer panel respondents (9%).
Figure 1-1: RDD Recruitment Results
Eligible Recruited

626 10%

Purchased at

non

‐ participating

retailer

274 4%

No recent CFLs

purchases

2774 43% Not familiar with CFLs

1200 18% Not qualified

for other

reasons

855 13% Did not agree to onsite 775 12%



### One of the screening questions asked respondents how familiar they were with CFLs. While 83% of winter panelists and 82% of summer panelists reported being at least ‘slightly familiar’ with CFLs, the percentage of summer panelist (70%) who stated that they were ‘very familiar’ with CFLs was significantly lower than among winter panelists (81%). Due to the nature of the recruitment survey, we did not collect informa tion to help us explai n this unexpected finding. 1

1 A reviewer voiced concern that awareness in this survey was lower than that estima ted from a similarly worded question in the recent NMR (2008) Telephone Survey Results for Market Progress and Evaluation Report (MPER) 2007 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR ® Lighting Program. The Massachusetts study suggested that familiarity was 89% (94% when descriptions of additional types of CFLs we re included). We believe the discrepancy relates to the fact that the Massachusetts study included numerous call b acks to boost response rates in an effort to represent the state population while the current survey focused less on re sponse rates and more on getting people on the phone to find out if they had eligible products.FINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 3

Nexus Market Research 

### The data presented in Figure 1-2 show that ‘r ecruited individuals’—tha t is, those who were eligible for and agreed to take part in the on-site—reported purchasing more CFLs in both the summer and winter panel than did all RDD survey respondents who had recently purchased CFLs. This suggests that recruited respondents ma y be more committed to CFLs than the other recent purchasers. While we did not collect info rmation during the RDD survey to explore this question in more detail, the an alyses reported in Chapter 4 examine such issues as the relationship between commitment to CFLs and the number of markdown CFLs found during onsite visits, as well as the type and age of home included in th e on-site portion of the study.
Figure 1-2: Average Numbers of CFLs Purchased by Panel

7.7 7.3 8.9 8.9

0 2 4 6 8 10 All recent purchasers ‐ Winter All recent purchasers ‐ Summer Recruited respondents ‐ Winter Recruited respondents ‐ Summer

Number of CFLs Purchased without Coupon



### The NMR team supplemented recruitment through the RDD survey by identifying households taking part in the New England measure life study who also had recent markdown purchases. 2 

### A total of 18 households were recruited into the current markdown study in this manner.

2 NMR and RLW (2008) Residential Lighting Measure Life Study . Submitted June 10, 2008.FINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 4

Nexus Market Research 

## 1.2 Task 4: Product Placement and Usage (Chapter 4) After developing a sample of pa rticipants through th e RDD survey, we created a sample design for the on-site visits that ensu red we would visit homes in each load zone that had purchased various numbers of markdown CFLs. The design served only as a guide because the on-site conditions encountered by the technicians sometimes differed from what the respondent reported on the phone. Table 1–1 summarizes the dispos ition of products reported through the RDD survey, as well as additional recently purchased markdown products identif ied in the home that were not originally reported by the respondent during the RDD survey (i.e., the respondent forgot about them or obtained them between the RDD survey and the on-site visit). Differences observed between households recruited in the summer and winter pane ls are discussed in Chapter Error! Reference source not found.

. Table 1–1: Disposition of Products Reported as Purchased during RDD Phone Survey and All Qualifie d Markdown Purchases Found On-site (Based on products found in homes identified through RDD survey) Overall Product Disposition # % Markdown CFLs reported during phone survey (customer recall) 1,868 100%

RDD markdown CFLs reporte d and found 1,137 61% RDD markdown CFLs reported but not purchased 703 38% RDD markdown CFLs installed elsewhere 28 1% All markdown CFLs found in home 1,544 100% Markdown CFLs logged 1,073 a 

### 69%

RDD markdown CFLs logged 666 61% a 

### New markdown CFLs found and logged 407 38% a 

### Markdown CFLs eligible not logged 239 15% Markdown CFLs in storage or removed 232 15% Loggers placed in all homes 657 %

a 

### Percentage based on the CFLs logged.


### The markdown participants installed CFLs in a gr eater percentage of sockets (31%) compared to participants in the measure life study (27 %) and the 2003 Residential Lighting Impact Study conducted for the sponsors in Massachus etts, Rhode Island, and Vermont (26%). 3 

### They also had a predisposition toward lower wattage lighti ng products, no matter what type of bulb was installed in the socket. Respondents who recently obtained eleven or more CFLs were the most likely to have a greater proportion of sockets devo ted to CFLs and to have lower wattage lighting products installed throughout thei r homes. Such respondents, however, on average had a greater number of sockets in their homes. While we cannot explain this finding based on the data collected as part of this study, it may be that su ch respondents have more multiple-socket fixtures or circuits rated only for lower wattage produc ts instead of a few hi gher-wattage fixtures.

3 NMR and RLW (2008) Measure Life. NMR and RLW (2004) Impact Evaluation of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont 2003 Residential Lighting Programs. Submitted October 1, 2004.FINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 5

Nexus Market Research 

### Alternatively, they may be inst alling lower-wattage products to reduce the elec tricity costs associated with having so many sockets in their homes. 

## 1.3 Task 5: Energy and Dema nd Savings (Chapter 5)
This task involved the calculation and estimation of various parameters related to energy savings resulting from the use of markdown lighting pr oducts. Figure 1-3 and Fi gure 1-4 present the winter and summer lighting pr ofiles and Table 1–2 summarizes the energy savings parameters, with related precision factors for the coinciden ce factors and 80% confidence intervals for all. Details on the development of these parameters as well as additional analyses and comparisons to other studies are presented in Chapter 5, but here we provide a simplified explanation of the data reported in Table 1–2.

Coincidence factors are ratios that represent th e percentage of CFL ope ration during a period of interest and are one component of the demand reduction calcul ation. The winter on-peak hours are during non-holiday weekdays from 5 PM to 7 PM. The summer on-peak hours are during non-holiday weekdays from 1 PM to 5 PM. Therefore, the operation of markdown CFLs coincides about 22% to 23% of the time with the period of peak electricity usage; in summer, the coincidence is around 11%. The othe r parameters in the table factor into the calculation of annual and lifetime energy savings. Average daily and annual hours of use are calculated from the amount of time the logger determined each markdown CFL was turned on. The typical change in watts is the average difference between the cust omer self-reported wattage of the bulb in place before the CFL was installed in the socket and the wattage of the CFL currently in the same socket. The first year installation rate denotes the percentage of ma rkdown CFLs that get installed within a year of their purchase, while th e lifetime installation rate is the percentage that will get installed at some point after the first year.

Figure 1-3: Winter Monthly and Average Lighting Profile a

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPercent On December January
WinterFINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 6

Nexus Market Research a 

### Results reported by the hour ending at the time listed.
Figure 1-4: Summer Monthly and Average Lighting Profile a

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

HourPercent On June July August
Summer

a 

### Results reported by the hour ending at the time listed.
Table 1–2: Savings Estimation Parameters
80% Confidence Interval Parameter Estimate Precision Factor Low High Winter Coincidence Factor On-Peak 0.22 ±10.2% 0.20 0.24

Winter Coincidence Factor Seasonal 0.23 ±10.1% 0.20 0.25

Summer Coincidence Factor On-Peak 0.11 ±5.8% 0.10 0.11

Summer Coincidence Factor Seasonal 0.11 ±9.8% 0.10 0.12

Daily Hours of Use 3 3 3 Annual Hours of Use 1,022 b 

### 949 1,095 Typical Change in Watts 46 45 46 First Year Installation Rate 77% 75% 78% Lifetime Installation Rate 97% 97% 98%

a 

### Additional measures as well as estimates taken to a greater number of decimal places are reported in Table 6-1 in the full report.
b 

### Calculated as 2.8 x 365 (2.8 is the more precise estimate). However, annual operating hours is listed as 1,010 in Table 5-15, with the difference being due to rounding error.FINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 7

Nexus Market Research

# M ASSACHUSETTS 

# R ESIDENTIAL 

# A PPLIANCE 

# S ATURATION 

# S URVEY 

# (RASS)

V OLUME 

# 1: SUMMARY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Final

Prepared for: 

## C APE 

## L IGHT 

## C OMPACT


## N ATIONAL 

## G RID 

## NSTAR E LECTRIC


## U NITIL


## W ESTERN 

## M ASSACHUSETTS 

## E LECTRIC 

## C OMPANY



### Prepared by: 

## O PINION 

## D YNAMICS 

## C ORPORATION 

### 230 Third Avenue Third Floor Waltham, MA 02451 (617) 492-1400 www.opiniondynamics.com

Contact: Antje Siems, Senior Project Manager April 2009MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page i 

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS

E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY 

### ..............................................................................1

I NTRODUCTION 

### ......................................................................................4

M ETHODOLOGY 

### ......................................................................................6

1. H OME 

### C HARACTERISTICS 

### ..................................................................10

2. S PACE 

### H EATING 

### ..............................................................................10

3. S PACE 

### C OOLING 

### ..............................................................................10

4. W ATER 

### H EATING 

### .............................................................................10

5. B UILDING 

### S HELL 

### .............................................................................10

6. L AUNDRY 

### E QUIPMENT 

### ......................................................................10

7. F OOD 

### P REPARATION 

### ........................................................................10

8. R EFRIGERATORS AND 

### F REEZERS 

### ..........................................................10

9. E NTERTAINMENT 

### E QUIPMENT 

### .............................................................10

10. H OME 

### O FFICE 

### .................................................................................10

11. L IGHTING 

### ......................................................................................10

12. M ISCELLANEOUS 

### A PPLIANCES 

### ............................................................10

13. E NERGY 

### E FFICIENCY 

### ........................................................................10

14. P ROFILE OF 

### R ESPONDENTS 

### ................................................................10

D ATA 

### S UMMARY BY 

### E LECTRIC 

### E NERGY 

### E FFICIENCY 

### P ROGRAM 

### A DMINISTRATOR 

### ..10

D ATA 

### S UMMARY BY 

### B UILDING 

### T YPE 

### ..........................................................10

D ATA 

### S UMMARY BY 

### P RIMARY 

### H EATING 

### F UEL 

### ..............................................10

D ATA 

### S UMMARY BY 

### I NCOME 

### C ATEGORY 

### .....................................................10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page ii 

# T ABLE OF 

# T ABLES

Table 1. Summary of Appliance Penetration and Saturation .....................................................1
Table 2. Summary of Sample Design ........................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Summary of Mail Survey ................................................................................................ . 8
Table 4. Adjustment Example .................................................................................................... .10

Table 5. Interest in Product Rebates..........................................................................................1 0
Table 6. Home Characteristics – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator..........10
Table 7. Space Heating – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator .....................10
Table 8. Space Cooling – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator ......................10
Table 9. Water Heating – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator......................10
Table 10. Building Shell – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator.....................10
Table 11. Laundry Equipment – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator...........10
Table 12. Food Preparation – by Electric En ergy Efficiency Program Administrator...............10
Table 13. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Electr ic Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

............................................................................................................................... ........................10
Table 14. Entertainment Equipment – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator 10
Table 15. Home Office – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator.......................10
Table 16. Lighting – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator ..............................10
Table 17. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator 10
Table 18. Energy Efficiency – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator ...............10
Table 19. Profile of Respondents – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator .....10
Table 20. Home Characteristics – by Building Type..................................................................10
Table 21. Space Heating – by Building Type .............................................................................10
Table 22. Space Cooling – by Building Type ..............................................................................10
Table 23. Water Heating – by Building Type..............................................................................10
Table 24. Building Shell – by Building Type ...............................................................................10
Table 25. Laundry Equipment – by Building Type .....................................................................10
Table 26. Food Preparation – by Building Type.........................................................................10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page iii 

### Table 27. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Building Type .........................................................10
Table 28. Entertainment Equipment – by Building Type...........................................................10
Table 29. Home Office – by Building Type .................................................................................10
Table 30. Lighting – by Building Type.........................................................................................1 0
Table 31. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Building Type ..........................................................10
Table 32. Energy Efficiency – by Building Type..........................................................................10
Table 33. Profile of Respondents – by Building Type................................................................10
Table 34. Home Characteristics – by Primary Heating Fuel Type ............................................10
Table 35. Space Heating – by Primary Heating Fuel Type ........................................................10
Table 36. Space Cooling – by Primary Heating Fuel Type.........................................................10
Table 37. Water Heating – by Primary Heating Fuel Type.........................................................10
Table 38. Building Shell – by Primary Heating Fuel Type..........................................................10
Table 39. Laundry Equipment – by Primary Heating Fuel Type................................................10
Table 40. Food Preparation – by Primary Heating Fuel Type....................................................10
Table 41. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Primary Heating Fuel Type....................................10
Table 42. Entertainment Equipment – by Primary Heating Fuel Type .....................................10
Table 43. Home Office – by Primary Heating Fuel Type............................................................10
Table 44. Lighting – by Primary Heating Fuel Type ...................................................................10
Table 45. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Primary Heating Fuel Type.....................................10
Table 46. Energy Efficiency – by Primary Heating Fuel Type ....................................................10
Table 47. Profile of Respondents – by Primary Heating Fuel Type ..........................................10
Table 48. Home Characteristics – by Income Category ............................................................10
Table 49. Space Heating – by Income Category........................................................................10
Table 50. Space Cooling – by Income Category ........................................................................10
Table 51. Water Heating – by Income Category ........................................................................10
Table 52. Building Shell – by Income Category .........................................................................10
Table 53. Laundry Equipment – by Income Category ...............................................................10
Table 54. Food Preparation – by Income Category ...................................................................10
Table 55. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Income Category ...................................................10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page iv 

### Table 56. Entertainment Equipment – by Income Category.....................................................10
Table 57. Home Office – by Income Category ...........................................................................10
Table 58. Lighting – by Income Category...................................................................................10
Table 59. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Income Category.....................................................10
Table 60. Energy Efficiency – by Income Category....................................................................10
Table 61. Profile of Respondents – by Income Category..........................................................10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page v 

# T ABLE OF 

# F IGURES

Figure 1: Example of Penetration and Saturation Figure..........................................................10
Figure 2. Ratio Adjustment Algorithm.........................................................................................10
Figure 3. Home Ownership by Building Type..............................................................................10
Figure 4. Type of Building (Adj.) .............................................................................................. ....10
Figure 5. Year Residence was Built, by Provider .......................................................................10
Figure 6. Size of Residence, by Year Residence was Built .......................................................10
Figure 7. Percentage of Homes Remodeled in the Past 3 Years, by Heating Type.................10
Figure 8. Penetration of Space Heating Systems ......................................................................10
Figure 9: Primary Heating Fuels by Provider (Adj.) ...................................................................10
Figure 10. Primary Fuel Type by Building Type (Adj.)................................................................10
Figure 11. Primary Heating Fuel by Age of Home (Adj.) ............................................................10
Figure 12. Heating System Types by Fuel Type (Adj.)................................................................10
Figure 13. Fuel Types of Additional Heating Systems ..............................................................10
Figure 14. Use of Additional Heating System ............................................................................10
Figure 15. Age of Main Heating System ....................................................................................10
Figure 16. Thermostat Type (Adj.)............................................................................................. .10
Figure 17. Thermostat Type by Primary Fuel Type (Adj.) ..........................................................10
Figure 18. Mean Temperature Setting by Thermostat Type .....................................................10
Figure 19. Incidence of Space Cooling (Adj*.)..........................................................................10
Figure 20. Incidence of Central Air Cooling by Provider ...........................................................10
Figure 21. Cooling System Type (Adj.) .......................................................................................10
Figure 22. Age of Central AC System by Age of Home...............................................................10
Figure 23. Type of Thermostat (Adj.) .........................................................................................1 0
Figure 24. Mean Temperature Setting by Thermostat Type .....................................................10
Figure 25. Age of Room Air Conditioners (Adj.).........................................................................10
Figure 26. Size of Room Air Conditioners (Adj.)........................................................................10
Figure 27. Frequency of Air Conditioning Use by Time Period.................................................10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page vi 

### Figure 28. Timeline for Installa tion/Replacement of Central AC.............................................10
Figure 29. Timeline for Installa tion/Replacement of Room AC................................................10
Figure 30. Penetration of Water Heating Systems ....................................................................10
Figure 31. Primary Water Heating Fuel (Adj.).............................................................................10
Figure 32. Primary Water Heating Fuel by Building Type (Adj.) ...............................................10
Figure 33. Primary Water Heating System by Fuel Type (Adj.).................................................10
Figure 34. Age of Primary Water Heater....................................................................................10
Figure 35. Penetration of Insulation Blanket by Water Heating Fuel Type..............................10
Figure 36. Penetration of Water Saving Features (Adj.)...........................................................10
Figure 37. Insulation of Exterior Walls........................................................................................ 10
Figure 38. Amount of Attic/Ceiling Insulation (Adj.) ..................................................................10
Figure 39. Types of Windows (Adj.)............................................................................................. 10
Figure 40. Types of Window Frame Materials (Adj.)..................................................................10
Figure 41. Penetration of Clothes Washers and Dryers (Adj.) ..................................................10
Figure 42. Penetration of Clothes Washers and Dryers by Service Provider (Adj.) .................10
Figure 43. Type of Clothes Washer (Adj.) ...................................................................................10
Figure 44. Age of Clothes Washers.............................................................................................1 0
Figure 45. Number of Loads in a Typical Week .........................................................................10
Figure 46. Weekday Use of Laundry Equipment .......................................................................10
Figure 47. Type of Clothes Dryer (Adj.) .......................................................................................1 0
Figure 48. Age of Clothes Dryers ............................................................................................... .10
Figure 49. Percentage of Loads Line-Dried................................................................................10
Figure 50. Fuel Type (Adj.).................................................................................................... .......10
Figure 51. Average Age of Stovetops/Ranges (Adj.)..................................................................10
Figure 52. Microwave (Adj.) and Indoor Grill Penetration .........................................................10
Figure 53. Dishwasher Penetration by Owners/Renters (Adj.) .................................................10
Figure 54. Weekly Use of Dishwasher........................................................................................10
Figure 55: Refrigerator and Freezer Penetration and Saturation (Adj.)...................................10
Figure 56: Types of Refrigerators (Adj.)......................................................................................1 0
Figure 57: Refrigerator Size (Adj.)............................................................................................ ...10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page vii 

### Figure 58: Age of All Refrigerators............................................................................................ ..10
Figure 59: Frequency of Refrigerator Use ..................................................................................10
Figure 60: Freezer Style....................................................................................................... ........10
Figure 61: Freezer Size........................................................................................................ ........10
Figure 62: Age of Freezers ..................................................................................................... .....10
Figure 63: Age of Freezers by Freezer Type ...............................................................................10
Figure 64. Number of TVs per Home (Adj.) ................................................................................10
Figure 65. Penetration and Satu ration of TVs by Display Type and Screen Size (Adj.)...........10
Figure 66. Primary and Additional TVs by Type..........................................................................10
Figure 67. Mean Hours of Television Viewing............................................................................10
Figure 68. Seasonal Use of TVs on Weekdays...........................................................................10
Figure 69. Penetration and Saturation of Home Audio and TV Accessories (Adj.)..................10
Figure 70. Frequency of Unplugging Electronics or Turning Off at Power Strip.......................10
Figure 71. Numbers of Hours per Week Spent Working from Home .......................................10
Figure 72. Penetration and Satu ration of Computers (Adj.) .....................................................10
Figure 73. Number of Computers in Home by Monitor Type (Adj.)...........................................10
Figure 74. Mean Share of Time Computer is On, in Sleep Mode, and Off...............................10
Figure 75. Penetration and Saturation of Home Office Equipment (Adj.)................................10
Figure 76. Lighting Penetration (Adj.)......................................................................................... 10
Figure 77. CFL Penetration by Type of Residence (Adj.) ...........................................................10
Figure 78. Number of Light Bulbs by Type of Lighting (Adj.).....................................................10
Figure 79. Comparison of Number of CFLs : Self-Reported v. Fieldwork Adjusted ..................10
Figure 80. Penetration and Saturation of Miscellaneous Appliances (Adj.) ............................10
Figure 81. Average Dehumidifier Usage.....................................................................................10
Figure 82. Average Pool Pump Usage ........................................................................................10
Figure 83. Meaning of the ENERGY STAR ® 

### Label* ...................................................................10
Figure 84. Meaning of the EnergyGuide Label ..........................................................................10
Figure 85. Familiarity with Other Energy Efficiency Programs*................................................10
Figure 86. Customer Interest in Energy Efficiency Products and Services ..............................10
Figure 87. Head-of-Household Age.............................................................................................10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page viii 

### Figure 88. Educational Attainment among Respondents and Statewide................................10
Figure 89. Annual Household Income ........................................................................................10
Figure 90. Annual Household Income Comp arison with Massachusetts Residents...............10
Figure 91. Years in Surveyed Home ...........................................................................................10
Figure 92. Household Size ...................................................................................................... ....10
Figure 93. Primary Language Spoken at Home.........................................................................10MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 1 

# E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY

Five Massachusetts electric energy efficiency program administrators – Cape Light Compact, National Grid, NSTAR Electric, Unitil, an d Western Massachusetts Electric Company (hereafter collectively referred to as “the Sponsors”) – retained Opinion Dynamics Corporation to conduct a state-wide resident ial appliance saturation survey (RASS). The study effort consisted of a mail/Internet surv ey of close to 3,000 Massachusetts residential customers and an in-home verification of cu stomer-provided data in 118 of the survey respondents’ residences.
This report presents the findings of the survey and in-home verification efforts. The report consists of two Volumes:

• Volume 1 presents the methodology as well as summary results and analysis of the data collected in the 2008 Home Energy Survey and the in-home verification.

• Volume 2 contains the survey questions, as se en by the responding customer in the mail survey, and the detailed survey results by 1) electric energy efficiency program administrator, 2) building type of the residence, and 3) primary space heating fuel type of the residence.
One of the primary purposes of this study wa s to determine the penetration and saturation of Massachusetts homes with appliances and other energy using equipment. Key penetration and saturation data are presented in the table below. Other study findings, as well as comparison of results by different subgroups, are presented in Sections 1 through 14 of Volume 1.

Table 1. Summary of Appliance Penetration and Saturation (Data adjusted by in-home visits is marked with “*”)
Appliance/Equipment Penetration Saturation
Space Heating Space heating system 99%

-- Natural gas heat* 53%

-- Oil heat* 36%

-- Electric heat* 8%

-- Space Cooling Space cooling* 81%

-- Central air cooling* 29%

-- Room air conditioner 64% 126% Water Heating Water heating system 98%

-- Natural gas heat* 57%

-- Oil heat* 24%

--Executive Summary

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 2 

### Appliance/Equipment Penetration Saturation

Electric heat* 16%

-- Insulation blanket 25%

-- Low-flow shower head* 68%

-- Faucet aerator* 57%

-- Laundry Clothes washer (private use)* 86%

-- Clothes dryer (private use)* 83%

-- Food Preparation
Microwave oven* 95%

-- Indoor grill (electric) 32%

-- Dishwasher* 71%

-- Refrigerators and Freezers Refrigerator* 100% 128%
Freezer* 13% 14% Entertainment Equipment
Television* 99% 273%
CRT TV* 88% 197% Flat panel LCD TV* 45% 69% Flat panel plasma TV* 4% 7% Projection TV* 3% 3% DVD player or DVD/VCR* 83% 128%
Stereo* 75% 93% Digital cable box* 61% 97%
VCR* 36% 45%
Home theater* 19% 20%
Home Office Computer* 82% 169% Computer with flat panel monitor* 70% 139% Computer with CRT monitor* 24% 25% Telephone (landline)* 86% 255% Cell phone 83% 148% Answering machine* 79% 80%
Multifunction machine* 52% 59%
Printer* 37% 44%
Home network 24% 25%
Scanner* 8% 8%
Fax machine* 7% 7%Executive Summary

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 3 

### Appliance/Equipment Penetration Saturation
Copier* 3% 3% Lighting
Incandescent* 97%

-- CFL* 72%

-- Fluorescent tube lights* 60%

-- Halogen torchieres* 11%

-- Fluorescent torchieres* 7%

-- Miscellaneous Appliances
Electric Clocks 82% 171%
Portable Fan 69% 119% Ceiling Fan* 61% 147%
Dehumidifier* 50% 46% Battery Charger 50% 80%
Humidifier* 33% 39% Pond/Well/Pool Pump* 23% 22% Electric Exercise Equipment* 20% 22% Home Security System* 18% 19%
Cordless Vacuum 16% 17%
Electronic Household Air Cleaner 9% 12%
Attic or Whole-house fan* 8% 9% Electric Whirlpool Spa* 7% 7%
Electric Water Heater for Pool* 3% 3%
Heated Waterbed* 2% 2%
Sauna-Electric* 1% 1%MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 4 

# I NTRODUCTION

Five Massachusetts electric energy efficiency program administrators – Cape Light Compact, National Grid, NSTAR Electric, Unitil, an d Western Massachusetts Electric Company (hereafter collectively referred to as “the Sponsors”) – retained Opinion Dynamics Corporation to conduct a state-wide resident ial appliance saturation survey (RASS). The study effort consisted of a mail/Internet surv ey of close to 3,000 Massachusetts residential customers and an in-home verification of cust omer-provided data in a subset of survey respondents’ residences. The field work was conducted by Mad Dash Incorporated under subcontract to Opinion Dynamics Corporation.
This report presents the findings of the survey and in-home verification efforts. This report consists of two Volumes:
Volume 1 presents summary results and analys is of the data collected in the 2008 Home Energy Survey and the in-home verification . Volume 1 is organized in three parts:

• Introduction and Methodology: These two sections provide background about the study and this report and present the data collection and analysis methodology.

• Numbered sections 1 through 14: These sections summarize and analyze the data collected in the study. The sections consist of graphs, tables, and brief descriptions of the most important findings summarizing. The 14 sections address the following study topics:

• Section 1: Home Characteristics

• Section 2: Space Heating

• Section 3: Space Cooling

• Section 4: Water Heating

• Section 5: Building Shell

• Section 6: Laundry Equipment

• Section 7: Food Preparation

• Section 8: Refrigerators and Freezers

• Section 9: Entertainment Equipment

• Section 10: Home Office

• Section 11: Lighting

• Section 12: Miscellaneous Appliances

• Section 13: Energy EfficiencyIntroduction

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 5 

### • Section 14: Profile of Respondents

• Data Summary Tables: Three sets of tables present study results by 1) electric energy efficiency program administrator, 2) building type of the residence, and 3) primary space heating fuel type of the residence. The tables are organized by the same topics used in the numbered sections of the report.
Volume 2 contains the detailed survey results, again organized by the same topics used in the numbered sections of Volume 1. Each se ction in Volume 2 begins with the survey questions, as seen by the responding customer in the mail survey.Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 6 

# M ETHODOLOGY

The residential appliance saturation survey consisted of a mail/internet survey of Massachusetts residential customers and an in-home verification of customerprovided data in a subset of survey respondents’ residences.


## Mail/Internet Survey The mail survey was sent to 12,000 Massachusetts homes in October 2008. The survey pack consisted of a cover letter, a survey booklet, and a postage-paid return envelope. To enhance recognition and resp onse rates, all written communications with customers were conducte d on specially-designed stationary, displaying the logos of all five Sponsors. The cover letter includ ed a reference to a website and a personal identification number (PIN), and offered cu stomers the option to complete the survey on-line instead of by mail. The cover letter also announced a drawing of five $100 gift cards among respondents who returned th e completed survey by the specified deadline.
Postcard reminders and a second copy of th e survey booklet were sent to the entire sample in November 2008. After the response deadline had passed, brief follow-up calls were made to non-responding customer s in survey strata that had not yet met their quota.

Sample Design
The survey sample was stratified by 1) electric energy efficiency program administrator; 2) heating fuel based on elec tric and non-electric rate codes; and 3) for NSTAR, by its three operating companies.
We estimated sample sizes for each stratum using a modified proportional approach. This approach consists of first allocati ng the sample of 12,000 surveys to each Sponsor based on the Sponsor's share of the total Massachusetts population. Proportional allocation of the overall sample resulted in precision levels of 10% or better (at a 90% confidence interval) for all Sponsors, except Unitil. Unitil's sample size was then increased to achieve a precision level of 7% (needed to achieve 10% precision levels for the substrata discusse d below). To maintain an overall sample size of 12,000, the sample sizes of all othe r Sponsors were reduced in proportion to their total sample size.
We then allocated each Sponsor's sample to the Sponsor-specific substrata. This was again done using a modified proportional approach based on the number of customers in each substratum. For each Sponsor, the sample was allocated into "electric heat" and "non-electric heat" substr ata. For all Sponsors except NGRID, the proportional allocation would not result in 10% precision for the "electric heat" stratum, so enough additional sample was allocated to the electric heat strata to achieve 10% precision. To maintain the overall sample size for the Sponsor, the sample size for the "non-electric heat" st ratum was reduced accordingly. For NSTAR, the sample was further stratified by operating company: Boston Edison,Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 7 

### Commonwealth Electric, and Cambridge Electr ic Light. NSTAR's sample was first allocated among these three strata, and th en among the "electric heat" and "nonelectric heat" substrata. Again, a propor tional approach was used, which was then adjusted to achieve 10% prec ision for each substratum.
Table 2 below summarizes, for each stra tum and substratum, the population and sample sizes, the expected number of co mpleted surveys (assuming a 25% response rate), and the expected precision le vels (for a 90% confidence level).

Table 2. Summary of Sample Design

By Stratum Population Size Sample Size Expected Completes (25% resp. rate) Expected Precision (90% CI)

1 - National Grid 1,114,663 5,290 1,323 2.3%

1a - National Grid - Electric Heat 82,513 392 98 8.3%

1b - National Grid - Non- Electric Heat 1,032,150 4,899 1,225 2.3%

2 - NSTAR 795,360 3,775 944 2.7%

2a - NSTAR - Boston Edison - Electric Heat 45,744 268 67 10.0%

2b - NSTAR - Boston Edison - Non-Elec. Heat 565,493 2,360 590 3.4%

2c - NSTAR - Commwlth Electric – Elec. Heat 6,806 268 67 10.0%

2d - NSTAR - Commwlth Electric - Non-Elec. Heat 135,119 342 86 8.9%
2e - NSTAR – Camb. Elect. Light - Electric Heat 1,504 268 67 10.0%
2f - NSTAR – Camb. Elect. Light - Non-Elec. Heat 40,694 268 67 10.0%

3 - WMECO 182,203 865 216 5.6%

3 - WMECO - Electric Heat 21,428 268 67 10.0%

3 - WMECO - Non-Electric Heat 160,775 597 149 6.7%
4 - Cape Light Compact (CLC) 170,739 810 203 5.8%

4 - CLC - Electric Heat 19,355 268 67 10.0%

4 - CLC - Non-Electric Heat 151,384 542 136 7.0%

5 - Unitil 25,188 548 137 7.0%

5 - Unitil - Electric Heat 2,196 268 67 10.0%

5 - Unitil - Non-Electric Heat 22,992 280 70 9.8%
6 - Municipal Utilities 150,000 712 178 6.1%

TOTAL 2,438,153 12,000 3,000 1.5%Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 8 

### For each survey stratum, the sample wa s drawn at random from the Sponsors’ customer databases to provide a statistica lly valid representation of the population. For the 40 Massachusetts municipal utilitie s, we purchased address information for customers living within the towns served by these utilities, in proportion to each utility’s number of customers.

Summary of Mail Survey Statistics
Overall, 2,667 customers responded to the survey, 2,308 by mail and 359 via the Internet.
The survey responses were weighted to each stratum’s population to ensure that all results are representative of the service provider and the Massachusetts population as a whole. For each sample stratum, samp le weights were estimated as the ratio of the percentage of the population the stratu m represents divided by the percentage of the completed surveys the stratum represents. For example, customers served by municipal utilities represent 6.15% of all Massachusetts customers (150,000 / 2,438,153; see Table 2) and 4.50 % of a ll survey responses (120 / 2,667; see Table 3). As a result, the sample weight for mu nicipal utilities is 1.37 (6.15% / 4.50%).
Table 3 summarizes the mail survey statis tics – including the actual number of completed surveys, the response rate, the achieved precision levels, and the sample weights – by sample stratum.

Table 3. Summary of Mail Survey

By Stratum Actual Completes Response Rate Precision (90% CI) Sample Weight

1 - National Grid 1,156 22% 2.4% --

1a - National Grid - Electric Heat 96 25% 8.4% 0.94

1b - National Grid - No n-Electric Heat 1,060 22% 2.5% 1.07

2 - NSTAR 830 22% 2.8% --

2a - NSTAR - Boston Edison - Electric Heat 64 24% 10.3% 0.78

2b - NSTAR - Boston Edison - Non-Elec. Heat 514 22% 3.6% 1.20

2c - NSTAR - Commwlth Electric – Elec. Heat 64 24% 10.3% 0.12

2d - NSTAR - Commwlth Electric - Non-Elec. Heat 85 25% 8.9% 1.74
2e - NSTAR – Camb. Elect. Light - Electric Heat 51 19% 11.5% 0.03
2f - NSTAR – Camb. Elect. Light - Non-Elec. Heat 52 19% 11.4% 0.86

3 - WMECO 204 24% 5.7% --

3 - WMECO - Electric Heat 67 25% 10.0% 0.35Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 9 

### By Stratum Actual Completes Response Rate Precision (90% CI) Sample Weight

3 - WMECO - Non-Electric Heat 137 23% 7.0% 1.28
4 - Cape Light Compact (CLC) 224 28% 5.5% --

4 - CLC - Electric Heat 75 28% 9.5% 0.28

4 - CLC - Non-Electric Heat 149 27% 6.7% 1.11

5 - Unitil 133 24% 7.1% --

5 - Unitil - Electric Heat 64 24% 10.3% 0.04

5 - Unitil - Non-Electric Heat 69 25% 9.9% 0.36
6 - Municipal Utilities 120 17% 7.5% 1.37

TOTAL 2,667 22% 1.6% --



### Data Cleaning
Returned surveys were first screened for completeness. Twenty blank surveys (not included in the total count of 2,667 comple ted surveys) were set aside and excluded from further consideration. Completed su rveys were then entered into a CATI database.
The primary data cleaning consisted of adjusting or eliminating contradictory responses. For example, if a customer did not respond to the question of how many refrigerators they have plugged in, but then provided characteristics for two refrigerators, we assumed that the response to the number of refrigerators should have been two. We generally did not overri de customer responses. In the example above, if the customer indicated that they have no refrigerator but then provided refrigerator characteristics, we excluded the refrigerator characteristics from consideration. Similarly, multiple respon ses to a single-response question, for example, two responses to “How old is your dishwasher?” were excluded from the analysis.
Questions that should have been answered but were left blank were treated as “No response.” Such non-responses are identified in the detailed data tables in Volume 2, but they are excluded from the valid responses and any percentage calculations.Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 10 

### Data Analysis
All survey responses were analyzed for all Massachusetts customers as well as by four key variables: 1) energy efficiency program administrator, 2) building type of the residence, 3) primary space heating fuel type of the residence, and 4) income level. Two types of tests were conducted to de termine the significance of differences observed between comparison groups: percentages were compared using the independent z-test for proportions/percen tages; means were compared using the independent t-test for means (unequal vari ances). These tests were conducted at two levels of significance: 90% and 95%.
The two significance tests are used to test the hypothesis that an observed proportion or mean is the same for two di fferent groups. For example, the z-test for proportions is used to test the hypothesis that the proportion of respondents using a specific fuel for their primary space heating system is the same for groups of respondents (example - by building type of the residence). High values of the z-test for proportions at a 90% or 95% level of si gnificance constitute evidence against the hypothesis that the proportions are the same.
For readability purposes, the discussion of survey results in Volume 1 does not explicitly note levels of significance when comparing results between different respondent groups. However, differences are only pointed out when a statistically significant difference exists. The detailed data tables presented in Volume 2 use upper case letters to indicate significant differences between respondent groups at the 95% and lower case letters to indicate significant differences at the 90% level, as illustrated below. 1

1 Detailed data tables only include three of the fo ur analyzed key variables: 1) energy efficiency program administrator, 2) building type of the reside nce, and 3) primary space heating fuel type of the residence.Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 11 BUILDING TYPE

_______________________ Single- 2-4 5+ Total family units units Other

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- (A) (H) (I) (J) (K)

Natural Gas 1,158 756 307 77 9 49% 45% 66% 51% 38%
HJK

Electric 189 70 44 70 3 8% 4% 10% 46% 14%
H HIK

Oil 905 784 104 3 10 39% 46% 23% 2% 42% IJ J iJ

Other 94 85 6 1 1 4% 5% 1% 1% 6%
IJ

TOTAL VALID RESPONSES 2,346 1,695 462 152 23 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL VALID RESPONSES 2,367 1,638 476 215 24 (UNWEIGHTED)

Missing responses 27 8 13 6 - 1% *% 3% 4%
H H

TOTAL RESPONSES 2,373 1,703 474 158 23

Comparison Groups: HIJK Independent T-Test for Means (unequal variances), Independent Z-Test for Percentages Upper case letters indicate significance at the 95% level. Lower case letters indicate significance at the 90% level.



### In addition to the three key variables noted above, survey results were also analyzed by other customer or home characteristics of interest, such as income, age of the home, or awareness of the ENERGY STAR ® 

### label. Such comparisons are noted, where interesting or relevant results have been observed.

Penetration and Saturation
A primary purpose of this study was to determine the penetration and saturation of Massachusetts homes with key appliances . These two concepts are defined as follows:

• Penetration: A percentage representing the proportion of customers that have one or more particular appliance (or other piece of equipment). It is calculated by dividing the number of customers with one or more of an appliance (or other piece of equipment) by the total number of customers responding to that question.

• Saturation: A percentage representing how many of a particular appliance (or other piece of equipment) exist among all cu stomers. It is calculated by dividing the total number of a particular applianc e (or other piece of equipment) by the total number of customers responding to that question. This percentage is at least equal to, but generally higher than the corresponding penetration of a Customers in multi-family residences of 2-4 units are significantly more likely to use natural gas as their primary space heating fuel than customers living in other types of residences.

Customers in single family homes are significantly more likely to use oil as their primary space heating fuel than customers living in multi-family residences.Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 12 

### particular appliance, because some households will have more than one of the appliance.
In this report, penetration levels are generally displayed as bar graphs with saturation levels, where available, presented in a separate column to the right of the penetration graph, as shown in the example below.

Figure 1: Example of Penetration and Saturation Figure

22% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Freezers (n=2,540) Refrigerators

(n=2,639) Saturation

23% Penetration

128%



## In-Home Verification There is always potential measurement error from the mail survey because respondents could have misunderstood the qu estions in the survey or not known the answers. To reduce this possible error, we chose to conduct site visits at a subset of the respondent homes to verify the data from the mail survey. This in-home verification occurred by trained technicians. Because we felt that there would be no difference in errors people may have made regardless of their service territory or house characteristics, we chose the sites randomly from the completed surveys. Ultimately we verified the survey responses from 118 homes.

Data Adjusted

We used data from the verification to adjust the mail surveys to the extent practicable. However, we did not adjust a ll items. Items we did not adjust include:

3⁄4 Questions about customer behavior , e.g., “How many dishwasher loads are run in a typical week?” Behavioral questions we re not verified since the technicians could not observe the answer.
3⁄4 Questions about equipment age. In most cases, the technicians could not reliably determine the age of equipment. As a re sult, we decided not to adjust this information.Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 13 

### 3⁄4 Questions with low incidence in the verification sample. Some questions explore details of appliances that few customers own. Where the incidence of an appliance type was low, we did not adju st the responses to questions about the characteristics of the appliance. An example is stand-alone freezers, which only 13% of Massachusetts households own. Below are the survey questions we did adjust, by report section. The number in parentheses indicates the question number in the mail survey (see Volume 2 for the complete set of survey questions).

1. Home Characteristics Type of residence (A1) Number of rooms (A5) Natural gas line (A11)

2. Space Heating Have space heating (B1) Primary heating system type (B2A) Use/type of secondary heating (B2B) Number/type of thermostats (B5)

3. Space Cooling Have central air cooling (C1) Percent of space cooled (C2) Number/type of central air cooling (C3) Number/type of thermostats (C5) Age of room air conditioners (C7A) Size of room air conditioners (C7B)

4. Water Heating Have water heating (D1) Primary heating system type (D2A) Use of secondary heating (D2B) Have low flow shower heads (D5) Have water-saving faucets (D6)

5. Building Shell Thickness of attic/ceiling insulation (K3) Type of windows (K4) Type of window frames (K5) 6. Laundry Private use of laundry (E1) Type of clothes washer (E3) Have clothes dryer (E7) Type of clothes dryer (E7)

7. Food Preparation Type of stovetop/range (F1A) Age of stovetop/range (F1B) Have microwave oven (F2) Have dishwasher (F4)

8. Refrigerators and Freezers Number of refrigerators (G1) Refrigerator characteristics (G2) Number of freezers (H1)

9. Entertainment Equipment Number/type of TVs (I1) Number/ type of audio/TV accessories (I5)

10. Home Office Number/type of computers (I6) Number/type of other office products (I10)

11. Lighting Number/type of lighting products (J1)

12. Miscellaneous Appliances Number/type of appliances (L1)MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 14 

### Adjustment Methodology
We used the ratio adjustment method to adju st the mail survey responses for the items listed above. 2 

### This method first develops an adjust ment factor, based on value of the 118 in-home visits and the value from the survey responses of the same 118 households. The adjustment factor is then multiplied by the value from the survey responses for all 2,667 households. The values to be adjusted can be either a mean or a proportion.
Figure 2 shows this two-step ratio adjustment method.

Figure 2. Ratio Adjustment Algorithm

Step 1:

o o 

### Y X Factor Adjustment =

Step 2:
s sa 

### Y Factor Adjustment Y * =

Where:

Y sa 

### = adjusted mean/proportion for the item X o 

### = mean/proportion from the 118 in-home visits Y o 

### = mean/proportion from the survey responses for the 118 households with in-home visits Y

s 

### = mean/proportion from the survey responses for all 2,667 households

Consider the following example:
The in-home visits found that 95% of refrigerat ors are frost free and 5% are manual defrost. By contrast, the mail survey responses provid ed by the same 118 households reported that 90% of refrigerators are frost free while 10% are manual defrost.
Using these values, we first develop the adjustment factors for frost-free refrigerators and manual defrost refrigerators, as follows:

Frost-free refrigerators: 

### 06

. 1 % 90 % 95

= = Factor Adjustment

Manual defrost refrigerators: 

### 47

. 0 % 10

% 5

= = Factor Adjustment

All mail survey respondents reported that 91% of refrigerators are frost free while 5% are manual defrost. Multiplying the adjustment fact ors by the proportions reported by all survey respondents yields:
Frost-free refrigerators: 

### % 96 06

. 1 * % 91 = = Value Adjusted

2 Judith T. Lessler and William D. Ka lsbeek. Nonsampling Error in Surveys

. 1992. p. 269.Methodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 15 

### Manual defrost refrigerators: 

### % 4 47

. 0 * % 9 = = Value Adjusted
When adjusting proportions, one has to be ca reful about how to use the results. When the data is categorical data, as in the example abov e, each category is adjusted separately. As a result, in many cases, the individual proportions no longer add up to 100%. In the example above, displaying the results to the first decima l would show that the adjusted proportion of frost-free refrigerators is 96.2% while the adjusted proportion of manual defrost refrigerators is 4.3%, for a total of 100.5%.
To correct for this, when adjusting categorical data in this report, we rebased the adjusted proportions to sum to 100%. Rebasing consists of dividing each adjusted proportion for a single question by the sum of all adjusted prop ortions. In this case, the rebasing would look as follows:

Frost-free refrigerators: Rebased Value 

### % 8

. 95 % 5

. 100 % 2

. 96

= =

Manual defrost refrigerators: Rebased Value 

### % 2

. 4 % 5

. 100 % 3

. 4

= =

In this example, rebasing the adjusted propor tions does not change the final values, when presented as a whole number. However, in other cases it might.
Table 4 summarizes the data inputs and resu lts of these adjustment calculations.

Table 4. Adjustment Example
Frost-free Manual Defrost Onsite results (X o) 

### 95% 5% Mail results for onsite HH (Y o 

### ) 90% 10% Adjustment Factor 1.06 0.47 Mail results for all surveys (Y s 

### ) 91% 9% Adjusted Mail results for all surveys (Y sa 

### ) 96.2% 4.3% Rebased-Adjusted Mail results for all surveys 95.8% 4.2%

Use of Verification Work in this Report
This report incorporates the results of our verification work in two ways:

1. Volume 1 data summary tables. Adjustment factors for the questions presented above are included in the data summary tables at the end of Volume 1. As demonstrated in the example above, adjustment factors for categorical data cannot be used in isolation. As a result, the adju stment factors in the data summary tables should be considered an indication of the magnitude of the adjustment resulting from the in-home visits. Adjustment factors should not be directly applied to the percentages presented in the tables, unless all categories are adjusted and rebased.

2. Volume 1 Sections 1 through 14. In the numbered sections that follow this methodology section, mail survey data were adjusted – using the developed adjustment factors – and rebased. Adjusted data are annotated by “(adj.)”. It shouldMethodology

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 16 

### be noted that the sample size for the onsi te audits (118) was insufficient to develop separate adjustment factors for subgro ups of interest (such as by program administrator, building type, primary fuel ty pe, or income category). Therefore, when adjusting results that are presented by su bgroup, a single adjustment factor was used across all groups. While there is no re ason that subgroups should differ in their ability to provide correct answers to the ma il survey, any such differences might lead to different results.

3. Volume 2. The data presented in Volume 2 were not adjusted. The Volume 2 tables therefore show the self-reported data based on the mail survey, which might differ from the adjusted results pres ented in Sections 1 through 14.MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 17 

# 1. H OME 

# C HARACTERISTICS

Home Ownership
Over 80% of Massachusetts residential customers own their home or current residence. Not surprisingly, customers living in single family homes are much more likely to own their home (97%) than customer living in multi-family or other residences.
Residents who use natural gas or oil heat ar e more likely to be amongst this group of homeowners than those with electric heat. In addition, customers served by Cape Light Compact and municipalities are more likely to be homeowners than those served by other providers. Not surprisingly, low income customers are more likely to rent their home.

Figure 3. Home Ownership by Building Type

81% 97%

52% 42% 79% 19%

48% 58% 21% 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All MA (n=2,646) Single Family (n=1,713) Multi 2-4 (n=543) Multi 5+ (n=352) Other (n=25)

Owners Renters



## Type of Residence Sixty-seven percent of customers live in sing le family homes (adj.). The remaining 33% are divided between multi-family residences with two to four units (18%), multi-family residences with five or more units (14%), and other types of residences (1%). Given that Cape Light Compact and municipalities have the highest pe rcentage of homeowner customers, it is not surprising that they also have the largest perc entage of single family customers of all service providers. Low income customers more often li ve in multi-family residences than other Massachusetts customers.Home Characteristics

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 18 

### Figure 4. Type of Building (Adj.)

69% 56% 78% 75% 7% 14% 5% 13% 20% 5% 6% 6%

87% 67% 88% 7%

18% 17%

24% 17% 19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total (n=2,648) CLC (n=222) NGRID (n=1,149) NSTAR (n=822) Unitil (n=132) WMECO (n=203) Muni (n=120) Single-family Multi 2-4 units Multi 5+ units



### Ninety-three percent of respondents completed the survey for a permanent residence. Cape Light Compact is the only service provider with a substantial percentage of customers (41%) completing the survey for a seasonal or partial-year residence. A majority of partial-year residents use their homes during the summer months of June (87%), July (92%), August (92%), and September (83%).


## Size and Age of Residence Massachusetts residents have an average of 6.7 rooms in their residences (adj.), 3 

### making up an average of 1,866 square feet of living space. A majority of these homes are older residences with 26% built before 1930, 36% between 1930 and 1969, 30% between 1970 and 1999, and only 8% built after 1999. Homes of Cape Light Compact customers tend to be newer than those of other Massachusetts customers. Low income customers are more likely to live in homes built before 1970 than non-low income customers.

3 The count of rooms excludes bathrooms, ha lls, pantries, unheated rooms, and garages.Home Characteristics

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 19 

### Figure 5. Year Residence was Built, by Provider

24% 34% 27% 28% 23% 36% 36% 42% 39% 42% 32% 22% 24% 25% 29% 8% 10% 8% 8% 7% 8% 6%

7% 26% 36%

26% 30%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total (n=2,540) CLC (n=219) NGRID (n=1,095) NSTAR (n=791) Unitil (n=123) WMECO (n=194) Muni (n=118)

Before 1930 1930-1969 1970-1999 After 1999



### The number of homes built with fewer than 1,000 square feet has decreased consistently across the years. Homes built since 2000 are more likely to be larger homes, with 3,000 or more square feet.

Figure 6. Size of Residence, by Year Residence was Built

16% 48% 49% 55%
44% 38%

18%

9% 13% 16% 24% 20% 31% 23% 29% 22%

13% 14%

7% 12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total Before 1930 1930-1969 1970-1999 2000 or later

Less than 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000-1,999 sq. ft. 2,000-2,999 sq. ft. 3,000 or more sq. ft. n=2,399



### Approximately 61% of residences have a natural gas line to their home (adj.).Home Characteristics

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 20 

## Incidence of Remodels Twenty-five percent of customers remodeled th eir residence within the past three years. 4 

### Residences heated with natural gas and oil had a higher percentage of remodels than those with electric heat.

Figure 7. Percentage of Homes Remodeled in the Past 3 Years, by Heating Type

28%

19% 26% 25%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Total (n=2,509) Natural Gas Heat (n=1,056) Electric Heat (n=324) Oil Heat (n=834)

% of Remodeled Homes



### Most remodels were done to kitchens or bathrooms (63%); other remodels include adding a room or square footage (20%), finishing a base ment (14%), and rebuilding most of the home (14%). While 14% of additions are not heated, those that are heated tend to be heated by extending the existing heating system (63%).

4 Remodeling activities included in the survey include (1) adding a room or square footage to the home, (2) converting a basement to finished space, (3) remodeling the kitchen or bathroom, (4) rebuilding most of the home.MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 21 

# 2. S PACE 

# H EATING

Ninety-two percent of Massachusetts resident ial customers pay to heat their home. Seven percent of customers have heat included in thei r rent or condo fee, and less than 1% report that the home for which they completed the su rvey is not heated. National Grid and NSTAR customers are more likely than other Massac husetts customers to have heating costs included in their rent or condo fee, reflecting th e fact that they more of ten live in multi-family residences of five or more units.

Figure 8. Penetration of Space Heating Systems

Do not have heat 1% Part of rent/condo fee 7%

Pay for heat 92%

n=2,573


## Primary Heating Fuel Of customers who pay to heat their homes, 53% use natural gas as their primary heating fuel while 36% use oil (adj.). Only 8% use electric ity as their primary source of heat (adj.).
CLC and NSTAR customers are more likely to use natural gas to he at their homes than customers of other electric service providers. 5 

### Conversely, customers of National Grid, Unitil, and WMECO are more likely to use oil to heat their homes than CLC and NSTAR customers.

5 Note that not all Massachusetts communities have the availability of natural gas.Space Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 22 

### Figure 9: Primary Heating Fuels by Provider (Adj.)

47% 62%

45% 40% 44% 40% 29%
48%

41% 47% 8% 7%

10% 6% 6% 5% 4% 10%

62% 53% 36% 24% 8% 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total (n=2,367) CLC (n=204) NGRID (n=1,009) NSTAR (n=717) Unitil (n=130) WMECO (n=191) Muni (n=116)

Natural Gas Oil Electric Other



### The prevalence of primary heating fuel types va ries somewhat with the type and age of the home. Customers who live in single family homes are more likely have an oil system, customers who live in residences with two to fo ur units are more likely to have a natural gas system, and customers who live an apartment bu ilding with five or more units are more likely to have an electric heat system.

Figure 10. Primary Fuel Type by Building Type (Adj.)

47% 69%

44%

21%

2% 4% 9% 5% 1% 1% 53% 45%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Single Family Apartment (2-4 units) Apartment (5 or more units)

Natural Gas Oil Electric Other n=2,367



### Across three age ranges (before 1970, between 1970 and 1999, and 2000 or later), natural gas is the most common primary heating fuel type. However, natural gas heating is most prevalent in newer homes (built in 2000 or la ter). Conversely, oil heat is more common in older homes (built before 1970), and electric heat is more common in homes built between 1970 and 1999.Space Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 23 

### Figure 11. Primary Heating Fuel by Age of Home (Adj.)

48%

5% 14% 5% 3% 6% 52% 65%

32% 41%

21%
8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Before 1970 (n=1,356) 1970-1999 (n=770) 2000 or Later (n=164)

Natural Gas Oil Electric Other



### Most natural gas customers have either hot wa ter radiator/baseboards or a central forcedair furnace. Over half of oil customers have hot water radiator/baseboards, and almost three-quarters of electric customers use a resistance heating system.

Figure 12. Heating System Types by Fuel Type (Adj.)

3% 0% 1% 6% 8% 0% 1% 2% 6% 27% 36% 1% 3% 5% 20% 24% 53%

<1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% OTHER Portable heaters Central forced air furnace Heat pump Resistance

ELECTRIC Other Floor or wall heater/furnace Steam radiator Central forced air furnace Hot water radiator or baseboard OIL Other Steam radiator Floor or wall heater/furnace

Central forced-air furnace Hot water radiator or baseboard NATURAL GAS

n=2,367Space Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 24 

## Additional Heating Systems Nearly one-third of Massachusetts residential customers report using a secondary heating system. Most additional heating systems are el ectric or consist of wood/coal stoves or fireplaces. Customers in homes where oil is the primary heating fuel are more likely to have an additional heating system than other Ma ssachusetts customers. Low income customers are less likely to have an additional heating system.
NSTAR customers, customers that live in an apar tment building with five or more units, and customers with natural gas as a primary fuel type are more likely to have an electric secondary heating system. Unitil customers, cust omers that live in single family homes, and customers that use either oil or electricity as their primary heating fuel are more likely to use a wood/coal stove or fireplace for additional heating.

Figure 13. Fuel Types of Additional Heating Systems

15% 14%

1% 5%

2% 3% 32%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

All Fuel Types Electric Wood or Coal Bottled Gas Oil Natural Gas Other

n=2,395



### Use of additional heating systems among Massachusetts customers varies. Almost equal shares of customers rarely (once per month), sometimes (once per week), often (2-4 days per week), and always (5-7 days per week) us e their additional heating system during the heating season.Space Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 25 

### Figure 14. Use of Additional Heating System

Often 28%

Alw ays

21%

Sometimes 26% Rarely 25%

n=1,005



## Age of Primary Heating System The average age of customers’ primary heating systems is 12.3 years. Eleven percent of customers report that their heating system is less than two years old, while 18% of customers have a heating system th at is 25 or more years old.
In general, electric heating systems are older ( 18.0 years) than oil systems (12.6 years) and natural gas systems (11.5 years). Sixty-thr ee percent of electric heating systems are 20 years or older.

Homes built between 1970 and 1999 have the oldest heating systems (14.2 years), compared to those built before 1970 (12.6 ye ars) and those built after 1999 (4.3 years), reflecting more recent replacements of heating systems in the oldest homes.

Figure 15. Age of Main Heating System

15% 18% 45% 10% 9% 18%

25% 30% 11% 24% 20% 10% 15% 13% 8% 12% 10% 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Natural Gas (n=937) Oil (n=761) Electric (n=259) Less than 2 years 2-4 years 5-9 years 10-20 years 20-24 years 25 or more yearsSpace Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 26 

## Thermostats Ninety-five percent of customers have at least one thermostat for their heating system, with an average of 1.7 thermostats per home (adj.). Electric heat customers have more thermostats (3.4 thermostats) than those who us e oil (1.7 thermostats) or natural gas (1.6 thermostats) as a primary fuel (adj.).

Over half of Massachusetts residential customer s are using only standard thermostats (adj.). Low income customers have fewer thermostat s and are more likely to use only standard thermostats than other Massachusetts customers.

Figure 16. Thermostat Type (Adj.)

Both Programmable and Standard 4%

Standard Only 58% Programmable Only 37%

n=2,359



### Cape Light Compact customers, customers who us e electric heat as their primary fuel type, and customers with heating systems over 20 ye ars old are more likely to use only standard thermostats. Conversely, customers with natural gas systems, customers whose heating systems is less than two years old and those with homes built after 1999 are more likely to use only programmable thermostats in their residence.Space Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 27 

### Figure 17. Thermostat Type by Primary Fuel Type (Adj.)

43% 35% 25% 53% 59% 74% 5% 2% 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Natural Gas (n=1,027) Oil (n=819) Electric (n=300) Both Standard only Programmable only



### The mean thermostat setting for heating syst ems ranges from a low of 63.0 degrees (late evening, 7 p.m. to 6 a.m.) to a high of 65.8 degrees (early evening, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.). Not surprisingly, temperature settings are slightly high er in the early morning (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and the early evening (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.), when people are in their homes before and after work/school. In general, CLC customers tend to set their thermostats at a lower setting than other electric service providers. Customers with newer homes (built in 2000 or later) tend to set their thermostats at a higher setting than those in homes built before 2000, and customers heating their homes with natural ga s tend to set their thermostats at higher setting than customers heating with oil.Space Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 28 

### Figure 18. Mean Temperature Setting by Thermostat Type

62.0 62.5 63.0 63.5 64.0 64.5 65.0 65.5 66.0 66.5 67.0

Early Morning (n=2,289) Morning (n=2,254) Afternoon (n=2,237) Early Evening (n=2,258) Late Evening (n=2,285)

Programmable only Standard Only Both 5pm-7p m

7pm-6am

1pm-5p m 9am-1p m 6am-9a mMA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 29 

# 3. S PACE 

# C OOLING

Overall, 81 percent of customers have some type of space cooling (adj.). Of those customers, 18% have only central air conditioni ng, 53% have only room air conditioning, and 11% have both central and room air conditioning (adj.).

Figure 19. Incidence of Space Cooling (Adj*.)

18% 53%

11% 19%

0% 20% 40% 60%

No AC Central AC Only Room AC Only Both

n=2,446

*Incidence of room air cooling could not be verified; adjustments were only made to central air cooling. 

## Central Air Cooling Twenty-nine percent of customers have central air cooling (adj.). Cust omers who live in an apartment building with five or more units, customers in homes built after 1999, and nonlow income customers are more likely to have a central air cooling system. Customers of Unitil and WMECO are less likely to have a ce ntral air cooling system than customers of other Massachusetts service providers.Space Cooling

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 30 

### Figure 20. Incidence of Cent ral Air Cooling by Provider

70% 68% 82% 80% 65% 30% 32% 18% 20% 35%

71% 69% 31% 29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total (n=2,559) CLC (n=213) NGRID (n=1,111) NSTAR (n=796) Unitil (n=128) WMECO (n=197) Muni (n=114)

No Central Air Conditioning Have Central Air Conditioning



### Almost all customers who have central air syst ems have central air conditioning (98%). Only 3% have a heat pump that heats and cools, and less than 1% have a ductless mini-split system (adj.).

Figure 21. Cooling System Type (Adj.)

3% 2% <1% 98%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Central Air Conditioning Heat Pump Ductless Mini Split AC Other*
n=795

*Incidence of “other” types of central air cooling could not be verified; no adjustment was made.



### Customers with central air cond itioning generally have 1.2 units per household (adj.). Over 80% of central air cooling systems cool 75-100% of the residence (adj.).
The mean age of customer’s main cooling system is 7.7 years. Fifteen percent of customers report that their cooling system is less than two years old, while 8% of customers have a system that is more than 20 years old.

Homes built between 1970 and 1999 have the ol dest central air conditioning systems (9.7 years), compared to those built before 1970 (7.0 years) and those built after 1999 (4.3Space Cooling

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 31 

### years), reflecting more recent additions or re placements of central cooling systems in the oldest homes.

Figure 22. Age of Central AC System by Age of Home

15% 16% 19% 42%

27% 28% 36%

17% 25%

2% 11%

1% 8% 7% 13%

0% 12% 28% 26%

16% 23%

17%

4% 7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

All MA Before 1970 (n=274) 1970-1999 (n=326) 2000 or later (n=123)

Less than 2 years 2-4 years 5-9 years 10-15 years 16-19 years 20 years or more n=735



## Thermostats Ninety-two percent of customers have at least one thermostat for their cooling system, with an average of 1.5 thermostats per home (adj.). Customers in single family homes have more thermostats (1.6 thermostats) than those in apartments with 2-4 units (1.1 thermostats) or five or more units (1.2 thermostats) (adj.).

Over half of Massachusetts residential cu stomers are using programmable thermostats only. Non-low income customers are more likely than other Massachusetts customers to use programmable thermostats only.

Figure 23. Type of Thermostat (Adj.)

Standard Only 38% Programmable Only 60% Both Programmable and Standard 2%

n=765Space Cooling

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 32 

### Cape Light Compact customers, customers with el ectric heat as their primary fuel, and those that live in an apartment building with five or more units are more likely to use only standard thermostats. Conversely, customers with natural gas systems and customers whose central air cooling unit is less than two years old are more likely to use only programmable thermostats in their residence.
The mean thermostat settings for air cooling systems are fairly consistent throughout the day, with the average temperatures ranging from a low of 72.0 in the early evening (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.) to a high of 72.6 in the morning (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.).

Figure 24. Mean Temperature Setting by Thermostat Type

71.0 72.0 73.0 74.0 75.0

Early Morning (n=737) Morning (n=708) Afternoon (n=709) Early Evening (n=711) Late Evening (n=716)

Programmable only Standard Only Both 5pm-7p m

7pm-6am 1pm-5p m 9am-1p m

6am-9a m



## Room Air Conditioners Sixty-four percent of customers have room ai r conditioners. National Grid customers, customers who live in homes built before 200 0, and low income customers are more likely to have room air conditioners.

Customers who have room air condition ers have an average of two units.
The average age of customers’ room air condition ers is 6.5 years (adj.). Customers that live in an apartment building with five or more un its are more likely to have an older room air conditioner (8.7 years) compared to those living in a single-family home (6.6 years) or those living in a building with two to four units (5.9 units) (adj.).Space Cooling

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 33 

### Figure 25. Age of Room Air Conditioners (Adj.)

20% 24%

15%

2% 6% 33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Less than 2
years 2-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 20 years or

more n=2,507



### Over half of all room air conditioners are less than 6,000 BTUs in size; the average size is approximately 7,200 BTUs (adj.). In general, cust omers in homes that have electric heat as their primary heating fuel, and customers of NGRID, NSTAR, and WMECO tend to have a larger room air conditioner compared to thos e with natural gas heat and customers of CLC and Unitil.

Figure 26. Size of Room Air Conditioners (Adj.)

11% 10%

1% 56%

20%

3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Less than 6,000 BTUs 6,000 to 7,999 BTUs 8,000 to 9,999 BTUs 10,000 to 11,999 BTUs 12,000 to 17,999 BTUs 18,000 BTUs

or more n=1,923


## Frequency of Use Customers tend to use their air conditioning sy stems more frequently from the early evening through the night with around one-third of cu stomers saying they use their cooling system often or always (at least five days a week ) during the cooling season. Over 50% of customers report not using or rarely (two days a week or less) using the cooling system during the morning hours.Space Cooling

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 34 

### Figure 27. Frequency of Air Conditioning Use by Time Period

56% 52% 39% 31% 36% 17% 23% 30% 32% 27% 26% 25% 31% 37% 37%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Early Morning (6am-9am) (n=1,513) Morning (9am-1pm) (n=1,496) Afternoon (1pm-5pm) (n=1,571) Early Evening (5pm-7pm) (n=1,617) Late Evening (7pm-6am) (n=1,609)

Rarely/Never Use Sometimes Use Always/Often Use



## Plans for Future Air Conditioning Installation/Replacement Fourteen percent of customers who do not curre ntly have a central air conditioning system are very or somewhat likely to install a central air system in the future. Over 50% of these customers are planning on installing the centra l air conditioning system in the next one to two years.
Twenty-nine percent of customers that current ly have a central air conditioning system are very or somewhat likely to replace that syst em. However, over 70% of those customers are planning to wait three or more years before making the replacement.

Figure 28. Timeline for Installa tion/Replacement of Central AC

4% 7% 52%

21%

9% 35% 36% 37%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Install (n=63) Replace (n=82)

This year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years or moreSpace Cooling

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 35 

### Fifteen percent of customers who do not current ly have a room air conditioning unit are very or somewhat likely to install on e in the future. Over 90% of these customers are planning on installing the unit in the next one to two years.
Forty-one percent of customers that currently ha ve a room air conditioning unit are very or somewhat likely to replace that unit. Nearly 70% of those customers are planning to make the replacement within the next one to two years.

Figure 29. Timeline for Installation/Replacement of Room AC

27%

11% 65%
57%

4% 21%

4% 12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Install (n=33) Replace (n=265)

This year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years or moreMA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 36 

# 4. W ATER 

# H EATING

Eighty-five percent of Massachusetts residentia l customers pay for hot water in their home. Thirteen percent of customers have hot water included in their rent or condo fee, and 2% report not having a water heating system. Cu stomers without a water heating system are more likely to use oil for their primary heating fuel.

Figure 30. Penetration of Water Heating Systems

Pay for hot w ater, 85% Do not have

hot w ater heater, 2% Part of rent/condo fee, 13%

n=2,586



## Water Heating System Type Natural gas is the most common fuel for water heating systems (58%), followed by oil (24%), and electric (16%) (adj.). Not surprisingly, this order is the same as th e fuel types for space heating. However, compared to space heat ing systems, water heating systems are less likely to be fueled by oil and more likely to be be electric.

Figure 31. Primary Water Heating Fuel (Adj.)

16% 58%

24%

2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Natural Gas Oil Electric Other n=2,128Water Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 37 

### Compared to other Massachusetts customers, cu stomers who live in a residence with two to four units are more likely to use natural gas to heat their water. Customers living in single family homes and customers living in homes buil t before 2000 are more likely to heat their water using oil.

Figure 32. Primary Water Heating Fuel by Building Type (Adj.)

76%

4% 1% 0% 49% 54%

9% 30% 48%

13% 14%

3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Single Family Apartment (2-4 units) Apartment (5 or more units)

Natural Gas Oil Electric Other n=2,128



### Most water heating systems have stand alone tanks. Tankless systems are more common in oil and bottled gas systems than other types of systems.

Figure 33. Primary Water Heating System by Fuel Type (Adj.)

98%

2% 63%

37% 94%

2% 4% 93%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Stand Alone Standard

Tank Tankless system Stand Alone Standard

Tank Tankless system Stand Alone Standard

Tank Heat Pump* Tankless system* Stand Alone Standard

Tank Tankless system

Natural Gas

(n=1,030) Oil (n=526) Electric (n=479) Bottled Gas (n=79)

*Incidence of “other” types of central air coolin g could not be verified; no adjustment was made.



### The average age of the primary water heater for Massachusetts residential customers is 7.8 years. Almost one-third of water heating syst ems is 10 years or older, and 9% are 20 years or older.
Oil-fired water heating systems tend to be older (average 10.2 years) than natural gas (6.5 years) or electric (8.0 years) systems, reflecti ng the fact that older homes are more likely to be fueled by oil than newer homes.Water Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 38 

### Figure 34. Age of Primary Water Heater

17% 22% 29%

17%

5% 9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Less than 2 years 2-4 years 5-9 years 10-15
years 16-19
years 20 or more
years n=1,947



### Only 1% of respondents report having an additional water heating system (adj.).


## Incidence of Energy Efficiency Measures One-quarter of Massachusetts residential cust omers have an insulation blanket or tank wrap for their primary hot water heater. Those with electric water heaters are more likely to have an insulation blanket or tank wrap th an those using oil or natural gas systems.

Figure 35. Penetration of Insulation Blanket by Water Heating Fuel Type

25%

24%

31% 24%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Electric (n=418)

Oil (n=399) Natural Gas

(n=852)

Total (n=1,769)



### Two-thirds of residents have low-flow showerhead s installed in some or all of the showers in their home and 57% of residents have water saving aerators on some or all faucets in their home (adj.). More homeowners than renters have these water saving measures installed.Water Heating

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 39 

### Figure 36. Penetration of Water Saving Features (Adj.)

32% 64%

25% 4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Faucet Aerators (n=2,056) Low-flow Showerheads (n=2,140)

All showers/faucets Some showers/faucetsMA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 40 

# 5. B UILDING 

# S HELL

Insulation Seventy-five percent of Massachusetts residentia l customers have insulation in all of their home’s exterior walls. An additional 16% have some of their exterior walls insulated, while 4% have no exterior wall insulation. Single-f amily homes (79%), non-low income customers (77%), and customers with electric heat (84% ) are more likely to have insulation on all exterior walls than other Massachusetts cu stomers. Conversely, low income customers (22%) and NSTAR customers (14%) are more li kely to have no exterior wall insulation.

Figure 37. Insulation of Exterior Walls

Some w alls insulated,

16%

All w alls insulated,

75% No w all insulation, 9%

n=2,016



### The vast majority of customers (89%) report that their home’s attic or ceiling is insulated. Of those with insulated attics or ceilings, most customers (65%) have four to six inches of insulation (adj.). Twenty-three percent of custom ers have seven to ten inches of insulation (adj.). Only 7% have more than 10 inches, and 5% have zero to three inches (adj.).

Figure 38. Amount of Attic/Ceiling Insulation (Adj.)

More than 10 inches, 7%

7-10 inches,

23% 0-3 inches,

5%

4-6 inches,

65%

n=1,194Building Shell

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 41 

## Windows Seventy-five percent of customers have double pa nes in most or all of their windows (adj.). Another 17% have all or mostly single pane windows with storm windows (adj.). Only 1% have single pane windows without storm wi ndows or triple paned windows (adj.). Low income customers are more likely to have single pane windows.

Figure 39. Types of Windows (Adj.)

1% 17% 6% 75%

1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Single pane w /o storm w indow s Single pane w / storm w indow s Mixture of single and double pane Double pane Triple pane

n=1,194



### Vinyl and wood are the most popular wind ow frame materials among Massachusetts residential customers. Forty-seven percent of customers have vinyl frames only while 35% have wood frames only (adj.). An additional 6% have a mixture of vinyl and wood frames (adj.). Only 11% of respondents have metal frames (adj.). Customers in residences of five or more units (44%) and customers with electric heat (27%) are more likely to have windows with metal frames than other Massachusetts customers (adj.).

Figure 40. Types of Window Frame Materials (Adj.)

11% 6% 35% 47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Vinyl frames Wood frames Mixture of vinyl and w ood frames Metal frames
n=2,431MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 42 

# 6. L AUNDRY 

# E QUIPMENT

Penetration of Laundry Equipment Eighty-six percent of Massachusetts residentia l customers have laundry equipment in their own home (adj.). An additional 11% have use of laundry equipment in a common area of their building, while 4% have no access to laun dry equipment in their building (adj.). Eightysix percent of customers have washers in their homes; 83% have dryers (adj.).

Figure 41. Penetration of Clothes Washers and Dryers (Adj.)

No use of laundry equipment,
4% Laundry equipment in

common area, 11%

Laundry equipment in home: Washer: 86%

Dryer: 83%

n (w asher) = 2,589 n (dryer) = 2,571



### The majority of customers who use laundry eq uipment in a common area of their building live in multi-family residences of five or more units (71%), while the majority of customers who do not have access to laundry equipment live in multi-family residences of two to four units (53%).
Customers who live in single-family homes are more likely to have private use of laundry equipment in their home compared to customer s living in multi-family and other types of homes (including mobile homes). Customers who li ve in multi-family homes of five or more units and low income customers are more li kely than other Massachusetts customers to have use of laundry in a common area.



### • Single-family (n=1,680): Private use – 98%; Use in common area – 1%



### • Multi-family (2-4 units) (n=527): Private use – 79%; Use in common area – 12%



### • Multi-family (5+ units) (n=347): Private use – 37%; Use in common area – 57%



### • Other (n=24): Private use – 71%; Use in common area – 11% Customers served by municipal utilities have the highest penetration of clothes washers (96%); Cape Light Compact customers have the highest penetration of clothes dryers (93%)Laundry Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 43 

### (adj.). Compared to Massachusetts customers se rved by other electricity providers, NSTAR customers are less likely to have private use of laundry equipment, reflecting the fact that fewer NSTAR customers live in single-family homes.

Figure 42. Penetration of Clothes Washers and Dryers by Service Provider (Adj.)

96% 86% 91% 80% 88% 95% 86%

90% 82% 86% 76% 86% 93% 83%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Munis (n=118 / 118)

WMECO (n=201 / 200) Unitil (n=130 / 130) NSTAR (n=806 / 801)

NGRID (n=1,116 / 1,106) CLC (n=218 / 216)

Total (n=2,589 / 2,571)

Clothes w asher Dryer



### The remainder of this section is based on customers who have private use of laundry equipment in their own home , i.e., the laundry equipment th ey use is not located in a common area of a multi-family residence.



## Clothes Washers Approximately three-quarters of customers ( 74%) own top loading washers; one-quarter own front loading washers (adj.). Low income cust omers are more likely to have top loading washers.Laundry Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 44 

### Figure 43. Type of Clothes Washer (Adj.)

Top loading washer,

74% Front loading washer,

26%

n=2,237



### The mean age of all clothes washers is 6.9 years. Front loading washers are newer (mean age of 3.4 years) than top loading washers (mean age of 8.1 years). In fact, 54% of all washers purchased in the past two years are front loaders, compared to only 40% purchased between two and four years ago, and 10% purchased more than four years ago.

Figure 44. Age of Clothes Washers

18%

11% 39%

24%

20% 38%

30% 34%

18% 19% 24%

4% 5% 6%

1% 3% 5%

0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

All w ashers (n=2,122) Top loading (n=1,584) Front loading (n=538)

< 2yrs 2-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10-15 yrs 16-19 yrs 20+ yrs



### On average, Massachusetts residential custom ers wash 5 loads of laundry per week, 1 in hot water, 2 in warm water, and 2 in cold water. Customers in single-family homes wash more loads per week (5.3) than customers in mu lti-family homes of two to four units (4.7 loads), customers in multi-family homes of five or more units (4.3 loads), and customers in other types of buildings (3.6 loads).Laundry Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 45 

### Figure 45. Number of Loads in a Typical Week

Cold Water, 2.3 Warm Water, 2.1 Hot Water, 0.7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6



### Thirty-two percent of customers use their laun dry equipment “frequently” (defined as three to five days per week) during summer peak demand hours (1 p.m. to 5 p.m.); 28% “rarely” (defined as less than one day pe r week) or never use it during those times. Similarly, 27% of customers use their laundry equipment frequently during winter peak demand hours (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.), while 31% rarely or never use it during those times.

Figure 46. Weekday Use of Laundry Equipment

32%
27% 41% 40%

21% 20%

10% 8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Summer, 1-5 p.m. (n=2,172) Winter, 5-7 p.m. (n=2,049)

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never



## Clothes Dryers Eighty-three percent of Massachusetts resident ial customers have clothes dryers for their private use (adj.). Of those customers, 82% ow n an electric dryer and 18% own a natural gas dryer. Less than 1% own a dryer powered by bo ttled gas (adj.). Customers in single-family homes and in multi-family homes of two to four units are more likely to own a natural gasLaundry Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 46 

### dryer than customers in multi-family homes of five or more units and customers living in other types of residences.

Figure 47. Type of Clothes Dryer (Adj.)

Electric

82% Bottled
gas <1% Natural

gas 18%

n=2,182



### The mean age of all clothes dryers is 7.5 years. The age distribution is similar for different types of clothes dryers and for dryers owned by different groups of customers (there are no systematic differences by electric service provider, building type, or primary heating fuel).

Figure 48. Age of Clothes Dryers

15% 15%
11% 16%

21% 22% 20% 20%

31% 30% 35%

26%

18% 17% 20% 22%

5% 5% 4% 10%

5% 5% 5% 6%

5% 6% 4%
0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

All dryers (n=2,174) Electric (n=1,653) Natural gas (n=471) Bottled gas (n=50)

< 2yrs 2-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10-15 yrs 16-19 yrs 20+ yrs Don't Know



### Few customers who have a clothes dryer for their private use line dry their clothes. On average, 18% of loads are line dried in the summer, compared to 14% in the spring and fall and 10% in the winter. Compared to other Massachusetts customers, WMECO customers, low income customers, and customers with natural gas dryers more frequently line dry their clothes in summer and in the spring and fall.

More than half of Massachusetts residential customers never line dr y their clothes in the summer; this share increases to almost three-quarters in the winter.Laundry Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 47 

### Figure 49. Percentage of Loads Line-Dried

55% 60% 71%

21% 20% 17%
8% 8% 5% 6% 5% 3% 10% 7% 5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Summer (n=2,127) Spring/Fall (n=2,088) Winter (n=2,083)

0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 48 

# 7. F OOD 

# P REPARATION

Cooking Appliances
Most Massachusetts customers have electric cooking appliances: 59% of stovetops/ranges are electric while just over one-third use natural gas (adj.).
NSTAR customers (52%) and customers living in multi-family buildings with two to four units (55%) are more likely to have natural gas stovetops/ranges than other Massachusetts customers (adj.). WMECO customers have the highest percentage of electric food preparation equipment (76%) (adj.).

Figure 50. Fuel Type (Adj.)

n=2,573 Bottled Gas, 4%

Electric,

59% Natural Gas, 37%



### Stovetops/ranges in Massachusetts households are on average 9.7 years old (adj.). Overall,single family homes are more likely to have older food preparation equipment than multifamily homes.Food Preparation

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 49 

### Figure 51. Average Age of Stovetops/Ranges (Adj.)

9.2

8.8 10.0

9.7

8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2

Total (n=2,334) Single Family (n=1,552) Multi 2-4 units (n=458) Multi 5+ units (n=290)



### The penetration of microwave ovens is extr emely high at 95% among all Massachusetts customers (adj.). Single family homes have th e highest penetration of microwave ovens at 97% (adj.). “George Foreman”-type indoor gri lls are owned by approximately one-third of Massachusetts residential customers.

Figure 52. Microwave (Adj.) and Indoor Grill Penetration

95%

32%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Indoor Grill (n=2,607) Microw ave (n=2,614)



## Dishwashers Seventy-one percent of Massachusetts residential customers have a dishwasher in their home (adj.). Overwhelmingly, customers who own their residence are more likely to have a dishwasher (80%) than renters (38%) (adj.). In addition, customers who live in single familyFood Preparation

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 50 

### homes or newer residences and non-low income customers are also more likely to own a dishwasher than their counterparts. Customer s of Cape Light Compact and the municipal utilities are more likely to own a dishwasher than the customers of other providers. On average customer’s dishwashers are 7.3 years old.

Figure 53. Dishwasher Penetration by Owners/Renters (Adj.)

71%

80%

38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Renters (n=499) Ow ners (n=2,112)

Total (n=2,629)



### In a typical week, residents run their dishwasher an average of 3.2 times. Customers are more likely to use their dishwasher during wint er peak demand times (between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.) than during summer peak demand times (between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m.). The exception are Cape Light Compact customers who use th eir dishwashers more frequently during the summer months, reflecting the fact that many Cape homes are seasonal residences and primarily used in the summer.Food Preparation

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 51 

### Figure 54. Weekly Use of Dishwasher

24%

17% 27%

16% 28% 33% 32%

23%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Summer, 1-5 p.m. (n=1,837) Winter, 5-7 p.m. (n=1,797)

Frequently Occasionally Rarely NeverMA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 52 

# 8. R EFRIGERATORS AND 

# F REEZERS

Penetration and Saturation Virtually all Massachusetts households (99.6%) ha ve a refrigerator. Twenty-seven percent of customers have two or more refrigerators, for an average of 1.3 refrigerators per household(adj.). Stand-alone freezers are less common. Thirteen percent of households have a standalone freezer, and only 1% own more than one (adj.).
Not surprisingly, customers living in single family homes are more likely to have freezers and multiple fridges than customer s in multi-family residences.

Figure 55: Refrigerator and Freezer Penetration and Saturation (Adj.)

13% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Freezers (n=2,540) Refrigerators

(n=2,639) Saturation

14% Penetration

128%



## Refrigerators Ninety-one percent of refrigerators have two d oors; of these 68% have a freezer on top, 10% have a bottom freezer, and 21% have two doors side-by-side (adj.). Customers living in multiunit buildings are more likely to own a single-door refrigerator. Almost all refrigerators (96%) are automatic defrost/frost-free models (adj.). Low income customers are more likely to have a manual defrost refrigerator than other Massachusetts customers.Refrigerators and Freezers

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 53 

### Figure 56: Types of Refrigerators (Adj.)

Single Door, 8%

Two Door, 91% Three or More

Doors, 1%

n=3,009 Automatic 96% Manual Defrost

4%

n=3,085



### The majority of refrigerators are either large (1 9-22 cu. ft.; 36%) or very large (over 22 cu. ft.; 39%) in size (adj.). Primary refrigerators te nd to be larger than second and third refrigerators. Not surprisingly, residents of single family homes and non-low income customers are more likely to have large and ve ry large refrigerators. In addition, newer refrigerators tend to be larger than older refrig erators, indicating changes in the refrigerator market and customer preference over time.

Figure 57: Refrigerator Size (Adj.)

5% 1% 40%

3% 2% 5% 3%

17% 16% 19% 10% 36% 38% 31% 11% 39% 37%

21% 23%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Refrigerators (n=3,183) 1st Refrigerator (n=2,506) 2nd Refrigerator (n=622) 3rd Refrigerator (n=55)

Very Small Small Medium Large Very Large



### Primary and additional refrigerators also differ in terms of age. Seventy percent of primary refrigerators are less than 10 years old, co mpared to 54% of second refrigerators. Interestingly, the smaller third refrigerators tend to be newer than the second refrigerators. It is possible that these are purchased to fulfill specific needs in the household, whereasRefrigerators and Freezers

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 54 

### second refrigerators are more likely to be fo rmer primary refrigerators that have been relegated to secondary status wh en a newer model was purchased.

Figure 58: Age of All Refrigerators

14% 15% 16% 22% 23%
16% 18% 31% 32%

29% 39% 21% 20%

26% 23% 6% 6% 10% 6% 5% 10%

9% 2% 2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Refrigerators (n=3,213 1st Refrigerator (n=2,529) 2nd Refrigerator (n=630) 3rd Refrigerator (n=54)

< 2 yrs 2-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10-15 yrs 16-19 yrs 20+ yrs



### The high level of use among all refrigerators in customer homes is noteworthy. Over ninety percent (94%) of refrigerators owned by residential customers are used year-round. 6 

### Even second refrigerators (87%) and third refrigerators (82%) tend to be used year-round.
As expected, Cape Light Compact customers are more likely than other Massachusetts customers to use their refrigerator(s) seasonally.

6 Note a relatively high non-response rate of 17%.Refrigerators and Freezers

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 55 

### Figure 59: Frequency of Refrigerator Use

94% 97% 82% 6% 4% 13% 18%

87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Refrigerators (n=2,824) 1st Refrigerator (n=2,220) 2nd Refrigerator (n=555) 3rd Refrigerator (n=49)

Year-Round Seasonally



### A small percentage of refrigerators dispense ice and water through the door (19%) or have an ice maker in the freezer (14%) (adj.). No t surprisingly, these features are more common in first refrigerators.



## Freezers Two-thirds of stand-alone freezers are upright models (67%), and about half are frost-free (48%). Frost-free models tend to be newer than manual defrost models.

Figure 60: Freezer Style

Upright,
Manual
Defrost

31% Upright, Frost
Free
36% Chest Manual
Defrost

20%

Chest FrostFree
13%

n=541 Frost Free,
48% Manual Defrost, 52%

n=541Refrigerators and Freezers

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 56 

### Most of the stand-alone freezers are small (le ss than 15 cu. Ft.; 41%) or medium-sized ( 15 to 18 cu. Ft.; 46%).

Figure 61: Freezer Size

Large (>18 cu. Ft.), 13%

Medium (15- 18 cu. Ft.),
46% Small (<15 cu. Ft.), 41%

n=528



### Overall, 52% percent of all stand-alone freezers are ten years of age or older. As expected, a greater percentage of primary than secondary stand-alone freezers are under four years old (27% compared to 18% of secondary freezers). It is interesting to note, however, that secondary freezers are not significantly older than primary ones. For example, 50% of secondary freezers are between two and nine years old. In addition, respondents report roughly the same percentage of primary and secondary freezers over 16 years old.

Figure 62: Age of Freezers

15% 16% 22% 34% 25% 18% 11% 19% 16% 11%

12% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Freezer 1 (n=515) Freezer 2 (n=23)

< 2 yrs 2-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10-15 yrs 16-19 yrs 20+ yrs



### The highest percentage of older units are upri ght manual defrost models, while the largest percentage of recently purchased freezers are up right, frost free. Newer freezers tend to be smaller than older ones.Refrigerators and Freezers

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 57 

### Figure 63: Age of Freezers by Freezer Type

43% 13% 22% 51%

28% 10% 10% 34%

28% 15%

22% 33%

33% 12%
23% 25%

43% 12% 20% 26% 41% 9% 24%

22% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Upright, Frost Free (n=186) Upright Manual
Defrost (n=166) Chest Frost-Free (n=70) Chest Manual
Defrost (n=111)

<2 yrs 2-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10-15 yrs 16-19 yrs 20+ yrs



### Almost all stand-alone freezers (95%) are in use year-round. 7

7 Note a relatively high non-response rate of 20%.MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 58 

# 9. E NTERTAINMENT 

# E QUIPMENT

Televisions Only 1% of Massachusetts residential customers do not have a television in their home (adj.). A large majority of customers (74%) have between one and three televisions in use (adj.). The average number of TVs in Massachusetts homes is 2.7 (adj.).

Figure 64. Number of TVs per Home (Adj.)

28%

23%

16%

3% 6% 23%

1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ n=2,556



### The most common type of TV is the standard tube (CRT) TV, used by 88% of customers (adj.). Almost one half of customers (45%) have TVs with LCD screens, and only a small portion have projection (3%) or plasma screen TVs (4%) (adj.). The order of popularity of the display types is expected and corresponds to th eir relative price. Customers in single-family homes and non-low income customers are more likely to own the larger and more expensive projection, LCD, and plasma TVs. For all te levision display types, a greater share of customers has small or medium screens compared to large screens. 8

8 Screen sizes are defined as follows: CRT – small: 36 inches or less, large: greater than 36 inches; LCD – small: less than 30 inches, medium: 30 to 50 inches, la rge: greater than 50 inches; Plasma: small: 50 inches or less, large: greater than 50 inches.Entertainment Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 59 

### Figure 65. Penetration and Saturation of TV s by Display Type and Screen Size (Adj.)

3% 3%

7% 24% 25% 88% 99%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Medium flat panel

plasma (<50")

(n=2,558) Large flat panel plasma (>50")

(n=2,558)

Projection (n=2,555) Large screen CRT (>36") (n=2,572) Large screen flat panel LCD (>50") (n=2,559) Medium flat panel

LCD (30-50")

(n=2,565) Small flat panel

LCD (<30") (n=2,564) Small screen CRT (<36") (n=2,579)

All TV types (n=2,556) Saturation

273%

39%

32%

8%

4%

3%

3%

1% Penetration

194%



### The largest share of customers (43%) uses a small screen CRT television as their primary TV, followed by medium LCD TVs (20%), and large screen CRT TVs (19%). Small screen CRT TVs are also most commonly used for customers’ a dditional TVs, followed by small screen LCD TVs. There is very little difference between cust omer’s first additional and second additional televisions.Entertainment Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 60 

### Figure 66. Primary and Additional TVs by Type

19%

10% 43% 64%

5% 2% 3% 1% 20%

7% 5% 14%

2% 0% 3% 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Primary (n=1,989) Additional (n=1,599) Large screen CRT (>36") Small screen CRT (<36") Projection Large screen flat panel LCD (>50") Medium flat panel LCD (30-50") Small flat panel LCD (>30") Large flat panel plasma (>50") Medium flat panel plasma (<50")



## Television Use On average, the primary televisions of Massach usetts residential customers are turned on 4.9 hours on weekdays and 5.8 hours on w eekend days. Additional TVs are used less frequently than primary TVs, but are still turned on 2.4 hours on weekdays and 3.0 hours on weekend days. Low income customers tend to have their TVs turned on more frequently than other customers.
Nearly one-third of customers use their primary TV for six hours or more on weekdays; on weekends, almost half of customers use their primary TV for six hours or more.

Figure 67. Mean Hours of Television Viewing

4.9 5.8

3.0

2.4

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Primary TV Additional TVs

Weekday WeekendEntertainment Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 61 

### Fifty-nine percent of customers use their pr imary TV frequently or occasionally during summer peak electricity demand times (between 1 and 5 p.m.). Eighty-five percent report that their primary TV is in use frequently or occasionally during winter peak electricity demand times (between 5 and 7 p.m.). Overall, customers use their televisions more during the winter peak period than the summer peak period.

Figure 68. Seasonal Us e of TVs on Weekdays

36%

15% 70%

29%
23% 22%

15% 27% 28% 35%

9% 25%

13% 27%

6% 18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Primary TV (n=2300) Additional TVs (n=2073) Primary TV (n=2517) Additional TVs (n=1964)
Summer (1-5 PM) Winter (5-7 PM)

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never



## Home Audio and TV Accessories More than three-quarters of residential cust omers (83%) use a DVD player in their home (adj.). Additionally, 75% of customers have a st ereo and 61% have a digital cable box (adj.). Customers in single-family home are more like ly to use home audio and TV accessories than those living in buildings with five or more units.
Customers are most likely to have multiple di gital satellite boxes, digital cable boxes and digital/audio converter boxes in their homes. This is likely because these accessories are needed for each TV in the house.Entertainment Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 62 

### Figure 69. Penetration and Saturation of Home Audio and TV Accessories (Adj.)

9% 9%

12% 19% 35% 36% 61% 75% 83%

2%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% D/A converter box (n=2375) Stand alone DVR (n=2364) Digital satellite box (n=2364) Analog cable box (n=2385) Digital cable box w/ DVR (n=2369) Home theater

(n=2406) Video game

console (n=2360) VCR only (n=2382) Digital cable box (n=2418) Stereo (n=2380)

DVD player or

DVD/VCR (n=2419) Saturation

128%

93%

97%

56% 45%

20%

10% 18%

13%

2% 7% Penetration



### Approximately 80% of customers never unplug or use a power strip to turn off their home entertainment electronics when not in use. Th ese shares are consistent for the primary TV, additional TVs, and home audio and TV accessories. Customers are more likely to unplug “other” electronic equipment which includes home office equipment.
Customers in single-family homes are more like ly to never unplug their electronic devices than customers in multifamily units.Entertainment Equipment

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 63 

### Figure 70. Frequency of Unplugging Electronics or Turning Off at Power Strip

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Primary TV (n=2,335) Additional TVs (n=2,509) Home audio & TV accessories (n=1,630) Other equipment (n=1,673)

Never Rarely (1-2 days/month) Sometimes (1-2 days/w eek) Often (3-5 days/w eek) Alw ays (6-7 days/w eek)MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 64 

# 10. H OME 

# O FFICE

Working from Home Seventeen percent of Massachusetts residential customers report that they (or someone intheir home) operate a business and/or work from their home. Customers living in singlefamily homes (19%) and non-low income customers are more likely to work out of their home than other customers.
Of the customers working from home, only 22% work more than 30 hours per week, while the remaining share is divided equally between those working 0-10 hours per week and those working 11-30 hours.

Figure 71. Numbers of Hours per Week Spent Working from Home

More than 30,

22% 0-10, 39%

11-30, 39%

n=416



## Computers Eighty-two percent of Massachusetts residentia l customers have a computer in their home (adj.). Customers in single-family homes are more likely to have a computer (84%) than those living in multi-family buildings (80% for 2-4 unit buildings and 64% for 5+ unit buildings) (adj.). In addition, non-low income customers are more likely to have a computer. Flat panel monitors (70% of households) are much more prevalent than CRT monitors (24% of households) (adj.).Home Office

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 65 

### Figure 72. Penetration and Saturation of Computers (Adj.)

82%

70%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CRT Flat panel All computers Saturation

25% Penetration

139% 169%

n=2,512



### Nearly half of households (39%) only have on e computer, while 42% have more than one (adj.). NSTAR customers and customers served by a municipal utility tend to have more computers than other Massachusetts customers.

Figure 73. Number of Computers in Home by Monitor Type (Adj.)

30% 76%

37%

20% 19%

3% 15%

1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Flat panel CRT

None 1 2 3 or more n=2,512



### Fifty-seven percent of customers use the sleep mode on their computers while 43% do not. On average, customers keep their computers on 29% of the time and in sleep mode 21% of the time. Their computers are off the remaining 43% of time. The share of time a computer is on, in sleep mode, and off does not change substantially between multiple computers.Home Office

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 66 

### Figure 74. Mean Share of Time Computer is On, in Sleep Mode, and Off

Off, 47% On, 30%

In sleep mode, 22%
n=2,170



## Other Home Office Equipment The majority of customers have basic home office equipment, including a landline telephone (86%), a cell phone (83%), an answering mach ine (79%), and a multifunction machine (52%) (adj.). Other equipment, such as scanners, copiers, and fax machines, is less common and is used by less than one-quarter of customers.
NSTAR customers and customers in multi-family homes are less likely to have a landline than other Massachusetts customers. In addi tion, low income customers are less likely to have all types of home office equipment.Home Office

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 67 

### Figure 75. Penetration and Saturation of Home Office Equipment (Adj.)

8% 24% 37% 52% 79% 83% 86%

7%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Copier (n=2,542) Fax machine

(n=2,542)

Scanner (n=2,541) Home network*

(n=2,541) Printer (n=2,546) Multifunction

machine (n=2,542) Answering machine or

service (n=2,550) Cell phone* (n=2,551) Telephone (landline) (n=2,560) Saturation

255%

148%

80%

44% 59%

25%

7% 8%

3% Penetration

*Cell phone and Home network were not adjusted by the in-home verification.MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 68 

# 11. L IGHTING

Lighting Penetration Ninety-seven percent of Massachusetts resident s have standard incandescent light bulbs in their home (adj.). Additionally, 72% have comp act fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and 60% have fluorescent tube lights (adj.). Much fewe r households report having halogen torchieres (11%) and fluorescent torchieres (7%) (adj.).

Figure 76. Lighting Penetration (Adj.)

60% 72% 97%

11%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Fluorescent Torchieres (n=1,479) Halogen Torchieres (n=1,533) Fluorescent Tube Lights (n=1,845) CFL (n=2,112) Incandescent

(n=2,249)



### Customers living in single family homes are mo re likely to have CFLs in their home (75%) than customers living in multi-family residences (57% to 66%) (adj.). There are no differences in CFL penetration by income or education level.

Figure 77. CFL Penetration by Type of Residence (Adj.)

57% 66% 75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Multi-Family (5+ Units) (n=257) Multi-Family (2-4 Units) (n=418)

Single Family

(n=1,410)Lighting

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 69 

### Residents have a large number of incandesce nt light bulbs in their homes. Eighty-four percent of customers have more than 10 incandescent light bulbs (adj.). Compact fluorescent light bulbs are also prevalent with 41% of respondents owning six or more CFL light bulbs (adj.). Single family homes and mult i-families with two to four units are more likely to have eleven or more CFLs than multi-families with five or more units.

Figure 78. Number of Light Bulbs by Type of Lighting (Adj.)

28%

3% 18%

1% 13%
4% 22%

8% 19% 84%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Incandescent (n=2,249) CFL (n=2,112)

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+



### The in-home verifications showed that customers with a large number of CFLs (six or more) are very accurate in reporting how many CFLs are installed in their home. However, a large number of customers seem to be unable to co rrectly identify CFLs: 14% of customers report having one or more CFLs while the in-ho me visit showed that they have none.

Figure 79. Comparison of Number of CFLs: Self-Reported v. Fieldwork Adjusted

14% 26%

19% 18% 23%

18%

13% 22%

18% 28%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+

Self-Reported Fieldwork Adjusted n=2,112MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 70 

# 12. M ISCELLANEOUS 

# A PPLIANCES

Penetration and Saturation
Massachusetts residential customers use a variet y of electric appliances in their homes. Most households (82%) use at least one electric clock and/or clock radio in their home (adj.). Over 50% of residents also have one or more portable fans, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, or battery chargers (adj.). Consistent with local climates, Cape Light Compact customers are more likely to have a dehumidifier (75%) but are less likely to have an attic or whole-house fan (5%) than other Massachusetts customers (adj.). Not surprisingly, customers living in single-family homes are more likely than customers living in other types of homes to use many of the miscellaneous appliances about which the survey asked, including: attic or whole-house fans, humidifier s, dehumidifiers, heated waterbeds, electric whirlpool spas, portable battery charges, home security systems, electric exercise equipment, electric clocks, and pool-related electric appliances. Conversely, low income customers are less likely to own most of these appliances.Miscellaneous Appliances

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 71 

### Figure 80. Penetration and Saturation of Miscellaneous Appliances (Adj.)

3%

7% 8% 9%

16% 18% 20% 23% 33% 50% 50% 61% 69% 82%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sauna-Electric Heated Waterbed Electric Water Heater for Pool Electric Whirlpool Spa Attic or Whole-house fan Electronic Household Air Cleaner* Cordless Vacuum* Home Security System Electric Exercise Equipment Pond/Well/Pool Pump Humidifier Battery Charger* Dehumidifier Ceiling Fan Portable Fan* Electric Clocks*

22%

22% 147%

46%

39% 80%

17% 19% 171%

119%

12% S a t ura ti on

3%

2% 9%

7%

1% n=2,522 P ene t ra ti on

*In home verifications not av ailable for these products.



### Less than half of Massachusetts households ( 46%) use one or more dehumidifiers in their home. Of those who do use dehumidifiers, they are used most often during the summer months. On average residents use their dehumi difiers 7.8 hours per day during summer and 2.3 hours per day during winter. Cape Light Compact customers report more frequent use of dehumidifiers in the summer (9.2 hours on av erage) than other Massachusetts customers.Miscellaneous Appliances

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 72 

### Figure 81. Average Dehumidifier Usage

7.8

4.3

2.3

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

Summer Spring/Fall Winter

Hours per Day



### As expected the use of pool pumps is also heavily swayed towards the summer months. Those who use pool pumps use them an averag e of 6.3 hours per day in the summer, but only 0.7 hours per day in the winter.

Figure 82. Average Pool Pump Usage

0.7 2.3 6.3

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Summer Spring/Fall Winter

Hours per DayMA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 73 

# 13. E NERGY 

# E FFICIENCY

ENERGY STAR ® 

## Label Eighty percent of Massachusetts’ residential customers are either very or somewhat familiar with the ENERGY STAR ® 

### label; only 7% indicate they have never seen it. Non-low income customers (85%) are more likely to be familiar with the label than low income customers (67%). Of those who have seen the label before, 76% believe that “uses less energy” is the best description of the label’s meaning; 14% think the label signifies that a product has been tested and meets standard s. These findings indicate st rong awareness of the ENERGY STAR ® 

### label and high levels of knowledge rega rding its meaning. Interestingly, customers who consider themselves not very familiar with the label are as knowledgeable about the label’s meaning as customers who consider themselves somewhat or very familiar.

Figure 83. Meaning of the ENERGY STAR ® 

### Label*

Uses Less Energy,
76% Government Endorsement, 2%

Less Pollution, 3% High Quality, 2%

Lower Utility Bills,
4%

Tested, Meets Standards, 14%

n=2,187

*Of customers who have seen the ENERGY STAR ® label before.



### Two-thirds of customers who have seen the ENERGY STAR ® 

### label before report that the label has influenced them in their decision to pu rchase a particular product. Not surprisingly, customers very or somewhat familiar with the label are more likely to have been influenced in their purchase decision (75%) than customers less familiar (22%).


## EnergyGuide Label Seventy-six percent of residential customers are either very or somewhat familiar with the EnergyGuide label. Only a small percentage of customers indicate they have never seen it (7%), and residents of multi-unit buildings an d low income customers are more likely to be among this group. In contrast to the ENERGY STAR ® 

### label, there is a wide range of interpretation regarding the in formation that the EnergyGuide label provides. Over half ofEnergy Efficiency

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 74 

### customers who have seen the label before know that it shows the appliance’s energy use; fewer customers are aware of the other mean ings of the label: 41% correctly identify “estimated yearly operating costs” while 36% know that the label shows a comparison of energy use.
Figure 84. Meaning of the EnergyGuide Label (Multiple Response)*

58%

41% 36%
30%

19%

6% 5% 23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

A

p

p

l i a

n

c e E n

e

r g

y U s e

E

s t i m

a t e d Y e

a r

l y O p

e

r a t i n g C o s t

E

n

e r

g

y U s e C o m p a r

i s o

n

A

p

p l i a

n

c e U s e

s L

e

s s E n

e r g y

T

e

s t e d , M e e t s S

t a n

d

a r

d

s
L o

w

e

r U

t i l i t y B i l l s H i g h Q u a l i t y

G

o

v e r

n m e

n t E

n d

o r s e

m

e

n t n=2,107

*Of customers who have seen the EnergyGuide label before.



## Knowledge of Energy Efficiency Programs Knowledge of utility-sponsored energy effici ency programs is low with a majority of customers claiming they are not very or not at all familiar with the programs included in the survey. Customers are most familiar with the Home Energy Audit Program (37%) and rebate programs (32%). In contrast, less than 20% of customers consider themselves familiar with the ENERGY STAR ® 

### Homes and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR ® 

### programs. In all cases, however, awareness of the programs is greater among customers familiar with the ENERGY STAR ® 

### label than those unfamiliar. Low income customers are less familiar with all programs than non-low income customers.Energy Efficiency

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 75 

### Figure 85. Familiarity with Other Energy Efficiency Programs*

18%
13% 37% 32%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Home Energy Audit Program (n=2,360) Rebate Program (n=2,355) Energy Star Homes (n=2,318) Home Performance with Energy Star (n=2,318)

*Includes “very familiar” and “s omewhat familiar” responses.



## Interest in Energy Efficiency Products and Services While awareness of utility-sponsored energy effi ciency programs is re latively low, interest levels among Massachusetts customers are high: 78% of customers are interested in rebates for the purchase of energy effici ent products or energy efficient home improvements; 67% are interested in green powe r; and 56% are interested in home energy audits. Non-low income customers are more inte rested in all types of programs than low income customers. Only a small percentage of customers (2% to 7%) have already utilized these services, indicating significant growth potential for these types of programs.

Figure 86. Customer Interest in Energy Efficiency Products and Services

78%

67%

31% 56%

37%

7% 3% 19%

2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Yes No Already Used/Currently Using

Rebate Programs (n=2,160) Green Power (n=2,102) Home Energy Audits (n=2,053)Energy Efficiency

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 76 

## Product Choices for Rebate Programs The Home Energy Survey asked customers to rank the top four products that should receive rebates through an energy efficiency progra m. Heating systems and windows are the most popular choices, with 65% and 60% of customer s selecting these measures as one of their four top choices. These two measures are also the most popular first choices of customers, with 27% and 16%, respectively. Other measures ranked in the top four by more than onethird of customers include refrigerators/freeze rs (53%), insulation (43%), light bulbs and fixtures (36%), and clothes washers (35%).
Compared to non-low income customers, low in come customers are more likely to say that refrigerators and freezers (59%), light bulbs an d fixtures (53%), and room air conditioners (30%) should receive rebates.

Table 5. Interest in Product Rebates
Energy Efficient Products 1 st (n=1,892) 

### 2 nd
(n=1,839) 

### 3 rd
(n=1,813) 

### 4 th
(n=1,785) 

### Any Rank (n=1,892) 

### Heating Systems 27% 17% 14% 9% 65% Windows 16% 18% 16% 11% 60% Refrigerators/Freezers 13% 12% 17% 14% 53% Insulation 10% 12% 13% 9% 43% Light Bulbs and Fixtures 14% 5% 7% 15% 39% Clothes Washers 5% 10% 9% 12% 35% Central Cooling Systems 3% 10% 7% 7% 26% Solar Domestic Water Heater 7% 4% 4% 6% 21% Room Air Conditioners 2% 4% 5% 6% 16% Dishwashers <1% 4% 6% 7% 16% Geothermal Heat Pump 3% 3% 1% 3% 10% Pool Pumps <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% Other <1% <1% <1% 1% 2%MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 77 

# 14. P ROFILE OF 

# R ESPONDENTS

This section presents information about the re sidential customers that participated in the Home Energy Survey. In addition to providin g key information about participating customer demographics, comparing this information with Massachusetts’ census data provides an indication of how representative survey re spondents are of the general Massachusetts population.
As described in more detail below, Home Energy Survey respondents are generally more educated and speak English at home to a larger extent than all Massachusetts residents.


## Respondent Age Over 40% of survey respondents are 60 years of age or older, compared to 17% who are under 40. The average age of survey respon dents is approximately 52 years. Customers served by Cape Light Compact and the munici pal utilities tend to be older than other Massachusetts customers.

Figure 87. Head-of-Household Age

60 Years and Over,

42%

50-59 Years,

23% 40-49 Years,

18% 30-39 Years,

12% Under 30,
5%

n=2,600



## Educational Attainment Education levels among survey respondents are high compared to Massachusetts averages. Almost two-thirds (62%) of survey respondents have a college or graduate degree, compared to 41% of Massachusetts adults 25 year or older 9 

### . Conversely, fewer survey respondents have a high school degree or less compared to the Massachusetts adult population.

9 U.S. Census Bureau. “DP-2 Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000.” U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 2000. Online at http://factfinder.census.gov/ser vlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_ name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&ds_nam e=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US25Profile of Respondents

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 78 

### Figure 88. Educational Attainment among Respondents and Statewide

1% 3% 15% 19% 30%

6% 9% 14% 32%

27%

17% 27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Elementary Some High
School High School
Graduate Some College College
Graduate Postgraduate Degree

Survey Respondents (n=2,547) Massachusetts 2000 Census Data



## Household Income Fifteen percent of survey respondents did no t provide information about their household income. Among respondents who did share ea rnings data, 19% earned less than $30,000 and almost one-third earned over $100,000 in 2007. Cape Light Compact, NSTAR, and municipal utility customers report higher hous ehold incomes than National Grid, Unitil, and WMECO customers.

Figure 89. Annual Household Income

Less than $10,000,

5%

$30,000 to $49,999, 16% $150,000 or More,
16% $10,000 to $17,999, 6%

$50,000 to $74,999, 21% $75,000 to $99,999, 14% $100,000 to $149,999, 16% $18,000 to $29,999, 9%

n=2,276Profile of Respondents

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 79 

### The annual household income of survey responde nts is generally consistent with that of all Massachusetts households. The highest income bracket ($150,000 or more) is slightly overrepresented in the survey, while the lower inco me brackets ($49,000 or less) are slightly under-represented.

Figure 90. Annual Household Income Comparison with Massachusetts Residents

14%

7% 34%

18% 14%

5% 31%

16% 16% 21%

12% 16%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $49,000 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or

More

Survey Respondents (n=2,276) American Community Survey (2005-2007)

*The income category $10,000-$49,000 was creat ed as a result of differences between the income categories used in the Home Energy Surv ey and those used by the U.S. Census. Note that American Community Survey inco me is from 2005-2007 while survey responses are for 2007. 10



## Additional Household Characteristics Consistent with findings regarding the age of Home Energy Survey respondents, participating customers have lived in their homes for a long period of time. Close to one-half of survey respondents currently live in a home they have occupied for more than 10 years, and onethird live in homes they have occupied for more than 20 years.
Not surprisingly, Cape Light Compact has the larg est percentage of seasonal residents of all electric service providers (42%). NSTAR custom ers are more likely than other Massachusetts customers to have lived in their homes for between one and three years.

10 U.S. Census Bureau. “2005-2007 American Communit y Survey.” U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 2007. Online at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/Dataset MainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=254062574861&_ds_name=A CS_2007_3YR_G00_&_program =.Profile of Respondents

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 80 

### Figure 91. Years in Surveyed Home

Less than 1
Year
5%Not YearRound

7%

4-10 Years
25%

1-3 Years

16% Over 20
Years
30%

11-20 Years
17%
n=2,621



### Over 61% of survey respondents live in househ olds of one or two people. An additional 28% of households consist of three or four members. These household sizes are very similar to all Massachusetts households. Twenty-eight percent of households have at least one member under the age of 18, and 44% of househ olds have at least one member 60 years or older. Survey respondents are also representa tive of the State population in terms of average household size (2.6 and 2.5, respectively). 11



### Figure 92. Household Size

39%

13% 29%

22%

15%

1% 2% 6% 2% 6%

1% 15% 16% 32%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven or
More

Survey Respondents (n=2,516) American Community Survey (2005-2007)

11 U.S. Census Bureau. “U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts.” U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Revised July 2008. Online at http://quickfacts.census .gov/qfd/states/25000.html

.Profile of Respondents

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 81 

### Respondents overwhelmingly indicate that Englis h is the primary language spoken in their homes (94.4%). While Spanish is the second mo st common primary language, it is used by only 1.5% of respondents. Respondents served by WMECO are more likely to speak Spanish than respondents located in the Cape Light Compact, National Grid and NSTAR service territories.

Figure 93. Primary Language Spoken at Home

Other
4.1%

English
94.4% Spanish

1.5%

n=2,614



### A larger percentage of Massachusetts resident s speak Spanish at home (6%) than survey respondents. 12 

### The fact that the Home Energy Survey was administered in English only may account for this difference.

12 U.S. Census Bureau. “DP-2 Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000.”MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 82 

# D ATA 

# S UMMARY BY 

# E LECTRIC 

# E NERGY 

# E FFICIENCY 

# P ROGRAM 

# A DMINISTRATOR

The following tables summarize responses to the mail/Internet survey for all Massachusetts customers (“Total” column) an d by electric energy efficiency program administrator. Customers served by munici pal utilities are grouped under the heading “Munis”. The final column presents the ad justment factor developed through the inhome verification visits. For explanations of the development and use of adjustment factors, please refer to the Methodology section.
The number of responses for each administrator (“n” in the table headers) represents the total number of surveys completed by the administrator’s customers. It should be noted that not every respondent answered every question; therefore, the number of responses for any one question might be sma ller than the number presented in the table header. Volume 2 of this report presents more detail about the number of responses for each question as well as significant differences between comparison groups.
The tables are organized by the same topics used in the main body of the report. The following three sections present the same information by the type of building the customer lives in, the customer’s primary heating fuel, and the customer’s income level, respectively.

Table 6. Home Characteristics – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Building Type

SF Detached MF (2-4 units) MF (5+ units) Other 67% 20% 12%

1% 87% 8% 4% <1% 68% 19% 11%

1% 56% 27% 17%

1% 76% 19%

4% 1% 73% 21%

5% 1% 88% 8% 5% 0% 0.99 0.87 1.18 0.50 Own Home 81% 97% 81% 75% 87% 82% 95%

-- Year-Round Occupancy 93% 58% 95% 96% 100% 96% 98%

-- Mean No. of Rooms A 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.2 7.2 1.05 Mean Dwelling Size (sq. ft) 1,866 1,926 1,827 1,874 1,735 1,763 2,181

-- Home Built

Before 1930 1930-1969 1970-1999 2000 or later 26% 36% 30%

8% 6% 26% 58% 10% 24% 36% 32%

8% 34% 36% 22%

8% 27% 42% 24%

7% 28% 39% 25%

8% 23% 42% 29%

6% --

--

--

-- Home Remodeled in Last 3 Years 25% 28% 26% 24% 32% 24% 28%

-- Natural Gas Service Available 54% 64% 48% 62% 55% 43% 53% 1.14

A Excludes bathrooms, halls, pantri es, unheated rooms, and garages.Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 83 

### Table 7. Space Heating – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Home Heating

Pay to Heat Home Heat Part of Rent No Heat 92% 7% 1% 97% 3% <1% 92% 7% 1% 89% 10%

1% 99% 1%

-- 97% 3%

-- 98% 2%

-- 0.98

--

-- Primary Heating System Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 49% 8% 39%

2% 1% 1% 60% 9% 26%

4% 2%

-- 44% 8% 43%

3% 1% 1% 59% 8% 31%

1%

-- <1% 43% 2% 51% <1%

1% 3% 37% 10% 43%

5% 3% 2% 41% 6% 50%

1% 1% 1% 1.06 0.99 0.94 0.66

-- 0.50 Mean Age of Primary Heating System A 12.3 12.2 12.5 12.0 13.0 11.2 13.8

-- Uses Additional Heating System 32% 28% 32% 30% 43% 38% 33% 0.87 Additional Heating System Type AB

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 2% 46%

6% 10% 43% 14% 6% 47%

-- 9% 40% 14% 1% 39%

6% 9% 47% 17% 1% 61%

5% 10% 34%

8% 3% 22%

6% 4% 69% 19% 4% 38% 13% 13% 44% 24% 5% 45%

3% 11% 55%

8% --

--

--

--

--

-- Use of Additional Heating System C

Always/Often Rarely/Sometimes 49% 51% 42% 58% 56% 44% 39% 61% 43% 57% 58% 42% 53% 47% --

-- Have No Thermostats C 5% 2% 5% 6% 7% 4% 2% 1.00 Have Programmable Thermostat(s) C 41% 29% 41% 43% 37% 36% 51% 1.00 Mean Number of Thermostats D

Total Programmable Standard 2.2 1.0 1.3 2.8 1.00

1.8 2.2 0.9 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.7 1.3 2.3 0.8 1.5 2.4 1.2 1.2 0.79 0.73 0.84 Mean Thermostat Setting

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 64.4 63.5 63.7 65.8 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 64.4 61.5 64.5 63.8 64.0 65.9 63.1 64.6 63.4 63.6 66.2 63.2 63.6 62.4 63.0 64.7 61.6 63.9 62.8 63.0 64.6 62.7 64.9 63.6 64.1 66.1 62.9 --

--

--

--

--
A Of customers who pay to heat their home.

B Customers can have more than one additional heating system.

C Of customers who he at their residence.

D Of customers who have thermostats.Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 84 

### Table 8. Space Cooling – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Have Air Conditioning (Central or Room) 82% 75% 84% 82% 75% 68% 90% 0.99 Central Air Cooling

Have CAC No CAC 36% 64% 38% 62% 34% 66% 39% 61% 24% 76% 26% 74% 42% 58% 0.82 1.13 76-100% of Space Conditioned A 82% 90% 83% 82% 52% 83% 47% 1.03 CAC System Type A

Central AC Heat Pump Ductless Mini Split Other 89% 8% 4% 2% 90% 10%

2% 2% 89% 7% 3% 2% 88% 8% 5% 3% 81%

-- <1% 18% 85% 8% 6% <1% 93% 9% 2%

-- 1.19 0.44

--

-- Mean Number of CAC Systems A 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 0.99 Mean Age of Main CAC Unit A 7.7 6.4 7.8 7.6 8.7 7.7 8.1

-- Have No Thermostats B 8% 6% 7% 10% 31% 10% 2%

-- Have Programmable Thermostat(s) B 49% 32% 53% 47% 33% 57% 58% 1.20 Mean Number of Thermostats C

Total Programmable Standard 1.7 1.0 0.6 2.1 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.7 1.0 0.7 1.9 0.6 1.3 1.6 1.2 0.4 1.7 1.2 0.5 0.94 1.00 0.87 Mean Thermostat Setting

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 72.2 72.6 72.5 72.0 72.1 73.2 73.1 72.9 73.0 73.3 72.1 72.6 72.4 71.9 72.1 72.0 72.5 72.4 71.8 71.8 71.2 71.1 70.1 70.0 71.3 72.4 72.8 72.6 72.2 72.4 72.4 72.8 72.8 72.2 72.2 --

--

--

--

-- Room AC

Have Room AC No Room AC 63% 37% 55% 45% 66% 34% 59% 41% 67% 33% 57% 43% 66% 34% --

-- Mean Number of Room ACs C 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.2

-- Mean Age of Room ACs C 5.2 4.7 5.2 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.6 1.25 Mean Size of Room ACs (BTUs) C 7,679 7,324 7,982 7,957 7,302 8,341 7,936 0.93 Always/Often Use Cooling Systems C

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 26% 25% 31% 37% 37% 26% 27% 23% 23% 33% 26% 27% 20% 18% 38% 28% 23% 21% 18% 37% 23% 26% 35% 26% 35% 25% 29% 22% 19% 41% 23% 24% 23% 24% 32% --

--

--

--

--Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 85 Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor CAC: Very/Somewhat likely to

Install D Replace C 14% 29% 21% 25% 15% 35% 13% 21% 20% 42% 12% 38% 11% 30% --

-- Room AC: Very/ Somewhat likely to

Install D Replace C 15% 41% 9% 49% 16% 42% 18% 39% 33% 53% 13% 36% 8% 43% --

--
A Of customers who pay to cool their home.

B Of customers who have central cooling system.

C Of customers who have appliance/equipment.

D Of customers who do not have appliance/equipment.Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 86 

### Table 9. Water Heating – by Electric En ergy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Water Heating

Pay for Hot Water Part of Rent No Hot Water 85% 13%

2% 95% 2% 3% 85% 12%

3% 80% 19%

1% 89% 6% 4% 90% 6% 4% 93% 3% 3% 1.04

--

-- Primary Water Heater Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Solar Other 52% 18% 26%

4% <1% <1% 54% 22% 17%

5% 1% 0% 45% 21% 30%

4% <1% <1% 63% 14% 20%

2% 0% 1% 51% 19% 28%

0% 0% 2% 42% 22% 27%

9% <1%

0% 53% 8% 36%

3% 0% 0% 1.14 0.89 0.94 0.94

--

-- Mean age of primary water heating system A 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.3

-- Primary water heater has insulation blanket/tank wrap A 25% 21% 25% 24% 27% 29% 29%

-- Uses Additional Heating System 3% 2% 4% 3% 5% 5% 1% 0.38
Low-Flow showerheads installed in some/all showers 67% 65% 66% 67% 64% 62% 71% 0.95 Aerators on some/all faucets 51% 50% 53% 46% 52% 55% 55% 1.18

A Of customers who pay for hot water in their home.Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 87 

### Table 10. Building Shell – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor All Exterior Walls Have Insulation 75% 86% 78% 68% 80% 71% 76%

-- Attic/Ceiling Has Insulation 89% 92% 90% 85% 94% 90% 93%

-- Rating of Attic/ Ceiling Insulation

0-3 in. (<R-10) 4-6 in. (R-11-19) 7-10 in. (R-20-30) > 10 in. (R-31+) 13% 54% 24%

9% 16% 55% 24%

4% 13% 55% 24%

8% 15% 51% 26%

8% 6% 56% 24% 15% 7% 54% 24% 15% 10% 60% 19% 10% 0.40 1.26 1.01 0.80 Window Type by Pane (All/Most)

Single w/ Storm Single, no Storm Double Single/Double Triple Pane 23% 8% 57%

9% 3% 18% 7% 58% 11%

6% 20% 7% 59% 10%

4% 26% 10% 53%

9% 2% 26% 5% 59%

6% 5% 28% 5% 57%

8% 2% 30% 6% 56%

9% 3% 0.74 0.14 1.36 0.67 0.16 Window Frames (All/Most)

Vinyl Wood Wood and Vinyl Metal 43% 32% 17%

7% 41% 34% 20%

5% 47% 30% 16%

7% 39% 34% 16% 10% 51% 29% 16%

3% 39% 35% 20%

6% 43% 33% 22%

3% 1.04 1.05 0.34 1.47Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 88 

### Table 11. Laundry Equipment – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Laundry Equipment

Private Use Common Area Use No Use in Building 88% 8% 4% 96% 2% 2% 90% 7% 3% 82% 13%

5% 93% 2% 5% 88% 8% 4% 97% 3% 1% 0.96 1.29 1.00 Clothes Washer Type A

Top Loading Front Loading 75% 25% 74% 26% 77% 23% 73% 27% 79% 21% 75% 25% 68% 32% 0.98 1.06 Mean Age of Clothes Washer A 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.4

-- Mean Number of Loads per Week A

Total

Hot Water Warm Water Cold Water 5.1 0.7 2.1 2.3 4.6 0.8 2.0 1.8 5.2 0.6 2.1 2.4 5 0.8 2.1 2.1 4.9 0.5 1.8 2.6 5 0.8 2.1 2.1 5.8 0.8 2.3 2.8 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Laundry Equip. A

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 71% 29%

69% 31% 74% 26%

54% 46% 73% 27%

72% 28% 67% 33%

67% 33% 68% 32%

58% 42% 74% 26%

73% 27% 75% 25%

67% 33% --

--

--

-- Clothes Dryer 86% 94% 88% 80% 90% 85% 92% 0.97 Clothes Dryer Type B

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas 24% 74%

2% 19% 77%

5% 20% 77%

3% 33% 66%

1% 22% 77%

2% 16% 81%

3% 21% 77%

2% 0.75 1.11

-- Mean Age of Clothes Dryer 7.5 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.7 8.5 7.5

-- Mean % Laundry Loads Line Dried B

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 18% 14% 10% 20% 16%

9% 16% 13%

9% 16% 13% 11% 20% 15% 12% 32% 26% 16% 18% 16%

9% --

--

--
A Of customers who have private use of laundry equipment.

B Of customers who have a clothes dryer.Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 89 

### Table 12. Food Preparation – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Type of Stovetop/Range A

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas Other 39% 56%

5% <1% 35% 58%

6% <1% 34% 61%

5% <1% 54% 42%

4% <1% 37% 56%

7% 0% 20% 73%

7% 1% 32% 64%

4% 0% 0.95 1.05 0.79

-- Mean Age of Stovetop/Range 8.1 8.2 8.2 7.9 9.7 8.5 8.5 1.20 Microwave Oven 95% 97% 96% 94% 97% 94% 98% 1.00 George Foreman Type Indoor Grill 32% 29% 34% 31% 31% 30% 34%

-- Dishwasher 75% 86% 74% 76% 66% 66% 84% 0.94 Mean Dishwasher Loads per Week 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.9

-- Weekday Use of Dishwasher

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 44% 56%

60% 40% 63% 37%

60% 40% 45% 55%

62% 38% 39% 61%

56% 44% 51% 49%

63% 37% 45% 55%

54% 46% 45% 55%

69% 31% --

--

--

-- Mean Age of Dishwasher 7.3 8.0 7.3 7.0 7.4 8.0 6.7

--
A Of customers who have a stovetop/range.Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 90



### Table 13. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Refrigerator >99% >99% >99% >99% 100% 99% 99% 1.00 2+ Refrigerators 26% 31% 26% 25% 23% 21% 37% 1.03 Mean Number of Refrigerators 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.00 Refrigerator Style

Single-Door Two-Door Three or Four-Door 13% 86%

1% 13% 87% <1% 13% 86%

1% 13% 85%

1% 10% 90%

-- 15% 85%

1% 9% 90%

1% 0.63 1.05 0.88 Refrigerator Size

Small (<15 cu. ft.) Med. (15-18 cu. ft.) Large (>18 cu. ft.) 14% 44% 42% 18% 41% 41% 15% 45% 41% 13% 43% 45% 17% 48% 35% 15% 52% 33% 17% 38% 45% 0.68 0.46 1.73 Defrost Capabilities

Automatic (FrostFree) Manual 91% 9% 93% 7% 92% 8% 89% 11% 91% 9% 90% 10% 91% 9% 1.06 0.47 Mean Age of Refrigerator 7.9 7.4 7.7 8.0 7.8 8.3 8.5

-- Refrigerator Use

Year-Round Seasonally 94% 6% 82% 18% 95% 5% 95% 5% 97% 3% 97% 3% 96% 4%

-- Stand-Alone Freezer 22% 22% 23% 17% 22% 32% 29% 0.59 Two or More Freezers 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 0.97 Mean Number of Freezers 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.61 Freezer Style

Frost-Free Manual Defrost 48% 52% 55% 45% 48% 52% 49% 51% 44% 56% 35% 65% 64% 36% --

-- Freezer Size

Small (<15 cu. ft.) Med. (15-18 cu. ft.) Large (>18 cu. Ft.) 41% 46% 13% 44% 49%

7% 45% 42% 13% 38% 50% 12% 31% 58% 12% 41% 47% 12% 24% 52% 24% --

--

-- Mean Age of Freezer 10.3 10.0 9.8 10.2 9.8 11.2 12.4

-- Freezer Use

Year-Round Seasonally 95% 5% 92% 8% 94% 6% 98% 2% 100%

-- 91% 9% 100%

-- --

--Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 91



### Table 14. Entertainment Equipment – by Electr ic Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Television 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 98% 99% 1.00 Mean Number of TVs A Total

Standard Tube (CRT) Projection TV Flat Panel LCD Flat Panel Plasma 2.4 1.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.6 2.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.3 1.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.5 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.3 1.7 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.8 1.8 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.15 1.16 0.36 1.38 0.67 Mean Hours of Operation

Primary TV

Weekday Weekend Additional TVs

Weekday Weekend 4.9 5.8

2.4 3.0 4.3 4.9

2.3 2.6 5.2 6.1

2.4 2.9 4.3 5.3

2.2 3.0 5.2 6.1

2.7 3.5 5.5 6.4

2.5 3.6 5.3 6.4

2.4 2.9 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Primary TV

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 59% 41%

85% 15% 59% 41%

76% 24% 63% 37%

87% 13% 52% 48%

81% 19% 74% 26%

95%

5% 67% 33%

93%

7% 64% 36%

89% 11% --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Additional TVs

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 37% 62%

56% 43% 43% 57%

46% 54% 39% 61%

57% 43% 33% 67%

57% 43% 47% 53%

67% 33% 42% 58%

62% 38% 38% 62%

56% 44% --

--

--

-- Households with Accessories: Home Theater D/A Converter Box Analog Cable Box Digital Cable Box Digital Cable Box+DVR Separate DVR Digital Satellite Box Video Game Player DVD Player, DVD/VCR VCR Only Stereo 14% 11%

8% 49% 22%

9% 9% 26% 69% 32% 48% 9% 5% 7% 37% 10%

7% 6% 18% 66% 25% 42% 15% 9% 9% 49% 22%

9% 11% 27% 70% 33% 48% 13% 14%

9% 52% 24% 11%

7% 25% 67% 32% 50% 16% 10%

8% 49% 16%

5% 13% 31% 75% 41% 51% 16% 14%

6% 39% 10%

6% 14% 28% 69% 32% 49% 21% 8% 5% 55% 33%

8% 3% 25% 70% 29% 47% 1.39 0.20 1.10 1.25 0.58 0.62 0.99 1.37 1.19 1.12 1.48Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 92 Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Equipment Always or Often Unplugged/Off at Power Strip:

Primary TV Additional TVs Audio/TV accessories Other equipment 9% 9% 10% 15% 13% 11%

9% 17% 8% 9% 10% 15% 10% 10% 11% 15% 7% 8% 5% 10% 7% 9% 15% 17% 6% 7% 5% 9% --

--

--

--
A Of customers who have a TV.



### Table 15. Home Office – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Work from Home 17% 20% 16% 20% 11% 14% 17%

-- Hours per Week Working at Home

0-10 hrs 11-30 hrs More than 30 hrs 39% 39% 22% 37% 43% 20% 35% 41% 24% 46% 33% 21% 43% 43% 15% 34% 52% 14% 35% 45% 20% --

--

-- Computer 82% 69% 84% 84% 78% 74% 85% 1.00 Mean Number of Computers A

Total

Flat panel monitor CRT monitor 1.6 1.2 0.3 1.5 1.2 0.3 1.5 1.2 0.4 1.6 1.4 0.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 1.4 1.1 0.4 1.7 1.4 0.4 1.31 1.36 1.07 Computer Use

On In sleep mode Off 30% 22% 47% 33% 15% 53% 32% 21% 47% 28% 27% 45% 31% 14% 55% 31% 18% 51% 25% 20% 55% --

--

-- Households with:

Telephone (Landline) Cell Phone Answering Machine Multifunction Device Fax Machine Printer Scanner Copier Home Network 87% 83% 74% 42% 10% 54% 20% 17% 24% 89% 80% 75% 35% 11% 49% 18% 19% 14% 88% 84% 75% 44% 10% 55% 20% 16% 23% 82% 86% 68% 42% 10% 55% 19% 17% 28% 87% 82% 75% 39%

9% 49% 16% 18% 21% 88% 73% 74% 39%

7% 53% 25% 19% 17% 97% 87% 88% 47% 18% 60% 21% 22% 24% 0.99

-- 1.07 1.24 0.70 0.68 0.42 0.17

--
A Of customers who have a computer.Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 93 

### Table 16. Lighting – by Electric Ener gy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Incandescents

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 6% 13% 22% 27% 33% 3% 12% 18% 30% 37% 6% 14% 22% 28% 30% 6% 12% 23% 26% 33% 5% 13% 31% 27% 24% 9% 15% 20% 24% 32% 5% 7% 19% 21% 47% 0.42 0.10 0.17 0.28 2.45 CFLs

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 14% 18% 26% 23% 18% 15% 16% 30% 20% 19% 15% 17% 25% 24% 19% 14% 21% 27% 22% 16% 18% 10% 23% 30% 20% 15% 13% 25% 24% 23% 13% 14% 26% 25% 23% 2.10 1.05 0.52 1.02 1.12 Halogen Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 74% 20%

4% 1% 1% 76% 20%

3% 1%

-- 75% 19%

5% 1% <1% 70% 23%

5% 1% 1% 74% 24%

3%

--

-- 81% 16%

1%

-- 1% 79% 16%

3%

-- 3% 1.20 0.44 0.22 1.31

-- Fluorescent Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 83% 14%

3% 1% <1% 84% 12%

4%

-- <1% 83% 13%

3% 1% <1% 82% 14%

3% <1%

1% 82% 15%

3%

-- 0% 83% 17%

-- <1%

0% 82% 14%

1% 3% 0% 1.16 0.35 1.31

--

-- Fluorescent Tube Lights

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 36% 33% 21%

8% 3% 33% 30% 27%

8% 2% 35% 34% 20%

7% 3% 40% 32% 19%

8% 1% 32% 35% 24%

6% 4% 35% 34% 20% 10%

1% 25% 37% 24%

9% 6% 1.02 0.58 0.69 2.39 2.28Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 94



### Table 17. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Electr ic Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Households with: Portable Fan 69% 62% 70% 69% 77% 72% 68%

-- Ceiling Fan 60% 56% 66% 48% 64% 64% 68% 1.02 Attic/Whole-house Fan 10% 6% 10% 10% 12% 8% 17% 0.78 Electronic Household Air Cleaner 9% 9% 10% 9% 8% 8% 14%

-- Humidifier 26% 19% 27% 24% 32% 25% 31% 1.24 Dehumidifier 46% 72% 48% 37% 49% 44% 57% 1.10 Heated Waterbed 2% 2% 2% 2% <1% 1% 3% 0.97 Sauna - electric 1% <1% <1% 1% 1% <1% 2% 0.97 Electric Whirlpool/Spa 5% 8% 5% 5% 9% 7% 5% 1.46 Electric Water Heater for Pool 1% 1% 2% 1% <1% 1% 2% 2.92 Pond/Well/Pool Pump 16% 19% 18% 8% 34% 21% 23% 1.45 Cordless Vacuum 16% 16% 16% 16% 13% 17% 19%

-- Battery Charger for Appliances 50% 42% 53% 46% 50% 53% 60%

-- Home Security System 19% 19% 18% 20% 24% 17% 21% 0.97 Elect. Exercise Equip. 18% 11% 19% 15% 9% 19% 23% 1.12 Electric Clocks/Clock Radios 82% 82% 82% 80% 92% 83% 81%

-- Mean Hours/Day for Dehumidifier

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 7.8 4.3 2.3 9.2 4.3 1.3 7.4 4.4 2.5 8.0 4.7 2.7 7.3 4.5 3.2 8.0 3.3 1.9 7.5 3.8 1.9 --

--

-- Mean Hours/Day for Pool Pumps

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 6.3 2.3 0.7 5.5 2.7 0.0 6.5 1.8 0.7 6.1 3.9 1.6 5.1 0.1 0.0 4.9 1.4 0.1 6.9 3.1 0.7 --

--

--Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 95 

### Table 18. Energy Efficiency – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor ENERGY STAR ® Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) Influenced Purchase Decision A 80%

66% 79%

69% 80%

65% 80%

66% 73%

60% 83%

67% 78%

70% --

-- Meaning of ENERGY STAR ® Label A

Government Endorsement 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 0%

-- Tested/Meets Standards 14% 17% 11% 16% 14% 16% 18%

-- High Quality 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 2% 0%

-- Less Pollution/Good for Environment 3% <1% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1%

-- Uses Less Energy 76% 74% 78% 74% 73% 71% 79%

-- Lower Utility Bills 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 6% 2%

-- ENERGYGuide Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) 76% 79% 76% 72% 75% 81% 81%

-- Information on ENERGYGuide Label B

Government Endorsement 5% 5% 5% 6% 9% 5% 4%

-- Product is Tested/Meets Standards 23% 23% 23% 23% 25% 20% 26%

-- High Quality 6% 5% 7% 6% 7% 5% 5%

-- Appliance Uses Less Energy 29% 28% 32% 28% 47% 25% 27%

-- How Much Energy the Appliance Uses 58% 51% 57% 61% 54% 59% 61%

-- Compares Energy Use to Similar Models 36% 33% 36% 35% 40% 39% 38%

-- Lower Utility Bills 19% 18% 20% 17% 27% 18% 20%

-- Estimated Yearly Operating Cost 41% 39% 43% 38% 44% 46% 39%

-- Familiarity (very/somewhat) with Programs

Rebate Program Home Energy Audit 32% 37% 36% 43% 31% 36% 33% 36% 15% 30% 28% 45% 35% 32% --

-- ENERGY STAR ® Homes 18% 23% 18% 17% 15% 21% 18%

-- Home Performance with ENERGY STAR ® 13% 16% 13% 12% 15% 16% 15%

--Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 96 Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. Factor Products that Should Receive Rebates

Light Bulbs/Fixtures Clothes Washers Refrig./Freezers Dishwashers Room Air Cond. Central Cool. Systems Heating Systems Windows Insulation Solar DWH Pool Pumps Geotherm Heat Pump 39% 35% 53% 16% 16% 26% 65% 60% 42% 20%

1% 10% 36% 33% 62% 21%

7% 28% 74% 58% 39% 22%

1% 7% 43% 37% 53% 16% 17% 24% 63% 61% 41% 21%

1% 9% 37% 33% 52% 17% 17% 28% 67% 58% 43% 20%

1% 10% 43% 32% 51% 12% 14% 16% 67% 71% 40% 31%

2% 8% 37% 39% 58%

8% 14% 20% 64% 58% 42% 19%

4% 15% 33% 30% 47% 17% 12% 33% 65% 63% 54% 19%

1% 11% --

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-- Interest in Services and Products

Green Power Rebate Programs Home Energy Audits 67% 76% 56% 63% 74% 60% 64% 78% 55% 72% 79% 58% 66% 76% 54% 65% 75% 56% 63% 76% 50% --

--

--
A Of customers who have seen the ENERGY STAR ® label before.

B Of customers who have seen the ENERGYGuide label before.



### Table 19. Profile of Respondents – by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator

Total (n=2,667) CLC (n=224) NGRID (n=1,156) NSTAR (n=830) Unitil (n=133) WMECO (n=204) Munis (n=120) Adj. FactorMean Age of Head-ofHousehold 51.6 55.6 51.8 50.1 51.8 51.1 54

-- Education Level

High School Graduate or Less College Graduate/ Some College Postgraduate Degree 19%

51% 30% 11%

49% 40% 24%

52% 24% 13%

50% 37% 28%

55% 17% 27%

53% 20% 21%

47% 33% --

--

-- Mean Household Income 77,033 83,816 74,389 82,664 65,931 59,242 86,303

-- Mean Time Lived in Home 11.7 11.7 11.7 11 12.7 12.4 14.4

-- Mean Number of Occupants 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.9

-- Primary Language not English 5% 1% 5% 7% 5% 10% 1%

--MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 97 

# D ATA 

# S UMMARY BY 

# B UILDING 

# T YPE

The following tables summarize responses to th e mail/Internet survey for all Massachusetts customers (“Total” column) and by type of buildi ng the customer lives in. The building type of a customer’s residence is based on Question A1 of the survey (“What type of building exists at the service address listed on the front cover of this survey?”). Building types are grouped as follows:



### • Single-family: (1) Single-family detached house



### • 2-4 units: (2) Townhouse, duplex, or row house; (3) Apartment or condominium (2–4 units)



### • 5+ units: (4) Apartment or condominium (5 or more units)



### • Other: (5) Mobile home or trailer; (00) Other The final column presents the adjustment factor developed through the in-home verification visits. For explanations of the development and use of adjustment factors, please refer to the Methodology section.
The number of responses for each building type (“n” in the table headers) represents the total number of surveys completed. It should be noted that not every respondent answered every question; therefore the number of resp onses for any one question might be smaller than the number presented in the table header. Vo lume 2 of this report presents more detail about the number of responses for each quest ion as well as significant differences between comparison groups.

Table 20. Home Characteristics – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Building Type

SF Detached MF (2-4 units) MF (5+ units) Other 67% 20% 12%

1% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.99 0.87 1.18 0.50 Own Home 81% 97% 52% 42% 79%

-- Year-Round Occupancy 93% 93% 95% 93% 79%

-- Mean No. of Rooms A 6.4 7.1 5.6 3.5 4.9 1.05 Mean Dwelling Size (sq. ft) 1,866 2,096 1,541 1,104 987

-- Home Built

Before 1930 1930-1969 1970-1999 2000 or later 26% 36% 30%

8% 21% 42% 30%

7% 47% 23% 23%

7% 25% 22% 39% 14% 13% 24% 63%

-- --

--

--

-- Home Remodeled in Last 3 Yrs 25% 27% 23% 16% 25%

-- Natural Gas Service Available 54% 50% 73% 45% 30% 1.14

A Excludes bathrooms, halls, pantri es, unheated rooms, and garages.Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 98 

### Table 21. Space Heating – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Home Heating

Pay to Heat Home Heat Part of Rent No Heat 92% 7% 1% 99% <1% 1 92% 8%

-- 54% 44%

2% 96%

-- 4% 0.98

--

-- Primary Heating System Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 49% 8% 39%

2% 1% 1% 45% 4% 46%

3% 1% 1% 66% 10% 23%

1% <1% <1% 51% 46%

2% 1%

--

-- 38% 14% 42%

5% 1% 0% 1.06 0.99 0.94 0.66

-- 0.50 Mean Age of Primary Heating System A 12.3 12.5 11.4 12.2 12.4

-- Uses Additional Heating System 32% 35% 25% 15% 31% 0.87 Additional Heating System Type AB

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 2% 46%

6% 10% 43% 14% 2% 40%

5% 9% 50% 16% 4% 70%

7% 11% 20%

7% -- 91%

5% 6% 13%

5% --- 15%

-- 66% 15%

5% --

--

--

--

--

-- Use of Additional Heating System C

Always/Often Rarely/Sometimes 49% 51% 52% 48% 49% 51% 25% 75% 42% 58% --

-- Have No Thermostats C 5% 3% 5% 19% 1% 1.00 Have Programmable Thermostat(s) C 41% 45% 37% 26% 22% 1.00 Mean Number of Thermostats D

Total Programmable Standard 2.2 0.95 1.25 2.2 1.0 1.3 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.7 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.5 1.2 0.79 0.73 0.84 Mean Thermostat Setting

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 64.4 63.5 63.7 65.8 63.0 64.2 63.3 63.5 65.5 62.5 64.5 63.5 63.7 65.9 63.8 65.3 65.0 65.1 66.7 64.6 64.5 65.6 66.1 66.0 62.8 --

--

--

--

--
A Of customers who pay to heat their home.

B Customers can have more than one additional heating system.

C Of customers who he at their residence.

D Of customers who have thermostats.Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 99 

### Table 22. Space Cooling – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Have Air Conditioning (Central or Room) 82% 82% 75% 92% 89% 0.99 Central Air Cooling

Have CAC No CAC 36% 64% 35% 65% 26% 74% 54% 46% 42% 58% 0.82 1.13 76-100% of Space Conditioned A 82% 82% 82% 86% 69% 1.03 CAC System Type A

Central AC Heat Pump Ductless Mini Split Other 89% 8% 4% 2% 93% 4% 3% 2% 85% 11%

4% 4% 73% 24%

4% 3% 100%

--

--

-- 1.19 0.44

--

-- Mean Number of CAC Systems A 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.99 Mean Age of Main CAC Unit A 7.7 7.6 7.1 8.6 10.0

-- Have No Thermostats B 8% 5% 10% 19% --

-- Have Programmable Thermostat(s) B 49% 56% 45% 30% 27% 1.20 Mean Number of Thermostats C

Total Programmable Standard 1.7 1.0 0.6 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.94 1.00 0.87 Mean Thermostat Setting

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 72.2 72.6 72.5 72.0 72.1 72.4 72.8 72.7 72.2 72.3 72.3 72.9 72.5 71.9 72.4 71.3 71.6 71.5 71.2 71.2 72.4 72.6 71.6 71.6 70.3 --

--

--

--

-- Room AC

Have Room AC No Room AC 63% 37% 60% 40% 62% 38% 75% 25% 74% 26% --

-- Mean Number of Room ACs C 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.8

-- Mean Age of Room ACs C 5.2 5.3 4.7 7.0 7.3 1.25 Mean Size of Room ACs (BTUs) C 7,679 8,055 7,698 7,920 7,373 0.93 Always/Often Use Cooling Systems C

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 26% 25% 31% 37% 37% 27% 26% 19% 18% 38% 24% 23% 24% 19% 34% 29% 26% 22% 17% 42% -- 27% 30% 36%

-- --

--

--

--

--Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 100 Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor CAC: Very/Somewhat likely to Install D

Replace C 14% 29% 15% 29% 14% 24% 3% 28% -- 54% --

-- Room AC: Very/ Somewhat likely to

Install D Replace C 15% 41% 9% 42% 26% 36% 36% 41% -- 66% --

--
A Of customers who pay to cool their home.

B Of customers who have central cooling system.

C Of customers who have appliance/equipment.

D Of customers who do not have appliance/equipment.



### Table 23. Water Heating – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Water Heating

Pay for Hot Water Part of Rent No Hot Water 85% 13%

2% 96% 1% 3% 78% 20%

2% 31% 68%

1% 88% 12%

-- 1.04

--

-- Primary Water Heater Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Solar Other 52% 18% 26%

4% <1% <1% 48% 16% 32%

4% <1% <1% 72% 16% 11%

1%

-- <1% 43% 53%

4%

--

--

-- 15% 79%

5% 1%

--

-- 1.14 0.89 0.94 0.94

--

-- Mean age of primary water heating system A 7.8 8.0 7.0 6.4 7.6

-- Primary water heater has insulation blanket/tank wrap A 25% 26% 26% 25% 2%

-- Uses Additional Heating System 3% 3% 4% 1% 6% 0.38
Low-Flow shower-heads installed in some/all showers 67% 68% 66% 56% 57% 0.95 Aerators on some/all faucets 51% 53% 48% 43% 24% 1.18

A Of customers who pay for hot water in their home.Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 101 

### Table 24. Building Shell – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- All Exterior Walls Have Insulation 75% 78% 64% 72% 38%

-- Attic/Ceiling Has Insulation 89% 93% 79% 60% 66%

-- Rating of Attic/ Ceiling Insulation

0-3 in. (<R-10) 4-6 in. (R-11-19) 7-10 in. (R-20-30) > 10 in. (R-31+) 13% 54% 24%

9% 12% 54% 25%

9% 20% 56% 17%

7% 12% 53% 35%

0% 60% 40%

0% 0% 0.40 1.26 1.01 0.80 Window Type by Pane (All/Most)

Single w/ Storm Single, no Storm Double Single/Double Triple Pane 23% 8% 57%

9% 3% 22% 5% 58% 11%

4% 24% 11% 55%

8% 2% 21% 18% 54%

5% 1% 54% 7% 29% 10%

0% 0.74 0.14 1.36 0.67 0.16 Window Frames (All/Most)

Vinyl Wood Wood and Vinyl Metal 43% 32% 17%

7% 44% 34% 19%

3% 47% 31% 15%

8% 35% 23%

8% 34% 50% 13%

0% 37% 1.04 1.05 0.34 1.47Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 102 

### Table 25. Laundry Equipment – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Laundry Equipment

Private Use Common Area Use No Use in Building 88% 8% 4% 98% 1% 1% 82% 9% 9% 43% 50%

7% 74% 9% 18% 0.96 1.29 1.00 Clothes Washer Type A

Top Loading Front Loading 75% 25% 74% 26% 78% 22% 70% 30% 92% 8% 0.98 1.06 Mean Age of Clothes Washer A 6.9 7.1 6.5 5.5 9.0

-- Mean Number of Loads per Week A

Total

Hot Water Warm Water Cold Water 5.1 0.7 2.1 2.3 5.3 0.7 2.2 2.3 4.6 0.7 1.8 2.2 4.3 0.9 1.7 1.7 3.5 0.3 1.5 1.7 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Laundry Equip. A

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 71% 29%

69% 31% 72% 28%

69% 31% 70% 30%

69% 31% 70% 30%

66% 34% 72% 28%

75% 25% --

--

--

-- Clothes Dryer 86% 96% 77% 41% 74% 0.97 Clothes Dryer Type B

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas 24% 74%

2% 24% 73%

3% 25% 74%

1% 15% 85%

0% 13% 87%

0% 0.75 1.11

-- Mean Age of Clothes Dryer 7.5 7.7 6.8 5.9 9.3

-- Mean % Laundry Loads Line Dried B

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 18% 14% 10% 18% 14% 10% 19% 16% 12% 14% 12% 10% 20% 18% 14% --

--

--
A Of customers who have private use of laundry equipment.

B Of customers who have a clothes dryer.Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 103 

### Table 26. Food Preparation – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Type of Stovetop/Range A

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas Other 39% 56%

5% <1% 35% 58%

7% <1% 57% 42%

2% 0% 32% 67% <1% <1% 25% 61% 14%

0% 0.95 1.05 0.79

-- Mean Age of Stovetop/Range 8.1 8.4 7.7 7.4 11.4 1.20 Microwave Oven 95% 97% 93% 90% 93% 1.00 George Foreman Type Indoor Grill 32% 32% 30% 37% 23%

-- Dishwasher 75% 82% 58% 69% 43% 0.94 Mean Dishwasher Loads per Week 3.2 3.5 2.6 2.3 2.4

-- Weekday Use of Dishwasher

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 44% 56%

60% 40% 45% 55%

62% 38% 45% 55%

53% 47% 39% 61%

51% 49% 49% 51%

39% 61% --

--

--

-- Mean Age of Dishwasher 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.7 10.9

--
A Of customers who have a stovetop/range.Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 104 

### Table 27. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) SingleFamily (n=2,092) Multi 2-4 Units (n=577) Multi 5+ Units (n=312) Other (n=23) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Refrigerator >99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 1.00 Two or More Refrigerators 26% 34% 16% 4% 7% 1.03 Mean Number of Refrigerators 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.00 Refrigerator Style

Single-Door Two-Door Three or Four-Door 13% 86%

1% 13% 86%

1% 14% 86%

1% 13% 86% <1% 7% 93%

0% 0.63 1.05 0.88 Refrigerator Size

Small (under 14 cu. ft.) Medium (15-18 cu. ft.) Large (more than 19 cu. ft.) 14% 44% 42% 14% 40% 46% 15% 52% 33% 19% 53% 28% 16% 64% 20% 0.68 0.46 1.73 Defrost Capabilities

Automatic (Frost-Free) Manual 91% 9% 92% 8% 88% 12% 88% 12% 96% 4% 1.06 0.47 Mean Age of Refrigerator 7.9 8.2 7.2 6.7 6.6

-- Refrigerator Use

Year-Round Seasonally 94% 6% 93% 7% 97% 3% 99% 1% 95% 5%

-- Stand-Alone Freezer 22% 28% 13% 6% 14% 0.59 Two or More Freezers 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0.97 Mean Number of Freezers 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.61 Freezer Style

Frost-Free Manual Defrost 48% 52% 47% 53% 54% 46% 69% 31% 38% 62% --

-- Freezer Size

Small (under 15 cu. Ft.) Medium (15-18 cu. Ft.) Large (over 18 cu. Ft) 41% 46% 13% 40% 46% 14% 47% 46%

7% 48% 42% 10% 89% 11%

0% --

--

-- Mean Age of Freezer 10.3 10.8 6.6 11.5 2.8

-- Freezer Use

Year-Round Seasonally 95% 5% 95% 5% 93% 7% 74% 26% 100% 0% --

--Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 105 

### Table 28. Entertainment Equipment – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) SingleFamily (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Television 99% 99% 98% 98% 95% 1.00 Mean Number of TVs A

Total

Standard Tube (CRT) Projection TV Flat Panel LCD Flat Panel Plasma 2.4 1.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.6 1.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.2 1.6 <0.1

0.5 0.1 1.8 1.2 <0.1

0.5 <0.1 1.6 1.5 <0.1

0.1 <0.1 1.15 1.16 0.36 1.38 0.67 Mean Hours of Operation

Primary TV

Weekday Weekend Additional TVs

Weekday Weekend 4.9 5.8

2.4 3.0 4.8 5.8

2.3 2.9 5.0 5.9

2.6 3.1 4.9 5.9

2.3 3.0 5.9 5.8

1.5 2.0 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Primary TV

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 59% 41%

85% 15% 59% 41%

85% 15% 61% 39%

85% 15% 59% 41%

85% 15% 74% 26%

78% 22% --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Additional TVs

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 37% 62%

56% 43% 36% 64%

56% 44% 42% 58%

61% 39% 39% 61%

55% 45% 61% 39%

58% 42% --

--

--

-- Households with Accessories: Home Theater D/A Converter Box Analog Cable Box Digital Cable Box Digital Cable Box+DVR Separate DVR Digital Satellite Box Video Game Player DVD Player, DVD/VCR VCR Only

Stereo 14% 11%

8% 49% 22%

9% 9% 26% 69% 32% 48% 16% 10%

8% 51% 25% 10% 10% 27% 71% 33% 50% 11% 14%

6% 47% 16%

7% 9% 25% 69% 30% 47% 11% 9% 11% 43% 16%

7% 2% 19% 61% 25% 41% -- 8% 20% 16%

6% 6% 8% 6% 33% 19%

7% 1.39 0.20 1.10 1.25 0.58 0.62 0.99 1.37 1.19 1.12 1.48Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 106 Total (n=2,667) SingleFamily (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Equipment Always or Often Unplugged/Off at Power Strip:

Primary TV Additional TVs Audio/TV accessories Other equipment 9% 9% 10% 15% 7% 7% 8% 13% 13% 15% 16% 20% 12% 15% 14% 16% 8%

--

--

-- --

--

--

--
A Of customers who have a TV.



### Table 29. Home Office – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) SingleFamily (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Work from Home 17% 19% 15% 15% 5%

-- Hours per Week Working at Home

0-10 hrs 11-30 hrs More than 30 hrs 39% 39% 22% 40% 39% 21% 36% 41% 23% 41% 36% 23% -- 100%

-- --

--

-- Computer 82% 84% 80% 76% 36% 1.00 Mean Number of Computers A

Total

Flat panel monitor CRT monitor 1.6 1.2 0.3 1.7 1.3 0.4 1.5 1.1 0.3 1.4 1.1 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.31 1.36 1.07 Computer Use

On In sleep mode Off 30% 22% 47% 30% 23% 47% 29% 22% 49% 34% 20% 46% 41% 7% 52% --

--

-- Households with Products

Telephone (Landline) Cell Phone Answering Machine or Service Multifunction Machine Fax Machine Printer Scanner Copier Home Network 87% 83% 74% 42% 10% 54% 20% 17% 24% 92% 84% 80% 47% 12% 60% 22% 20% 25% 77% 84% 63% 35%

6% 47% 17% 14% 22% 71% 81% 57% 30%

6% 39% 11% 10% 21% 100% 60% 69% 19% 10% 18%

9% 9%

-- 0.99

-- 1.07 1.24 0.70 0.68 0.42 0.17

--
A Of customers who have a computer.Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 107 

### Table 30. Lighting – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Incandescents

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 6% 13% 22% 27% 33% 5% 11% 19% 27% 39% 9% 17% 26% 26% 21% 9% 18% 30% 25% 17% 0% 8% 37% 38% 17% 0.42 0.10 0.17 0.28 2.45 CFLs

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 14% 18% 26% 23% 18% 12% 16% 26% 24% 22% 18% 20% 26% 23% 12% 24% 28% 25% 18%

5% 8% 18% 26% 41%

8% 2.10 1.05 0.52 1.02 1.12 Halogen Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 74% 20%

4% 1% 1% 73% 20%

5% 1% 1% 75% 20%

3% <1%

1% 76% 19%

4% 1% 1% 85% 15%

--

-- 0% 1.20 0.44 0.22 1.31

-- Fluorescent Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 83% 14%

3% 1% <1% 82% 13%

4% 1% 1% 85% 34% 24%

9% <1% 81% 18%

1%

--

-- 100%

--

--

--

-- 1.16 0.35 1.31

--

-- Fluorescent Tube Lights

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 36% 33% 21%

8% 3% 30% 34% 24%

9% 3% 46% 35% 14%

4% 2% 57% 28% 11%

4%

-- 54% 33% 13%

--

-- 1.02 0.58 0.69 2.39 2.28Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 108 

### Table 31. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) Single-Family (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Households with: Portable Fan 69% 70% 72% 61% 58%

-- Ceiling Fan 60% 66% 54% 30% 84% 1.02 Attic/Whole-house Fan 10% 13% 4% 3% -- 0.78 Electronic Household Air Cleaner 9% 10% 8% 6% --

-- Humidifier 26% 28% 22% 21% 5% 1.24 Dehumidifier 46% 59% 23% 7% 33% 1.10 Heated Waterbed 2% 2% 1% 1% -- 0.97 Sauna - electric 1% 1% <1% <1% -- 0.97 Electric Whirlpool/Spa 5% 7% 1% 1% -- 1.46 Electric Water Heater for Pool 1% 2% <1% <1% -- 2.92 Pond/Well/Pool Pump 16% 22% 3% 1% 3% 1.45 Cordless Vacuum 16% 16% 15% 16% 5%

-- Battery Charger for Appliances 50% 55% 46% 39% 17%

-- Home Security System 19% 24% 10% 7% -- 0.97 Elect. Exercise Equip. 18% 22% 9% 5% 2% 1.12 Electric Clocks/Clock Radios 82% 85% 77% 71% 57%

-- Mean Hours/Day for Dehumidifier

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 7.8 4.3 2.3 7.9 4.3 2.2 7.2 4.4 2.9 2.5 3.2 3.7 3.7 0.0 1.4 --

--

-- Mean Hours/Day for Pool Pumps

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 6.3 2.2 0.7 6.3 3.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 2.2 0.7 --

--

--Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 109 

### Table 32. Energy Efficiency – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) SingleFamily (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor

Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- ENERGY STAR ® Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) Influenced Purchase Decision A 80%

66% 82%

69% 78%

62% 71%

59% 69%

59% --

-- Meaning of ENERGY STAR ® Label A

Government Endorsement 2% 1% 2% 1% 0%

-- Tested/Meets Standards 14% 14% 15% 12% 26%

-- High Quality 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%

-- Less Pollution/Good for Environment 3% 2% 5% 8% 0%

-- Uses Less Energy 76% 78% 72% 74% 74%

-- Lower Utility Bills 4% 3% 5% 5% 0%

-- ENERGYGuide Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) 76% 80% 69% 61% 59%

-- Information on ENERGYGuide Label B

Government Endorsement 5% 5% 5% 8% 0%

-- Product is Tested/Meets Standards 23% 22% 24% 24% 40%

-- High Quality 6% 5% 8% 7% 3%

-- Appliance Uses Less Energy 29% 29% 28% 34% 37%

-- How Much Energy the Appliance Uses 58% 58% 58% 62% 55%

-- Compares Energy Use to Similar Models 36% 38% 32% 29% 37%

-- Lower Utility Bills 19% 18% 16% 28% 21%

-- Estimated Yearly Operating Cost 41% 43% 37% 35% 60%

-- Familiarity (very/somewhat) with Programs

Rebate Program Home Energy Audit Program 32% 37% 35% 40% 26% 32% 21% 23% 17% 32% --

-- ENERGY STAR ® Homes 18% 18% 19% 20% 11%

-- Home Performance with ENERGY STAR ® 13% 13% 14% 11% 11%

--Data Summary by Building Type

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 110 Total (n=2,667) SingleFamily (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor

Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Products that Should Receive Rebates

Light Bulbs and Fixtures Clothes Washers Refrigerators/Freezers Dishwashers Room Air Conditioners Central Cooling Systems Heating Systems Windows Insulation Solar DWH Pool Pumps Geothermal Heat Pump 39% 35% 53% 16% 16% 26% 65% 60% 42% 20%

1% 10% 37% 32% 52% 15% 12% 25% 69% 64% 46% 22%

2% 10% 44% 43% 53% 18% 22% 24% 61% 54% 37% 17%

1% 8% 47% 35% 57% 20% 29% 32% 50% 50% 30% 18%

0% 10% 43% 47% 52% 13% 13% 22% 43% 52% 35% 17%

0% 0% --

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-- Interest in Services and Products

Green Power Rebate Programs Home Energy Audits 67% 76% 56% 65% 79% 59% 72% 77% 52% 72% 75% 46% 34% 63% 57% --

--

--
A Of customers who have seen the ENERGY STAR ® label before.

B Of customers who have seen the ENERGYGuide label before.



### Table 33. Profile of Respondents – by Building Type

Total (n=2,667) SingleFamily (n=1,720) Multi 2-4 Units (n=546) Multi 5+ Units (n=357) Other (n=25) Adj. Factor

Mean No. of People per HH 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

---- Mean Age of Head-of-Household 51.6 52.8 48.8 48.7 59.1

-- Education Level

High School Grad. or Less College Grad/Some College Postgraduate Degree 19% 51% 30% 17% 51% 31% 23% 52% 25% 21% 49% 29% 44% 44% 12% --

--

-- Mean Household Income 77,033 85,927 60,141 61,398 28,641

-- Mean Time Lived in Home 11.7 13.5 8.9 6.2 12.5

-- Mean Number of Occupants 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.7

-- Primary Language not English 5% 3% 11% 11% 2%

--MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 111 

# D ATA 

# S UMMARY BY 

# P RIMARY 

# H EATING 

# F UEL

The following tables summarize responses to the mail/Internet survey by the customer’s type of primary space heating fuel. The fuel type is based on Question B2A of the survey (“What type of heating system do you use to heat this home? Primary Heating.”). Primary heating fuel categories are Natural Gas, Electr ic, Oil, and Other (including bottled gas, wood or coal, and other). The final column presents the adjustment factor developed through the in-home verification visits. For explanations of the develo pment and use of adjustment factors, please refer to the Methodology section.
The number of responses for each fuel type (“ n” in the table headers) represents the total number of surveys completed by customers with that fuel type. It should be noted that not every respondent answered every question; th erefore the number of responses for any one question might be smaller than the number pres ented in the table header. Volume 2 of this report presents more detail about the number of responses for each question as well as significant differences between comparison groups.

Table 34. Home Characteristics – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Building Type

SF Detached MF (2-4 units) MF (5+ units) Other 67% 20% 12%

1% 66% 27%

7% 1% 37% 24% 37%

2% 87% 12% <1%

1% 91% 7% 1% 1% 0.99 0.87 1.18 0.50 Own Home 81% 83% 69% 92% 97%

-- Year-Round Occupancy 93% 94% 90% 96% 81%

-- Mean No. of Rooms A 6.4 6.6 5.0 7.1 6.9 1.05 Mean Dwelling Size (sq. ft) 1,866 1,907 1,431 2,071 2,082

-- Home Built

Before 1930 1930-1969 1970-1999 2000 or later 26% 36% 30%

8% 29% 33% 28% 10% 13% 26% 56%

6% 26% 43% 26%

5% 17% 24% 42% 17% --

--

--

-- Home Remodeled in Last 3 Years 25% 26% 19% 28% 29%

-- Natural Gas Service Available 54% 96% 10% 17% 15% 1.14

A Excludes bathrooms, halls, pantri es, unheated rooms, and garages.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 112 

### Table 35. Space Heating – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Home Heating

Pay to Heat Home Heat Part of Rent No Heat 92% 7% 1% 100%

--

-- 100%

--

-- 100%

--

-- 100%

--

-- 0.98

--

-- Primary Heating System Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 49% 8% 39%

2% 1% 1% 100%

--

--

--

--

-- -- 100%

--

--

--

-- --

-- 100%

--

--

-- --

--

-- 59% 22% 18% 1.06 0.99 0.94 0.66

-- 0.50 Mean Age of Primary Heating System A 12.3 11.4 18.0 12.6 10.3

-- Uses Additional Heating System 32% 29% 18% 37% 52% 0.87 Additional Heating System Type AB

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 2% 46%

6% 10% 43% 14% -- 63%

6% 8% 36% 12% 1%

-- 11% 14% 55% 35% 3% 35%

-- 12% 53% 16% 10% 37% 35%

7% 22%

8% --

--

--

--

--

-- Use of Additional Heating System C

Always/Often Rarely/Sometimes 49% 51% 45% 55% 58% 42% 54% 46% 56% 44% --

-- Have No Thermostats C 5% 3% 8% 1% 18% 1.00 Have Programmable Thermostat(s) C 41% 47% 25% 42% 36% 1.00 Mean Number of Thermostats D

Total Programmable Standard 2.2 .95 1.25 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.4 .09 3.5 2.2 1.0 1.2 2.4 1.3 1.1 0.79 0.73 0.84 Mean Thermostat Setting

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 64.4 63.5 63.7 65.8 63.0 64.8 63.8 64.0 66.2 63.4 64.6 63.8 64.0 65.6 63.6 63.8 62.9 63.1 65.2 62.1 63.0 63.3 63.5 64.7 62.0 --

--

--

--

--
A Of customers who pay to heat their home.

B Customers can have more than one additional heating system.

C Of customers who he at their residence.

D Of customers who have thermostats.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 113 

### Table 36. Space Cooling – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Have Air Conditioning (Central or Room) 82% 85% 84% 80% 63% 0.99 Central Air Conditioning/Cooling

Have Central AC Do not Have Central AC 36% 64% 42% 58% 42% 58% 27% 73% 33% 67% 0.82 1.13 76-100% of Space Conditioned A 82% 87% 78% 78% 84% 1.03 Cooling System Type A

Central Air Conditioning Heat Pump Ductless Mini Split AC Other 89% 8% 4% 2% 94% 5% 3% 2% 55% 49%

2% 1% 92% 3% 4% 3% 92% 8% <1%

-- 1.19 0.44

--

-- Mean Number of Cooling Systems A 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.99 Mean Age of Main Cooling Unit A 7.7 7.6 9.1 7.5 7.5

-- Have No Thermostats B 8% 4% 15% 7% <1%

-- Have Programmable Thermostat(s) B 49% 58% 27% 47% 73% 1.20 Mean Number of Thermostats C

Total Programmable Standard 1.7 1.0 0.6 1.6 1.1 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.0 1.7 1.0 0.7 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.94 1.00 0.87 Mean Thermostat Setting C

Early Morning (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1pm-5pm) Early Evening (5pm-7pm) Late Evening/Night (7pm-6am) 72.2 72.6 72.5 72.0 72.1 72.6 73.0 72.9 72.4 72.6 71.6 71.6 71.5 71.5 71.2 71.9 72.4 72.1 71.6 71.7 72.5 72.8 72.7 72.1 72.8 --

--

--

--

-- Room Air Conditioning

Have Room AC Do not Have Room AC 63% 37% 62% 38% 66% 34% 64% 36% 42% 58% --

-- Mean Number of Room ACs C 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.2 1.9

-- Mean Age of Room ACs C 5.2 5.0 6.2 5.5 5.3 1.25 Mean Size of Room ACs (BTUs) C 7,679 7,847 8,385 7,895 9,036 0.93
Always/Often Use Cooling Systems C

Early Morning (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1pm-5pm) Early Evening (5pm-7pm) Late Evening/Night (7pm-6am) 26% 25% 31% 37% 37% 28% 27% 19% 18% 38% 22% 19% 20% 16% 28% 24% 23% 21% 19% 36% 32% 37% 12% 12% 45% --

--

--

--

-- Central Air Conditioning

Very/Somewhat likely to Install D Very/Somewhat likely to Replace C 14% 29% 16% 28% 10% 32% 14% 28% 9% 25% --

-- Room Air Conditioning

Very/Somewhat likely to Install D Very/Somewhat likely to Replace C 15% 41% 18% 40% 18% 46% 11% 41% 2% 44% --

--
A Of customers who pay to cool their home.

B Of customers who have central cooling system.

C Of customers who have appliance/equipment.

D Of customers who do not have appliance/equipment.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 114 

### Table 37. Water Heating – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Water Heating

Pay for Hot Water Part of Rent/Condo Fee Do not Have Hot Water 85% 13%

2% 94% 6% <1% 70% 29%

1% 92% 2% 6% 98% 2%

-- 1.04

--

-- Primary Water Heater Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Solar Other 52% 18% 26%

4% <1% <1% 92% 7% <1% <1% <1%

-- 6% 90%

2% 1% <1%

-- 10% 19% 67%

3% <1% <1% 7% 33% 11% 46% <1%

2% 1.14 0.89 0.94 0.94

--

-- Mean age of primary water heating system A 7.8 6.5 8.2 9.2 8.5

-- Primary water heater has insulation blanket/tank wrap A 25% 23% 32% 26% 29%

-- Uses Additional Heating System 3% 2% 3% 4% 8% 0.38 Low-Flow showerheads installed in some/all showers 67% 67% 63% 68% 68% 0.95 Aerators on some/all faucets 51% 51% 46% 52% 54% 1.18

A Of customers who pay for hot water in their home.



### Table 38. Building Shell – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor All Exterior Walls Have Insulation 75% 75% 84% 75% 76%

-- Attic/Ceiling Has Insulation 89% 89% 86% 92% 94%

-- Rating of Attic/ Ceiling Insulation

0-3 in. (<R-10) 4-6 in. (R-11-19) 7-10 in. (R-20-30) > 10 in. (R-31+) 13% 54% 24%

9% 14% 55% 23%

8% 13% 55% 20% 11% 12% 55% 24%

9% 6% 51% 35%

9% 0.40 1.26 1.01 0.80 Window Type by Pane (All/Most)

Single w/ Storm Single, no Storm Double Single/Double Triple Pane 23% 8% 57%

9% 3% 21% 8% 58% 10%

2% 26% 12% 53%

6% 4% 25% 6% 55% 10%

4% 16% 1% 71%

5% 6% 0.74 0.14 1.36 0.67 0.16 Window Frames (All/Most)

Vinyl Wood Wood and Vinyl Metal 43% 32% 17%

7% 47% 30% 18%

5% 40% 31%

9% 20% 41% 35% 20%

4% 43% 36% 18%

3% 1.04 1.05 0.34 1.47Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 115 

### Table 39. Laundry Equipment – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Laundry Equipment

Private Use Use in Common Area No Use in Building 88% 8% 4% 93% 3% 4% 72% 23%

5% 98% 1% 1% 94%

-- 6% 0.96 1.29 1.00 Clothes Washer Type A

Top Loading Front Loading 75% 25% 75% 25% 75% 25% 76% 24% 58% 42% 0.98 1.06 Mean Age of Clothes Washer A 6.9 6.8 5.8 7.4 6.4

-- Mean Number of Loads per Week A

Total

Hot Water Warm Water Cold Water 5.1 0. 7 2.1 2.3 5.1 0.8 2.1 2.2 4.9 0.8 2.0 2.0 5.3 0.7 2.2 2.5 4.9 0.6 2.0 2.2 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Laundry Equip. A

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Frequently/Occasionally Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Frequently/Occasionally Rarely/Never 71% 29%

69% 31% 70% 30%

67% 33% 78% 22%

73% 27% 72% 28%

72% 28% 72% 28%

62% 38% --

--

--

-- Clothes Dryer 86% 90% 72% 96% 86% 0.97 Clothes Dryer Type B

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas 24% 74%

2% 43% 56% <1% 2% 96%

1% 6% 91%

2% 6% 67% 27% 0.75 1.11

-- Mean Age of Clothes Dryer 7.5 7.4 6.8 7.9 6.9

-- Mean % Laundry Loads Line Dried B

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 18% 14% 10% 15% 12%

9% 22% 18% 11% 20% 16% 11% 26% 21% 13% --

--

--
A Of customers who have private use of laundry equipment.

B Of customers who have a clothes dryer.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 116 

### Table 40. Food Preparation – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Type of Stovetop/Range A

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas Other 39% 56%

5% <1% 67% 32%

1% <1% 6% 92%

2% 0% 14% 78%

8% <1% 10% 53% 36% <1% 0.95 1.05 0.79

-- Mean Age of Stovetop/Range 8.1 7.7 9.5 8.7 9.1 1.20 Microwave Oven 95% 96% 95% 96% 96% 1.00 George Foreman Type Indoor Grill 32% 33% 35% 33% 24%

-- Dishwasher 75% 79% 74% 76% 81% 0.94 Mean Dishwasher Loads per Week 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.5 3.4

-- Weekday Use of Dishwasher

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Frequently/Occasionally Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Frequently/Occasionally Rarely/Never 44% 56%

60% 40% 44% 56%

59% 41% 46% 54%

60% 40% 44% 56%

62% 38% 41% 59%

55% 45% --

--

--

-- Mean Age of Dishwasher 7.3 7.0 8.3 7.5 8.0

--
A Of customers who have a stovetop/range.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 117 

### Table 41. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Refrigerator >99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 1.00 Two or More Refrigerators 26% 27% 12% 32% 31% 1.03 Mean Number of Refrigerators 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.00 Refrigerator Style

Single-Door Two-Door Three or Four-Door 13% 86%

1% 13% 86%

2% 10% 90%

0% 13% 87%

1% 14% 86%

0% 0.63 1.05 0.88 Refrigerator Size

Small (under 14 cu. ft.) Medium (15-18 cu. ft.) Large (more than 19 cu. ft.) 14% 44% 42% 12% 40% 47% 15% 48% 37% 14% 46% 40% 16% 39% 45% 0.68 0.46 1.73 Defrost Capabilities

Automatic (Frost-Free) Manual 91% 9% 91% 9% 91% 9% 91% 9% 93% 7% 1.06 0.47 Mean Age of Refrigerator 7.9 7.8 7.8 8.3 7.3

-- Refrigerator Use

Year-Round Seasonally 94% 6% 95% 5% 94% 6% 96% 4% 87% 13%

-- Stand-Alone Freezer 22% 20% 13% 28% 35% 0.59 Two or More Freezers 1% 1% <1% 2% 3% 0.97 Mean Number of Freezers 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.61 Freezer Style

Frost-Free Manual Defrost 48% 52% 50% 50% 55% 45% 44% 56% 42% 58% --

-- Freezer Size

Small (under 15 cu. Ft.) Medium (15-18 cu. Ft.) Large (over 18 cu. Ft) 41% 46% 13% 40% 47% 13% 39% 35% 25% 41% 47% 12% 48% 40% 12% --

--

-- Mean Age of Freezer 10.3 10.4 9.4 10.9 8.6

-- Freezer Use

Year-Round Seasonally 95% 5% 93% 7% 86% 14% 99% 1% 87% 13% --

--Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 118 

### Table 42. Entertainment Equipment – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Television 99% 99% 98% 99% 96% 1.00 Mean Number of TVs A

Total

Standard Tube (CRT) Projection TV Flat Panel LCD Flat Panel Plasma 2.5 1.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.5 1.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.2 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 2.5 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.3 1.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.15 1.16 0.36 1.38 0.67 Mean Hours of Operation

Primary TV

Weekday Weekend Additional TVs

Weekday Weekend 4.9 5.8

2.4 3.0 4.8 5.8

2.4 3.0 4.9 6.2

2.2 2.9 4.9 5.8

2.4 3.0 4.6 5.6

1.9 2.3 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Primary TV

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 59% 41%

85% 15% 60% 40%

85% 15% 63% 37%

82% 18% 59% 41%

86% 14% 48% 52%

78% 22% --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Additional TVs

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 37% 62%

56% 43% 38% 62%

56% 44% 36% 64%

49% 51% 38% 62%

58% 42% 23% 77%

47% 53% --

--

--

-- Households with Accessories

Home Theater D/A Converter Box Analog Cable Box Digital Cable Box Digital Cable Box with DVR DVR Separate from Cable Box Digital Satellite Box Video Game Player DVD Player (or DVD/VCR) VCR Only Stereo 14% 11%

8% 49% 22%

9% 9% 26% 69% 32% 48% 15% 11%

8% 49% 25%

9% 9% 25% 69% 33% 51% 10% 6% 9% 47% 20%

6% 7% 26% 64% 20% 36% 16% 12%

7% 51% 23% 10%

9% 28% 71% 34% 50% 12% 9% 9% 48% 23%

7% 18% 34% 73% 24% 55% 1.39 0.20 1.10 1.25 0.58 0.62 0.99 1.37 1.19 1.12 1.48 Equipment Always or Often Unplugged/Off at Power Strip:

Primary TV Additional TVs Audio/TV accessories Other equipment 9% 9% 10% 15% 9% 11% 11% 14% 11% 10% 14% 16% 7% 7% 8% 14% 6% 2% 2% 17% --

--

--

--
A Of customers who have a TV.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 119 

### Table 43. Home Office – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Work from Home 17% 19% 15% 17% 24%

-- Hours per Week Working at Home

0-10 hrs 11-30 hrs More than 30 hrs 39% 39% 22% 38% 43% 19% 58% 23% 19% 38% 40% 22% 48% 22% 29% --

--

-- Computer 82% 84% 77% 83% 85% 1.00 Mean Number of Computers A

Total

Flat panel monitor CRT monitor 1.6 1.3 0.4 1.6 1.3 0.3 1.5 1.2 0.3 1.6 1.2 0.4 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.31 1.36 1.07 Computer Use

On In sleep mode Off 30% 22% 47% 30% 25% 46% 31% 19% 50% 31% 20% 49% 30% 25% 45% --

--

-- Households with Products

Telephone (Landline) Cell Phone Answering Machine or Service Multifunction Machine Fax Machine Printer Scanner Copier Home Network 87% 83% 74% 42% 10% 54% 20% 17% 24% 87% 85% 74% 46% 11% 54% 20% 18% 26% 81% 84% 66% 36%

5% 54% 17% 16% 18% 92% 84% 79% 43% 11% 59% 21% 18% 22% 90% 75% 84% 53% 13% 63% 24% 15% 37% 0.99

-- 1.07 1.24 0.70 0.68 0.42 0.17

--
A Of customers who have a computer.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 120 

### Table 44. Lighting – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Incandescents

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 6% 13% 22% 27% 33% 6% 13% 22% 24% 35% 9% 14% 25% 27% 25% 5% 11% 19% 30% 35% 7% 9% 20% 28% 36% 0.42 0.10 0.17 0.28 2.45 CFLs

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 14% 18% 26% 23% 18% 15% 18% 26% 23% 18% 21% 18% 24% 24% 13% 12% 16% 26% 25% 21% 14% 7% 21% 25% 33% 2.10 1.05 0.52 1.02 1.12 Halogen Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 74% 20%

4% 1% 1% 73% 20%

5% 1% 1% 75% 17%

7% <1%

1% 75% 19%

4% 1% 1% 76% 20%

2% 2%

-- 1.20 0.44 0.22 1.31

-- Fluorescent Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 83% 14%

3% 1% <1% 83% 14%

3% <1% <1% 80% 16%

1%

-- 2% 84% 12%

3% 1% <1% 81% 15%

4% 1% <1% 1.16 0.35 1.31

--

-- Fluorescent Tube Lights

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 36% 33% 21%

8% 3% 38% 33% 19%

8% 2% 40% 38% 17%

4% 1% 32% 33% 24%

8% 4% 27% 29% 28% 12%

3% 1.02 0.58 0.69 2.39 2.28Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 121 

### Table 45. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Households with:

Portable Fan 69% 65% 63% 74% 76%

-- Ceiling Fan 60% 62% 48% 66% 77% 1.02 Attic or Whole-house Fan 10% 11% 8% 11% 2% 0.78 Electronic Household Air Cleaner 9% 9% 12% 11% 12%

-- Humidifier 26% 29% 19% 24% 39% 1.24 Dehumidifier 46% 48% 38% 53% 49% 1.10 Heated Waterbed 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 0.97 Sauna - electric 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0.97 Electric Whirlpool Tub/Spa 5% 5% 4% 6% 14% 1.46 Electric Water Heater for Pool 1% 2% 2% 2% -- 2.92 Pond, Well, or Pool Pump 16% 12% 13% 22% 34% 1.45 Cordless Vacuum 16% 16% 13% 16% 22%

-- Battery Charger for Appliances 50% 48% 41% 55% 76%

-- Home Security System 19% 22% 17% 19% 25% 0.97 Electric Exercise Equipment 18% 19% 11% 21% 22% 1.12 Electric Clocks/Clock Radios 82% 81% 19% 86% 91%

-- Mean Hours/Day for Dehumidifier

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 7.8 4.3 2.3 8.1 4.6 2.4 6.9 4.1 1.6 7.6 3.9 2.2 8.3 4.5 3.2 --

--

-- Mean Hours/Day for Pool Pumps

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 6.3 2.3 0.7 6.9 3.0 0.9 6.4 2.5 1.3 6.3 1.9 0.6 2.5 0.8 0.0 --

--

--Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 122 

### Table 46. Energy Efficiency – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor ENERGY STAR ® Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) Influenced Purchase Decision A 80% 66% 82% 66% 77% 64% 81% 69% 87% 76% --

-- Meaning of ENERGY STAR ® Label A

Government Endorsement 2% 1% 2% 1% 3%

-- Tested/Meets Standards 14% 15% 12% 13% 9%

-- High Quality 2% 2% <1% 2% 0%

-- Less Pollution/Good for Environment 3% 4% 3% 3% 2%

-- Uses Less Energy 76% 74% 75% 78% 86%

-- Lower Utility Bills 4% 4% 7% 3% 0%

-- ENERGYGuide Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) 76% 78% 65% 78% 83%

-- Information on ENERGYGuide Label B

Government Endorsement 5% 6% 9% 5% 4%

-- Product is Tested/Meets Standards 23% 22% 26% 23% 17%

-- High Quality 6% 6% 9% 6% 8%

-- Appliance Uses Less Energy 29% 27% 35% 30% 32%

-- How Much Energy the Appliance Uses 58% 58% 59% 60% 70%

-- Compares Energy Use to Similar Models 36% 36% 37% 37% 44%

-- Lower Utility Bills 19% 18% 16% 19% 22%

-- Est. Yearly Operating Cost 41% 39% 40% 45% 48%

-- Familiarity (very/somewhat) with Programs

Rebate Program Home Energy Audit Program 32% 37% 36% 40% 26% 33% 31% 37% 20% 38% --

-- ENERGY STAR ® Homes 18% 20% 15% 16% 17%

-- Home Performance with ENERGY STAR ® 13% 15% 10% 12% 8%

-- Products that Should Receive Rebates

Light Bulbs and Fixtures Clothes Washers Refrigerators/Freezers Dishwashers Room Air Conditioners Central Cooling Systems Heating Systems Windows Insulation Solar DWH Pool Pumps Geothermal Heat Pump 39% 35% 53% 16% 16% 26% 65% 60% 42% 20%

1% 10% 39% 33% 53% 17% 14% 29% 68% 61% 45% 17%

1% 8% 42% 33% 55% 19% 17% 30% 64% 53% 32% 24%

2% 15% 37% 37% 53% 14% 14% 21% 66% 60% 42% 25%

2% 12% 29% 29% 47% 10%

2% 27% 75% 66% 58% 35%

2% 10% --

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-- Interest in Services and Products

Green Power Rebate Programs Home Energy Audits 67% 76% 56% 67% 78% 57% 63% 71% 48% 67% 79% 59% 69% 72% 58% --

--

--
A Of customers who have seen the ENERGY STAR ® label before.

B Of customers who have seen the ENERGYGuide label before.Data Summary by Primary Heating Fuel

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 123 

### Table 47. Profile of Respondents – by Primary Heating Fuel Type

Total (n=2,667) Natural Gas (n=1,085) Electric (n=337) Oil (n=844) Other (n=101) Adj. Factor Mean Age of Head-of-Household 51.6 51.4 51.9 52.4 51.4

-- Education Level

High School Graduate or Less College Graduate/Some College Postgraduate Degree 19% 51% 30% 18% 50% 32% 23% 48% 29% 19% 54% 27% 17% 51% 32% --

--

-- Mean Household Income 77,033 82,002 72,521 78,863 81,122

-- Mean Time Lived in Home 11.7 11.1 10.6 13.8 11

-- Mean Number of Occupants 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.8

-- Primary Language not English 5% 7% 6% 2% 1%

--MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 124 

# D ATA 

# S UMMARY BY 

# I NCOME 

# C ATEGORY

The following tables summarize responses to the mail/Internet survey by the customer’s income category. The income classification is based on survey Questions N3 (“Please check the range that best describes your househol d’s total annual income for 2007, before taxes.”) and N5 (“For each of the following age groups, how many people, including you, usually live in this home?”). The income categories are:



### • Low Income: Household income is less than 60% of the median income in Massachusetts, given the number of people in the household.



### • Threshold: Household income might be less th an 60% of the median income in Massachusetts, but determination cannot be ma de since the 60% level falls within the customer’s income range.



### • Not Low Income: Household income is 60% or more of the median income in Massachusetts, given the number of people in the household.



### • No Response: Customer did not provide information for either household income or the size of the household. The final column presents the adjustment factor developed through the in-home verification visits. For explanations of the development and use of adjustment factors, please refer to the Methodology section.
The number of responses for each income catego ry (“n” in the table headers) represents the total number of surveys completed by customers in that category. It should be noted that not every respondent answered every question; th erefore the number of responses for any one question might be smaller than the nu mber presented in the table header.

Table 48. Home Characteristics – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Building Type

SF Detached MF (2-4 units) MF (5+ units) Other 67% 20% 12%

1% 46% 34% 12%

1% 64% 23% 11%

1% 74% 16%

9% <1% 67% 19% 13%

1% 0.99 0.87 1.18 0.50 Own Home 81% 54% 77% 89% 85%

-- Year-Round Occupancy 93% 97% 95% 94% 87%

-- Mean No. of Rooms A 6.4 5.3 6.0 6.8 6.4 1.05 Mean Dwelling Size (sq. ft) 1,866 1,525 1,622 2,002 1,867

-- Home Built

Before 1930 1930-1969 1970-1999 2000 or later 26% 36% 30%

8% 29% 41% 26%

4% 30% 38% 28%

4% 25% 35% 31%

9% 25% 37% 31%

8% --

--

--

-- Home Remodeled in Last 3 Years 25% 18% 25% 29% 20%

-- Natural Gas Service Available 54% 54% 52% 55% 50% 1.14

A Excludes bathrooms, halls, pantri es, unheated rooms, and garages.Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 125 

### Table 49. Space Heating – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Home Heating

Pay to Heat Home Heat Part of Rent No Heat 92% 7% 1% 85% 14%

1% 91% 9% <1% 94% 5% <1% 93% 6% 2% 0.98

--

-- Primary Heating System Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 49% 8% 39%

2% 1% 1% 49% 10% 39% <1%

1% 1% 44% 9% 42%

2% 1% 2% 51% 7% 38%

2% 1% <1% 48% 9% 38%

4% 1% 1% 1.06 0.99 0.94 0.66

-- 0.50 Mean Age of Primary Heating System A 12.3 12.8 13.4 11.9 12.6

-- Uses Additional Heating System 32% 28% 35% 34% 27% 0.87 Additional Heating System Type AB

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Wood or Coal Other 2% 46%

6% 10% 43% 14% 3% 41%

8% 23% 35% 10% 3% 45%

9% 11% 36% 11% 1% 48%

5% 7% 49% %14 2% 44%

4% 10% 37% 22% --

--

--

--

--

-- Use of Additional Heating System C

Always/Often Rarely/Sometimes 49% 51% 51% 49% 53% 47% 50% 50% 41% 59% --

-- Have No Thermostats C 5% 11% 6% 3% 5% 1.00 Have Programmable Thermostat(s) C 41% 20% 37% 48% 39% 1.00 Mean Number of Thermostats D

Total Programmable Standard 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 2.3 1.1 1.2 2.3 1.0 1.3 2.2 0.9 1.3 0.79 0.73 0.84 Mean Thermostat Setting

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 64.4 63.5 63.7 65.8 63.0 64.8 64.4 64.6 65.7 63.9 64.4 64.0 63.9 65.6 63.0 64.3 63.1 63.4 65.9 62.8 64.1 63.8 63.9 65.7 62.7 --

--

--

--

--
A Of customers who pay to heat their home.

B Customers can have more than one additional heating system.

C Of customers who he at their residence.

D Of customers who have thermostats.Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 126 

### Table 50. Space Cooling – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Have Air Conditioning (CAC or Room) 82% 75% 83% 83% 81% 0.99 Central Air Cooling

Have CAC No CAC 36% 64% 23% 77% 27% 73% 40% 38% 40% 60% 0.82 1.13 76-100% of Space Conditioned A 82% 51% 74% 85% 88% 1.03 CAC System Type A

Central AC Heat Pump Ductless Mini Split Other 89% 8% 4% 2% 85% 5% 9% 5% 79% 12%

7% 4% 90% 9% 3% 2% 92% 5% 2% 2% 1.19 0.44

--

-- Mean Number of CAC Systems A 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.99 Mean Age of Main CAC Unit A 7.7 8.2 8.2 7.5 7.8

-- Have No Thermostats B 8% 26% 19% 4% 6%

-- Have Programmable Thermostat(s) B 49% 23% 34% 56% 46% 1.20 Mean Number of Thermostats C

Total Programmable Standard 1.7 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.7 1.7 1.1 0.7 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.94 1.00 0.87 Mean Thermostat Setting

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 72.2 72.6 72.5 72.0 72.1 69.8 70.2 70.1 70.1 69.6 72.0 72.3 72.0 71.8 71.8 72.2 72.7 72.6 72.0 72.1 73.0 73.1 73.0 72.6 72.9 --

--

--

--

-- Room AC

Have Room AC No Room AC 63% 37% 67% 33% 71% 29% 59% 41% 61% 39% --

-- Mean Number of Room ACs C 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8

-- Mean Age of Room ACs C 5.2 5.5 5.1 5.1 5.5 1.25 Mean Size of Room ACs (BTUs) C 7,679 7,457 7,370 7,746 7,977 0.93 Always/Often Use Cooling Systems C

Early a.m. (6-9am) Morning (9-1pm) Afternoon (1-5pm) Evening (5-7pm) Night (7pm-6am) 26% 25% 31% 37% 37% 18% 23% 29% 31% 28% 16% 18% 26% 32% 30% 30% 27% 32% 40% 41% 27% 27% 29% 37% 34% --

--

--

--

-- CAC: Very/Somewhat likely to

Install D Replace C 14% 29% 10% 38% 16% 39% 17% 29% 7% 23% --

-- Room AC: Very/ Somewhat likely to

Install D Replace C 15% 41% 32% 36% 12% 44% 11% 39% 18% 48% --

--
A Of customers who pay to cool their home.

B Of customers who have central cooling system.

C Of customers who have appliance/equipment.

D Of customers who do not have appliance/equipment.Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 127 

### Table 51. Water Heating – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Water Heating

Pay for Hot Water Part of Rent No Hot Water 85% 13%

2% 73% 23%

4% 83% 14%

3% 88% 10%

2% 84% 13%

3% 1.04

--

-- Primary Water Heater Type A

Natural Gas Electric Oil Bottled Gas Solar Other 52% 18% 26%

4% <1% <1% 55% 18% 24%

2% <1% <1% 50% 20% 28%

3%

- <1% 52% 17% 27%

3% <1% <1% 50% 21% 23%

6% <1% <1% 1.14 0.89 0.94 0.94

--

-- Mean age of primary water heating system A 7.8 7.5 8.1 7.7 7.8

-- Primary water heater has insulation blanket/tank wrap A 25% 21% 27% 25% 26%

-- Uses Additional Heating System 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 0.38 Low-Flow shower-heads installed in some/all showers 67% 65% 67% 67% 65% 0.95 Aerators on some/all faucets 51% 45% 51% 53% 48% 1.18

A Of customers who pay for hot water in their home.



### Table 52. Building Shell – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor All Exterior Walls Have Insulation 75% 63% 71% 77% 80%

-- Attic/Ceiling Has Insulation 89% 76% 89% 91% 90%

-- Rating of Attic/ Ceiling Insulation

0-3 in. (<R-10) 4-6 in. (R-11-19) 7-10 in. (R-20-30) > 10 in. (R-31+) 13% 54% 24%

9% 16% 58% 20%

6% 16% 59% 19%

6% 12% 54% 26%

9% 12% 51% 25% 12% 0.40 1.26 1.01 0.80 Window Type by Pane (All/Most)

Single w/ Storm Single, no Storm Double Single/Double Triple Pane 23% 8% 57%

9% 3% 31% 13% 44%

9% 3% 21% 6% 60%

9% 3% 21% 7% 59% 11%

3% 26% 8% 56%

6% 4% 0.74 0.14 1.36 0.67 0.16 Window Frames (All/Most)

Vinyl Wood Wood and Vinyl Metal 43% 32% 17%

7% 44% 29% 13% 13% 49% 24% 18%

9% 43% 34% 17%

5% 40% 34% 19%

7% 1.04 1.05 0.34 1.47Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 128 

### Table 53. Laundry Equipment – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Laundry Equipment

Private Use Common Area Use No Use in Building 88% 8% 4% 75% 16%

9% 88% 8% 4% 93% 6% 2% 87% 9% 5% 0.96 1.29 1.00 Clothes Washer Type A

Top Loading Front Loading 75% 25% 86% 14% 79% 21% 70% 30% 80% 20% 0.98 1.06 Mean Age of Clothes Washer A 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.6 7.8

-- Mean Number of Loads per Week A

Total

Hot Water Warm Water Cold Water 5.1 0.7 2.1 2.3 4.9 0.8 1.6 2.5 5.3 0.8 2.0 2.4 5.2 0.7 2.2 2.3 4.7 0.6 2.2 1.9 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Laundry Equip. A

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 71% 29%

69% 31% 79% 21%

70% 30% 79% 21%

75% 25% 68% 32%

68% 32% 72% 28%

64% 36% --

--

--

-- Clothes Dryer 86% 69% 85% 91% 84% 0.97 Clothes Dryer Type B

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas 24% 74%

2% 19% 79%

2% 22% 76%

2% 25% 73%

2% 25% 72%

3% 0.75 1.11

-- Mean Age of Clothes Dryer 7.5 8.0 7.2 7.3 8.3

-- Mean % Laundry Loads Line Dried B

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 18% 14% 10% 28% 22% 14% 19% 15%

8% 16% 13% 10% 19% 14%

9% --

--

--
A Of customers who have private use of laundry equipment.

B Of customers who have a clothes dryer.Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 129 

### Table 54. Food Preparation – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Type of Stovetop/Range A

Natural Gas Electric Bottled Gas Other 39% 56%

5% <1% 41% 55%

4%

- 39% 58%

3% <1% 40% 54%

6% <1% 36% 60%

5%

- 0.95 1.05 0.79

-- Mean Age of Stovetop/Range 8.1 7.9 8.2 7.9 9.2 1.20 Microwave Oven 95% 89% 97% 97% 95% 1.00 George Foreman Type Indoor Grill 32% 28% 35% 32% 35%

-- Dishwasher 75% 46% 68% 86% 74% 0.94 Mean Dishwasher Loads per Week 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.3

-- Weekday Use of Dishwasher

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 44% 56%

60% 40% 43% 57%

59% 41% 50% 50%

64% 35% 42% 58%

60% 40% 49% 51%

56% 44% --

--

--

-- Mean Age of Dishwasher 7.3 8.2 7.3 6.9 8.3

--
A Of customers who have a stovetop/range.Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 130 

### Table 55. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Refrigerator >99% 99% >99% >99% >99% 1.00 Two or More Refrigerators 26% 19% 19% 31% 22% 1.03 Mean Number of Refrigerators 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.00 Refrigerator Style

Single-Door Two-Door Three or Four-Door 13% 86%

1% 14% 85% <1% 12% 87%

1% 12% 86%

1% 13% 86% <1% 0.63 1.05 0.88 Refrigerator Size

Small (under 14 cu. ft.) Medium (15-18 cu. ft.) Large (more than 19 cu. ft.) 14% 44% 42% 19% 50% 31% 15% 45% 40% 13% 42% 45% 16% 45% 39% 0.68 0.46 1.73 Defrost Capabilities

Automatic (Frost-Free) Manual 91% 9% 88% 12% 92% 8% 91% 9% 91% 9% 1.06 0.47 Mean Age of Refrigerator 7.9 7.4 8.2 7.8 8.4

-- Refrigerator Use

Year-Round Seasonally 94% 6% 97% 3% 95% 5% 95% 5% 90% 10%

-- Stand-Alone Freezer 22% 25% 26% 20% 24% 0.59 Two or More Freezers 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0.97 Mean Number of Freezers 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.61 Freezer Style

Frost-Free Manual Defrost 48% 52% 57% 43% 42% 58% 50% 50% 42% 58% --

-- Freezer Size

Small (under 15 cu. Ft.) Medium (15-18 cu. Ft.) Large (over 18 cu. Ft) 41% 46% 13% 36% 45% 20% 46% 43% 11% 40% 48% 12% 42% 44% 15% --

--

-- Mean Age of Freezer 10.3 9.9 8.9 10.6 11.1

-- Freezer Use

Year-Round Seasonally 95% 5% 98% 2% 92% 8% 97% 3% 90% 10% --

--Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 131 

### Table 56. Entertainment Equipm ent – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Television 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 1.00 Mean Number of TVs A Total

Standard Tube (CRT) Projection TV Flat Panel LCD Flat Panel Plasma 2.4 1.7 <0.1

0.6 <0.1 2.2 1.8 <0.1

0.3 <0.1 2.4 1.9 <0.1

0.5 <0.1 2.5 1.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.3 1.7 <0.1

0.5 <0.1 1.15 1.16 0.36 1.38 0.67 Mean Hours of Operation

Primary TV

Weekday Weekend Additional TVs

Weekday Weekend 4.9 5.8

2.4 3.0 5.9 6.7

3.4 4.6 5.5 6.5

2.6 3.5 4.5 5.6

2.1 2.6 4.7 5.4

2.6 3.1 --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Primary TV

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 59% 41%

85% 15% 78% 22%

91%

9% 69% 31%

89% 11% 52% 48%

85% 15% 61% 48%

78% 22% --

--

--

-- Weekday Use of Additional TVs

Summer (1-5 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never Winter (5-7 p.m.)

Freq./Occasional Rarely/Never 38% 62%

56% 43% 62% 38%

69% 31% 47% 53%

64% 36% 31% 69%

52% 48% 41% 59%

57% 43% --

--

--

-- Households with Accessories: Home Theater D/A Converter Box Analog Cable Box Digital Cable Box Digital Cable Box+DVR Separate DVR Digital Satellite Box Video Game Player DVD Player, DVD/VCR VCR Only Stereo 14% 11%

8% 49% 22%

9% 9% 26% 69% 32% 48% 9% 15%

9% 36% 11%

6% 9% 27% 57% 33% 38% 13% 12%

9% 49% 20%

6% 10% 25% 63% 26% 36% 17% 10%

8% 51% 27% 11%

9% 28% 74% 34% 54% 11% 9% 10% 49% 15%

9% 6% 17% 62% 30% 46% 1.39 0.20 1.10 1.25 0.58 0.62 0.99 1.37 1.19 1.12 1.48 Equipment Always or Often Unplugged/Off at Power Strip:

Primary TV Additional TVs Audio/TV accessories Other equipment 9% 9% 10% 15% 13% 17% 20% 18% 9% 9% 8% 15% 7% 7% 10% 13% 11% 11%

9% 21% --

--

--

--
A Of customers who have a TV.Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 132 

### Table 57. Home Office – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Work from Home 17% 9% 10% 22% 16%

-- Hours per Week Working at Home

0-10 hrs 11-30 hrs More than 30 hrs 39% 39% 22% 27% 43% 30% 28% 43% 29% 39% 40% 20% 52% 30% 18% --

--

-- Computer 82% 66% 78% 91% 70% 1.00 Mean Number of Computers A

Total

Flat panel monitor CRT monitor 1.6 1.2 0.3 1.4 1.1 0.4 1.4 1.0 0.4 1.7 1.3 0.3 1.5 1.2 0.3 1.31 1.36 1.07 Computer Use

On In sleep mode Off 30% 22% 47% 39% 15% 46% 34% 18% 48% 30% 24% 47% 27% 20% 53% --

--

-- Households with Products

Telephone (Landline) Cell Phone Answering Machine/Svc Multifunction Machine Fax Machine Printer Scanner Copier Home Network 87% 83% 74% 42% 10% 54% 20% 17% 24% 79% 70% 57% 24%

6% 36% 15% 12%

9% 86% 82% 77% 37%

8% 54% 21% 18% 15% 89% 90% 87% 51% 13% 61% 22% 19% 32% 89% 75% 73% 33%

7% 49% 14% 16% 17% 0.99

-- 1.07 1.24 0.70 0.68 0.42 0.17

--
A Of customers who have a computer.Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 133 

### Table 58. Lighting – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Incandescents

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 6% 13% 22% 27% 33% 12% 20% 25% 29% 14% 8% 13% 28% 26% 25% 4% 11% 20% 27% 38% 6% 15% 18% 26% 36% 0.42 0.10 0.17 0.28 2.45 CFLs

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 14% 18% 26% 23% 18% 17% 25% 23% 20% 14% 11% 17% 29% 24% 19% 15% 16% 26% 24% 20% 12% 21% 28% 21% 17% 2.10 1.05 0.52 1.02 1.12 Halogen Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 74% 20%

4% 1% 1% 72% 20% 6%%

1% 1% 79% 17%

3%

- 1% 73% 21%

5% 1% 1% 77% 19%

3% 1% <1% 1.20 0.44 0.22 1.31

-- Fluorescent Torchieres

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 83% 14%

3% 1% <1% 84% 14%

1%

-

- 85% 13%

2% <1%

- 83% 13%

3% 1% 1% 78% 17%

4%

- 1% 1.16 0.35 1.31

--

-- Fluorescent Tube Lights

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 11 or more 36% 33% 21%

8% 3% 42% 35% 15%

7% 1% 29% 40% 19%

8% 4% 38% 29% 22%

9% 3% 31% 40% 21%

4% 4% 1.02 0.58 0.69 2.39 2.28Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 134 

### Table 59. Miscellaneous Appliances – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Households with: Portable Fan 69% 74% 72% 69% 64%

-- Ceiling Fan 60% 51% 63% 61% 59% 1.02 Attic/Whole-house Fan 10% 6% 10% 11% 9% 0.78 Electronic Household Air Cleaner 9% 8% 10% 10% 8%

-- Humidifier 26% 19% 24% 28% 24% 1.24 Dehumidifier 46% 30% 39% 50% 53% 1.10 Heated Waterbed 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0.97 Sauna - electric 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0.97 Electric Whirlpool/Spa 5% 1% 2% 8% 3% 1.46 Electric Water Heater for Pool 1% 2% 0% 2% 1% 2.92 Pond/Well/Pool Pump 16% 11% 14% 17% 17% 1.45 Cordless Vacuum 16% 12% 15% 18% 14%

-- Battery Charger for Appliances 50% 37% 50% 58% 38%

-- Home Security System 19% 8% 13% 23% 20% 0.97 Elect. Exercise Equip. 18% 11% 13% 22% 13% 1.12 Electric Clocks/Clock Radios 82% 71% 80% 86% 78%

-- Mean Hours/Day for Dehumidifier

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 7.8 4.3 2.3 6.3 3.5 3.2 7.8 3.4 1.5 7.9 4.5 2.5 8.1 4.5 1.8 --

--

-- Mean Hours/Day for Pool Pumps

Summer Spring/Fall Winter 6.3 2.3 0.7 4.3 1.9 1.0 4.9 1.6 0.7 6.9 2.6 0.7 6.1 1.6 0.6 --

--

--Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 135 

### Table 60. Energy Efficiency – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor ENERGY STAR ® Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) Influenced Purchase Decision A 80% 66% 67% 55% 79% 65% 85% 71% 75% 63% --

-- Meaning of ENERGY STAR ® Label A

Government Endorsement 2% 2% 2% 1% 2%

-- Tested/Meets Standards 14% 14% 16% 13% 15%

-- High Quality 2% 2% 2% 1% 3%

-- Less Pollution/Good for Environment 3% 4% 3% 3% 3%

-- Uses Less Energy 76% 71% 74% 78% 76%

-- Lower Utility Bills 4% 7% 4% 3% 2%

-- ENERGYGuide Label

Familiar (very/somewhat) 76% 63% 73% 81% 73%

-- Information on ENERGYGuide Label B

Government Endorsement 5% 7% 6% 5% 6%

-- Product is Tested/Meets Standards 23% 24% 23% 23% 21%

-- High Quality 6% 9% 8% 5% 5%

-- Appliance Uses Less Energy 29% 37% 33% 26% 32%

-- How Much Energy the Appliance Uses 58% 48% 57% 61% 57%

-- Compares Energy Use to Similar Models 36% 24% 29% 40% 35%

-- Lower Utility Bills 19% 26% 19% 18% 17%

-- Est. Yearly Operating Cost 41% 29% 40% 44% 39%

-- Familiarity (very/somewhat) with Programs

Rebate Program Home Energy Audit Program 32% 37% 25% 29% 30% 34% 34% 39% 30% 40% --

-- ENERGY STAR ® Homes 18% 16% 18% 19% 17%

-- Home Performance with ENERGY STAR ® 13% 14% 11% 13% 13%

-- Products that Should Receive Rebates

Light Bulbs and Fixtures Clothes Washers Refrigerators/Freezers Dishwashers Room Air Conditioners Central Cooling Systems Heating Systems Windows Insulation Solar DWH Pool Pumps Geothermal Heat Pump 39% 35% 53% 16% 16% 26% 65% 60% 42% 20%

1% 10% 53% 38% 59% 12% 30% 10% 50% 53% 31% 19%

2% 7% 38% 36% 59% 15% 17% 19% 63% 60% 45% 19%

1% 11% 37% 34% 49% 16% 13% 31% 69% 62% 44% 22%

1% 10% 41% 36% 59% 20% 13% 21% 64% 53% 40% 17%

2% 8% --

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--Error! No text of specified style in document.

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 136 Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Interest in Services and Products

Green Power Rebate Programs Home Energy Audits 67% 78% 56% 65% 73% 54% 62% 75% 54% 71% 81% 59% 56% 73% 46% --

--

--
A Of customers who have seen the ENERGY STAR ® label before.

B Of customers who have seen the ENERGYGuide label before.



### Table 61. Profile of Respondents – by Income Category

Total (n=2,667) Low Income (n=395) Threshold (n=385) Not Low Income (n=1,415) No Response

(n=472) Adj. Factor Mean Age of Head-of-Household 51.6 51.4 51.9 50.6 55.0

-- Education Level

High School Graduate or Less College Graduate/Some College Postgraduate Degree 19% 51% 30% 48% 46%

6% 30% 57% 14% 8% 52% 40% 21% 50% 29% --

--

-- Mean Household Income 77,034 19,840 46,090 101,502 64,188

-- Mean Time Lived in Home 11.7 11.0 12.1 11.2 13.7

-- Mean Number of Occupants 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5

-- Primary Language not English 5% 14% 5% 4% 3%

--