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 Attributed to Selected 2008 Market 

Transformation Initiatives...................................................................................... 35 

Appendix 4. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive............................................... 36 

Appendix 5. Summary of 2008 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Reports ............... 37 
1

I. Executive Summary 

A. Introduction 

Since July 2001 the Cape Light Compact has delivered 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 filed the 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 in response 

to a DPU request to increase spending for residential heating programs 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 system retrofits through the RCS/MassSAVE 

program and, (d) increased public education and outreach efforts that underlie the 

delivery of all of the Compact’s programs. 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 funding as approved by the Department, the 

Compact implemented the following set 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 provides low-income housing development 

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

construction trade allies with incentives to increase the home energy rating of new 

low-income housing, are also included. 

In 2007, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative approved a $1.5 million 

grant to the Cape Light Compact in support 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 Construction 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 “environmental footprint” of homes and result in 

lower greenhouse gas emissions, including the cost of energy for those homes. The 

Green Affordable Housing Initiative aims to catalyze the affordable housing 

financing, development, and builder communities 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 incentives 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 Retrofit 1-4 row of Table 2 and in Section III. 

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

increase the availability and use of ENERGY STAR qualified lighting and 

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

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

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

Although the clothes washer initiative ended in program year 2007, certain eligible 

rebates from 2007 were paid and reported in 2008. Results of this program are 

divided appropriately between the Residential 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 installing efficient 

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

but more extensive in ability to leverage program benefits and offer higher 

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

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

Section III. 

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

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

efficient lighting, appliances and space heating measures. Results of this program 

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

III. 
3

• The Commercial and Industrial New Construction Program, which provides 

technical assistance and financial incentives to increase the efficiency in the 

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

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

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

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

provides technical and financial assistance to medium and large commercial and 

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

operating equipment and processes in their facilities with high-efficiency 

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

Table 4 and in Section III. 

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

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

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

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

in Section III. 

• The Government Agencies Program, which provides technical assistance and 

financial incentives1

 to all government facilities, including municipal, state and 

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

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

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

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

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

included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row. 

• The Commercial and Industrial Products and Services Program, which seeks to 

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

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

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

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

B. Report Organization 

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

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

tables summarizing the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, the nonelectric benefits (NEBs), and the dollar values of the total benefits2

 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 efficiency 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 Residential 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 presents our best estimate of the efficiency 

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

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

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

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

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

savings. It also includes a list of the evaluation studies that were used to prepare the 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 information regarding the number of program 

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

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

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

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

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

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

category) and savings (by type). 

C. Summary of Results 

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

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

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

2008 EEP. The values in the “Amount” column are the 2008 results, based on all 

evaluations available at this time. 

 

programs with additional capacity benefits in the 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 costs incurred by the Compact, except for monitoring 

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

verification costs, plus customer contributions. 

The Compact’s 2008 program implementation expenses were roughly 4% lower than the 

budgets in the Amended 2008 EEP and the total expenses were roughly 6% lower than 

the budgets in the Amended 2008 EEP. The lower program implementation expenses 

were primarily due to reduced program administrative costs. The reduced program 

administrative costs were due to the reorganization 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 through direct access to program support 

staff. Additionally, a portion of planned customer incentives and technical assistance that 

was unspent in 2008 was due to timing of completion 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 joint statewide and regional studies. 

The annual and lifetime energy savings achieved in 2008 were lower than those estimated 

in the Amended 2008 EEP (by 20% and 10%, respectively). 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 Lighting program, CFL and 

outdoor fixture uptake was lower than projected. However, the primary drivers of the 

savings declines were decreases in measure 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 conditioners and dehumidifiers was significantly 

lower than estimated. In the Low Income Retrofit 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 cost-effective, where every $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 the residential programs. It also presents the total cumulative 

benefits and costs, in 2008 present 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

Activity 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 44,847 62,262 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 benefits 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 program 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 savings for the Residential Lighting program 

due to the decreases in measure lives for 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 lifetime 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 Residential 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME kW

A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit

Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity
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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

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 present value dollars. These total benefits and 

costs are used to determine whether each program is cost-effective, based on the total 

resource cost test. 
9

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activity 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 information graphically as listed 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 program 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 updates 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

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 present 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

Activity 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 information as Table 4. They indicate that much 

of the energy and capacity savings and non-electric benefits come from the Small C&I 

Retrofit program; and that all of the programs are cost-effective. 

The evaluated lifetime MWh savings is slightly 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-electric 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

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 factors5

 that were used in the 2007 Annual Report and the 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 (referred to as the Amended 2008 EEP).6 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 2008 

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

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

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

Evaluation Studies Used in Preparing 2008 Evaluated Results 

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

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

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

its own programs. 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 update impact factors or to 

inform the process of program delivery are listed below. In 2008 the studies included a 

mix of process and impact evaluation and other 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 program impacts reflects the Compact’s efforts 

to apply appropriate methodologies and adjust them for individual program 

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

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

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

programs use several methodologies to develop overall impact results and provide 

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

are briefly described below. 

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

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

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

program managers as well as input to the impact evaluations. 

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

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

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

billing analysis techniques may include representative samples of both participants and 

non-participants in an evaluation. 

• In 2008, the Massachusetts program administrators jointly funded evaluation of 

New Homes with ENERGY STAR included 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 engineering estimates that are based on sitespecific metering and on-site telephone assessments of measure performance and 

persistence. 

Process and Market Progress Evaluation Studies. Process evaluations review energy 

efficiency program design and implementation, and recommend modifications to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

implementation plan are appropriate given the existing field conditions. 

• In 2008, the Cape Light Compact co-sponsored 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 calculations and planning assumptions. 

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

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

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

measures installed. Avoided costs are typically projected based on forecasting models. 
16

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

are all based on the avoided cost estimates that were used in preparing the 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 are taken from the following report: Synapse 

Energy Economics, Inc., Avoided Energy Supply Costs in New England, 2007 Final 

Report, prepared for the Avoided Energy Supply Component (AESC) Study Group, 

Revised - January 3, 2008. 

Generic Impact Equations 

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

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

Persistence Factor. 

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

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

typically based on engineering or billing analysis. 

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

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

In energy efficiency programs, spillover may occur among both participants and 

nonparticipants. Both participant and nonparticipant spillover were used in the 

calculation of savings for commercial 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 savings over time as indicated by followup surveys that confirm the measure remains installed, and verify it is operating as 

intended. As defined by the 2005 Measure Life 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 kWh to calculate lifetime kW and kWh. 

As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study7, measure life is “The median number of 

years that a measure is installed and operational. This definition implicitly includes 

equipment life and measure persistence, but not savings persistence....In addition, this 

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

national utilities.” 

 

7 Measure Life Study Report prepared for the Massachusetts Joint 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 monitor 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 benefits of this program. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio BenefitCost

Activity kWh kWh per

Cust kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB Activity perCust 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 Cost

Participant

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 residential non-electric benefits are from HVAC. 

The residential impact factors were updated by evaluation studies. There are significant 

differences between preliminary and evaluated results for Lighting. The evaluated 

lifetime MWh and lifetime kW savings and non-electric benefits are substantially lower 

than the preliminary lifetime MWh and lifetime kW savings and non-electric benefits for 

Lighting measures due to adjustments 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

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 COSTS

LIFETIME $ NE

B

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-Qualified Home); and, 

• An estimation of the value to homeowners of 7 non-electric impacts; and 

interviews with the owners of buildings 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-normalized energy consumption as observed on 

customer bills. 

The evaluation report also found that the recession and housing market 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. Additionally, the evaluation also found that the 

Program’s steps toward a market-driven model, 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 evaluation9 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. Results are based on a telephone surveys 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 and coincidence factor results could be obtained. 

 

8

 Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Findings and Analysis" by 

Nexus Market Research and Dorothy 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 appliance saturation survey10 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 penetration and saturation of Massachusetts 

homes with appliances and other energy using equipment. The study was conducted 

statewide, though program administrator-specific results were also provided. Cape Light 

Compact had the highest response rate (28%) of any population stratum/service territory 

included in the survey. While information from this survey is useful in planning and in 

understanding baseline levels of penetration 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 estimate the savings and benefits 

from this program. However, the study informed 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 contributes 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 perCust 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 Cost

Participant

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 factor was applied to account for this 

difference. 
22

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

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

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

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

usage of the low-income discount rate. The low income programs also have non-electric 

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

O&M savings and reduced water usage. 

There is no difference between the evaluated 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting
24

3. Program Evaluation 

No new evaluation activities have been conducted since the 2004 process evaluation of 

the low income program and the addition, in 2006, of low income non-electric benefits 

(NEBs) to the estimates of low income 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 incurred for the commercial & industrial 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 4. 

The Small C&I Retrofit Program contributes 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 perCustomer 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 Cost

Participant

2. By End Use 

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

programs. 

Most of the energy and capacity savings are obtained primarily from lighting measures 

and, to a lesser extent, from motors/drives measures. 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 evaluated 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting

3. Program Evaluation 

The Cape Light Compact conducted no new evaluations pertaining to commercial and 

industrial programs. 
27

Appendices
28

Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations12

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

have been taken into consideration. 

AMP Appliance Management Program 

BBRS Board of Building Regulations and Standards 

CAP Community Action Program 

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency 

CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamps 

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

demand. 

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

baseline lighting equipment and energy efficient lighting 

equipment. 

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

of equipment at a specific time, expressed in kilowatts. 

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

impact parameters applied to gross demand savings in the 

calculation of net demand savings. 

Diversity That characteristic of a variety of electric loads whereby 

individual maximum demands usually occur at different 

times. 

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

peak demand. 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOER Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources 

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

monitors sales of ENERGY STAR® appliances. 

DSM Demand Side Management 

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 glossary 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 kWh 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 same measure(s) on their own if 

the program had not been available. 

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

Gross kW Expected demand reduction based on a comparison of 

standard or replaced equipment, and equipment installed 

through an energy efficiency program. 

Gross kWh Expected kWh reduction based on a comparison of standard 

or replaced equipment, and equipment installed through an 

energy efficiency program. 

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

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

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

operates. 

Hours of Use Realization 

Rate 

Ratio of actual metered hours of use data to estimated hours 

of use data. 

HP Horsepower 

HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning 

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

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

developed during the evaluation of energy efficiency 

programs and used to calculate net savings. 

JMC The Joint Management Committee of utility and non-utility 

parties that manages the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program. 

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

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

circuit for a period of one hour. 

kW Kilowatt – A measure of electric demand – 1000 watts 

kW – Years See: Lifetime kW 

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

measure will be in service and producing savings. 

Lifetime kW The expected demand savings over the lifetime of an 
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 Progress and Evaluation Report, 

developed for various residential programs. 

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

kilowatts. 

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

1,000 kilowatt-hours. 

NATE North American Technician Excellence Program 

NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

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

all day of weekends and holidays) 

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

except holidays) 

Persistence Rate Percentage of first year energy or demand savings expected 

to persist over the life of the installed energy efficiency 

equipment; developed by conducting surveys of installed 

equipment several years after installation to determine 

presence and operational capability of the equipment. 

RCS Residential Conservation Services. Formerly Energy 

Conservation Services or ECS 

Seasonal (Winter/Summer) 

kW 

The net demand reduction during either the Winter or 

Summer seasons. 

Spillover Additional energy efficient equipment installed by customers 
31

that were influenced by the Company’s sponsored program, 

but without direct financial or technical assistance from the 

program. Spillover is separated into Participant and Nonparticipant factors. Non-participating customers may be 

influenced by product availability, publicity, education, and 

other factors that are affected by the program. 

Spillover Rate Estimate of energy savings attributable to spillover effects 

expressed as a percent of savings installed by participants 

through an energy efficiency program. 

VSD Variable Speed Drive 

WAP Weatherization Assistance Program 

Watt The basic electrical unit of power. 
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. Commercial & 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 represent the common assumptions developed by 

Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information 

on measures in statewide programs. The Residential 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 represent the common assumptions developed by 

Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information 

on measures in statewide programs. Low Income 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 Savings 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 preparing the evaluated results presented in this 

Annual Report. The executive summaries of these 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 2009 
22 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 Conant 
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR—2008 Overall Report 

Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1

PROGRAM OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 1

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Nexus Market Research
MA 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 Management Committee (JMC) in 

Massachusetts for 2008. Individual evaluation reports on which the findings and analysis 

contained in this document are based are included 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 applied 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 builders who participated in the free Compact 

Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) component of the Program in 2008 assessing the builders’ 

experience selecting, ordering and installing CFLs on their own rather than having HERS 

raters do installations as well as the impact of the 2008 protocol on the number and type 

of CFLs installed. (CFL Process, Appendix C) 

• Interviews with the 30 ENERGY STAR builders who participated in the free CFL 

component of the Program assessing their satisfaction with the Program, marketing 

ENERGY STAR homes, choosing a HERS rater and Program training offerings with 

comparisons to findings from 2007 interviews. (Builder Interviews, Appendix D) 

Program Overview 

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR Program qualified more than 980 housing 

units in 2008, bringing the total number of housing units ENERGY STAR qualified since 

Program inception to more than 14,300. The total number of housing units ENERGY STAR 

qualified in 2008 is 23% lower than in 2007, the number of total building permits issued in 

Massachusetts in 2008 is 36% lower and the estimated number of housing units completed in 

Massachusetts in 2008 is 33% lower. With the number of statewide completed housing units 

falling more sharply than the number of homes qualified, the penetration of ENERGY STAR 

housing units climbed. The estimated percentage 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 STAR homes climbed from 7% to 10%, and the 

penetration of multi-family ENERGY STAR units fell from 14% to 11%. 

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

Conclusions 

Evaluations of the 2008 Program covered relatively diverse areas—adjustment factors from 

billing analysis, valuation of NEIs, and review of the CFL installation process. These evaluations 

do, nonetheless, point to several overall conclusions and recommendations. 

The recession and housing market decline of 2008 has, not surprisingly, had significant effects 

on the Program. The number of ENERGY STAR homes qualified dropped, even as the 

penetration of ENERGY STAR housing increased, reflecting a much sharper percentage drop in 

the estimated number of housing units completed statewide than in the number of ENERGY 

STAR-qualified housing units built. However, 2008 also saw increases in the builders’ and, 

likely, the homeowners’ perceptions 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 interviewed builders saying that building ENERGY 

STAR homes and being able to market them as ENERGY STAR qualified is very (70% 

of builders) or somewhat (23% of builders)valuable 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 builders say awareness of and/or interest in 

buying ENERGY STAR homes has increased, and 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 valuing this feature, on average, almost as 

much as yearly energy bill savings. Homeowners 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 interviewed builders who have installed free CFLs under both 

the old and new processes like selecting, ordering 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 CFLs on their schedule, typically at the same 

Nexus Market Research
MA 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, saying both processes work 

equally well. 

• Listing marketing support offerings on the application form and asking builders to check 

the options they are interested in is very likely a factor contributing to the likelihood of 

builders taking advantage of available marketing support. The percentage of interviewed 

builders taking advantage of available marketing support options increased 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 recommendations deal with marketing the Program. 

• Continue marketing the Program to consumers to increase homebuyer awareness of 

and interest in the importance of energy efficiency 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 participating 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 and 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 encouraged to talk to prospective buyers about 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 builders, 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 flexibility 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-wired screw-based fixtures, offering both approaches allows 

experienced ENERGY STAR builders who are comfortable selecting CFLs on their own 

and prefer having the CFLs on site to install when the light fixtures are installed to do so. 

Nexus Market Research
MA 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 STAR 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 STAR 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, Consultant 
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report 

Table of Contents 

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

1.1 METRICS ..........................................................................................................................................................1

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

1.1.2 Support Residential New Construction Code development...................................................................1

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

2.1 MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING PERMITS...............................................................................................................2

2.2 ANNUAL SIGNED HOUSING UNITS ...................................................................................................................4

2.2.1 Recruited Housing Units Compared to Statewide Permits Issued .........................................................4

2.3 PARTICIPATING HOUSING UNITS AS PERCENTAGE OF STATEWIDE COMPLETED HOUSING UNITS ....................5

2.4 HERS RATINGS ...............................................................................................................................................7

2.5 SPENDING PER PARTICIPATING HOUSING UNIT ..............................................................................................10

3 2008 HOUSING UNITS COMPLETED.........................................................................................................13

4 DISTRIBUTION OF COMPLETIONS ACROSS SPONSOR TERRITORIES ........................................16

4.1 ELECTRIC SPONSOR TERRITORIES..................................................................................................................17

4.2 GAS SPONSOR TERRITORIES...........................................................................................................................18

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

5.1 2008 RECRUITED PROJECTS BY SIZE—NUMBER OF UNITS ............................................................................20

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

6.1 ELECTRIC SPONSOR TERRITORIES..................................................................................................................23

6.2 GAS SPONSOR TERRITORIES...........................................................................................................................25

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

7.1 CHANGES IN TYPES OF CFLS INSTALLED—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 ................................................................................................................................................33
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report 

Tables 

TABLE 2-1: ANNUAL PROGRAM SPENDING, SIGNINGS AND COMPLETIONS.....................................10

TABLE 4-1: ELECTRIC SPONSOR 2008 COMPLETED HOUSING UNITS ..................................................16

TABLE 4-2: GAS SPONSOR 2008 COMPLETED HOUSING UNITS...............................................................16

TABLE 6-1: ELECTRIC SPONSOR SIGNED PROJECTS AND HOUSING UNITS ......................................22

TABLE 6-2: GAS SPONSOR SIGNED PROJECTS AND HOUSING UNITS...................................................22

TABLE 12-1: 2008 PARTICIPATING HERS RATERS.......................................................................................33

Figures 

FIGURE 2-1: MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING PERMITS ISSUED 1980 – 2008.................................................2

FIGURE 2-2: YEAR-TO-DATE TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED 2002 – 2009 ..........................................................3

FIGURE 2-3: YEAR-TO-DATE SINGLE FAMILY PERMITS ISSUED 2002 – 2009........................................3

FIGURE 2-4: YEAR-TO-DATE MULTI-FAMILY 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 HOUSING UNITS COMPLETED...........................6

FIGURE 2-7: ENERGY STAR COMPLETIONS AS PERCENT OF STATEWIDE 

COMPLETIONS ..................................................................................................................................6

FIGURE 2-8: ENERGY STAR, EMU AND CODE PLUS COMPLETIONS AS PERCENT OF 

STATEWIDE COMPLETIONS .........................................................................................................6

FIGURE 2-9: 1999 – 2008 AVERAGE HERS RATINGS .......................................................................................7

FIGURE 2-10: 2007 AND 2008 HERS INDICES* ...................................................................................................8

FIGURE 2-11: 2008 HERS INDICES—ALL HOUSING UNITS...........................................................................9

FIGURE 2-12: 2008 HERS INDICES—SINGLE FAMILY HOMES....................................................................9

FIGURE 2-13: 2008 HERS INDICES—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 COMPLETIONS BY HOUSING TYPE .......................................................................13

FIGURE 3-2: 2008 MARKET RATE COMPLETIONS BY HOUSING TYPE..................................................14

FIGURE 3-3: 2008 LOW INCOME COMPLETIONS BY HOUSING TYPE....................................................15

FIGURE 4-1: ELECTRIC SPONSOR 2008 COMPLETED ENERGY STAR AND CODE PLUS 

HOUSING UNITS ..............................................................................................................................17

FIGURE 4-2: GAS SPONSOR 2008 COMPLETED ENERGY STAR AND CODE 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 MARKET RATE VERSUS LOW INCOME HOUSING 

UNITS SIGNED..................................................................................................................................19

FIGURE 5-3: 2003—2008 SIGNED PROJECTS BY NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS PER 

PROJECT............................................................................................................................................20
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report 

FIGURE 5-4: 2003—2008 SIGNED HOUSING 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 SPONSOR SIGNED TOTAL, MARKET 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 HOUSING UNITS INSTALLING CFLS 2002 – 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: ENVELOPE LEAKAGE (ACH50)................................................................................................32

FIGURE 11-2: PERCENT OF 2008 HOUSING UNITS WITH ACH50 GREATER 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...................................................................................................................................................34
MA 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 performance 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 metrics 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 appropriate 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 completed 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 options for adopting a residential energy code at 

least as stringent as the national ENERGY STAR Homes standard in Massachusetts municipalities, and 

facilitate one introductory meeting among communities. 

Design: Encourage at least three municipalities to pursue 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 estimated total annual housing units completed in 

Massachusetts. As these figures will show, while the number 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 the drop in the number of homes completed through the 

Program in 2008, completed ENERGY STAR-qualified homes 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 three 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 number 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 2008

Massachusetts Housing Permits Issued

Multi-family

Single Family

Total Massachusetts Permits
MA 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% lower 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

Year-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 Compared to Statewide Permits Issued 

Figure 2-5 shows new housing units recruited to participate 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 committed to being built to ENERGY STAR standards; 

2006 signings include both ENERGY STAR and Energy Measure Upgrade (EMU) housing units; 2007 

and 2008 signings include both ENERGY STAR and Code Plus housing units. From 2003 through 2006 

signings were tracked by housing type—single family 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 Signings
MA 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 units qualified each year through the Program as 

a percentage of estimated total annual completed 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 year, 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 sharply. In 2008, the number of total housing units 

ENERGY STAR qualified fell farther, by 300 housing units or 23%. However, completed ENERGY 

STAR housing units as a percentage of estimated total 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 housing2

, 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 Massachusetts 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 Code Plus participation paths. Including housing 

units participating though 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 housing units as a percentage of estimated total 

housing units completed in Massachusetts climbed from 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 through 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 are 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-conditioning 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 Completions
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 7 

2.4 HERS Ratings 

Through 2005, all ENERGY STAR-qualified housing units were rated using the classic HERS score.3 In 

2006, the HERS index4

 approach to rating homes was introduced; most homes qualified in 2006 (92%) 

were rated using the classic HERS score. Homes completed 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 improved each year. The average classic HERS score of 

housing units qualified in 1999 was 86.7 and by 2006 climbed 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% increase 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 2008

Classic 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 increase 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 HERS 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_HERS
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 8 

Figure 2-10 compares the percentage of ENERGY STAR-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 qualified 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 indication 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 builders 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 Lower

Percent 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 page show the individual HERS indices achieved by 

homes qualified in 2008 for all qualified homes, qualified single family homes and qualified multi-family 

units, respectively. As shown, the average HERS index 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 single family homes is 67 and for multi-family units is 

65. The range of HERS indices achieved by single family 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 Units

HERS 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 Homes

HERS 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 Units

HERS Index

Minimum (best) 44 

Average

Median

&

Tier II 

Incentive 

Level

65

2008 HERS Indices

Tax Credit 

50
MA 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-ENERGY 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 housing units signed in 2008 likely reflects the combined 

impact of increased Program marketing and aggressive 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-family 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 completed statewide in 2008 fell by more than the 

percentage of housing units completed through the Program (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 Estimate
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 11 

Figure 2-14 shows annual spending by electric Program Sponsors increased each year from 2000 to 2006, 

then declined sharply in 2007, predominantly 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 Division 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 unit 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 spending per signed housing unit is the result of the 

number of units signed increasing by a higher percentage 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 Unit
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 13 

3 2008 Housing Units Completed 

Figure 3-1 shows the allocation of 2008 completions between single family and multi-family for 

combined ENERGY STAR and Code Plus completions; 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 completions; only ENERGY STAR completions; and only 

Code Plus completions. 

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

2008 Market Rate 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 completions; 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)

Single 

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 ENERGY 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 ENERGY 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 1,396 
MA 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 completed in 2008 in each of the electric Sponsors’ 

service areas and in municipal electric service areas; and the percentage of total Code Plus housing units 

completed in 2008 in each of the electric Sponsors’ service 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 housing units completed in 2008 in each of the gas 

Sponsors’ service areas and no gas Sponsor areas; and the percentage of total completed Code Plus 

housing units in 2008 in each of the gas Sponsors’ service areas and no gas sponsor areas. 

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

Bay State

10%

BRKSH

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 annual 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 2008

Percent 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 2008

Percent of Units Signed

Market Rate Units Low Income Units
MA 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 Units
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 21 

Figure 5-5 is another way of showing the very high percentage of projects signed in 2008 that have very 

few housing units and includes the number of units in the individual very large projects. Going forward it 

will be interesting to see if the percentage of one- and two-unit projects decreases as the Program moves 

further toward a market driven model using independent HERS raters to recruit projects. HERS raters will 

likely target multiple unit projects because those projects are more profitable, requiring less time per 

housing unit to service than single-home projects. On the other hand, if the number of one- and two-unit 

projects is predominantly driven by small builders who want to participate in the Program and 

homeowners who want their custom home built to ENERGY 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 2008

Number 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 Units
MA 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 1,344 
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 23 

6.1 Electric Sponsor Territories 

Figure 6-1 shows the percentage of total projects, market 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’ service 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% Muni 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%

WMECo 6%

CLC 4%

 2008 Total Signed Units

(n=4,854)

NSTAR

52%

WMECo 6%

CLC 2%

Muni National 2%

Grid 38%

2008 Signed Market Rate Units

(n=3,510) 

CLC 7%

WMECo 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, market 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%

BRKSH

4%

2008 Total Signed Projects

(n=432)

No Gas 

Sponsor

18%

Bay State

15%

NSTAR

19%

National 

Grid

42%

NE 2%

BRKSH 4%

2008 Signed Market Rate Projects

(n=332) 

No Gas

Sponsor

9%

Bay State

24%

NSTAR

10%

National 

Grid

51%

NE 2%

BRKSH

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 

No Gas 5%

Bay State 

18%

NSTAR 

17%

National 

Grid

55%

BRKSH

4%

 2008 Total Signed Units

(n=4,584) 

No Gas

Sponsor

6%

Bay State 

17%

NSTAR

21%

National 

Grid

52%

BRKSH 4%

2008 Signed Market Rate Units

(n=3,510) 

No Gas

Sponsor

5%

Bay State 

18%

NSTAR

9%

National 

Grid

64%

BRKSH 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 conducted; 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 the free CFLs and received an incentive of $2 for each 

CFL they installed. Figure 7-1 shows the percentage 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 measures 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 the 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%

0% 6%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Percent of ENERGY STAR Homes Installing CFLs
MA 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 verified 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 remain 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). Capsules 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 percentages 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 CFLs 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% 5% 3% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Spirals Reflectors

& Floods

Capsules Candelabra

Base

Globes 3-Way

CFLS

Dimmable 

Floods &

Spirals

Percent 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 conditioning. 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 ENERGY 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 ENERGY STAR central air conditioning remains low. The 

percentages of ENERGY STAR homes installing ENERGY STAR central air conditioning in 2007 and 

2008 are percentages of homes with central air conditioning. (Comparable percentages are not available 

prior to 2007 because data on the number of ENERGY STAR central air conditioning units installed were 

available, but not on the number of homes with central 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 installed in ENERGY STAR-qualified 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 – 2008 52% 69%73%77% 56% 87% 83% 72% 86% 77% 19% 77% 37% 66% 53%

0%

12%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Windows Heating Systems Central A/C

Percent 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/C
MA 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 percentages of ENERGY STAR-qualified and Code Plus 

housing units installed ENERGY STAR heating systems in 2008, and Code Plus housing units with 

central air conditioning were more likely than ENERGY STAR-qualified housing units with central air 

conditioning to have ENERGY STAR air conditioning systems. At the same time, Code Plus housing 

units were much less likely than ENERGY STAR-qualified 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 Units
MA 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 conditioned floor area. However, duct leakage testing is 

not required if all ducts and air handling equipment are in conditioned space and envelope leakage is 

3 ACH50 or less. The majority of homes participating in the Program have ducts—98% of ENERGY 

STAR and 100% of Code Plus homes completed 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 Code Plus housing units had all ducts installed in conditioned space. 

In addition, in 2008, 72% of the ENERGY STAR-qualified housing units and 45% of the Code Plus 

housing units with all ducts in conditioned space had envelope 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 ENERGY 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, minimum and maximum duct leakage measured in the 

2008 housing units where duct leakage testing was required. 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 2007. Average duct leakage in 2008 Code Plus homes 

requiring testing is 6.4 and the average over all ENERGY 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

Minimum
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 32 

11 Envelope Leakage 

For many years the Massachusetts Program required housing 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 Massachusetts Program dropped the envelope leakage 

requirement. Figure 11-1 shows the average, minimum and maximum ACH50 measured 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 lower 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 > 5
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 33 

12 HERS Raters 

Eleven HERS rating companies participated in the 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 completed ENERGY STAR housing units and the number 

of housing units signed in 2008 that each rater is working with. The number 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 4,854 
MA New Homes with ENERGY STAR 2008 Progress Report Page 34 

Figure 12-1 shows the percentage of housing units completed by each rater in 2008 that were Code Plus, 

ENERGY STAR I and ENERGY STAR II. Figure 12-2 shows 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% 11% 13% 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 & K

Percent of Units and 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, Rhode Island, and Vermont 

Submitted by: 

Nexus Market Research, Inc. 

RLW Analytics, Inc. 

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

Nexus Market Research
FINAL 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 would assist in their calculations of demand and 

energy savings for CFLs obtained through these programs (hereafter, markdown CFLs). 

Specifically, the report presents load shapes, coincidence factors, delta watts, daily and annual 

hours of use, and first-year and lifetime installation 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 participating homes at the time of the on-site 

survey. 

This executive summary summarizes the highlights and key findings of these activities. 

It is important to note that the evaluation team designed the RDD 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 sponsors; 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 necessitated 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 demographics, housing characteristics, or other 

issues that may help explain some of the 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 markdown CFLs to obtain the necessary information to update demand 

and energy savings parameters. It was not designed 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 that may affect lighting in the home. 

1.1 Task 2: Develop Sample of Product Purchasers (Chapter 3) 

The NMR team relied on a brief RDD survey designed solely to determine if respondents had 

recently purchased and installed any markdown CFLs. We fielded the survey twice: the first 

from December 5 to December 16, 2007, to recruit households for the winter on-site logging 

panel, and the second in February 11 to March 10, 2008, to recruit households for the summer 

on-site logging panel. As soon as the interviewer 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 average respondent spent less than five minutes on 
FINAL Final Report Residential Lighting Markdown Evaluation –1/20/2009 Page 2 

Nexus Market Research 

the phone. It is important to keep in mind that the panel season refers to when the products were 

logged and not when they were obtained. Respondents purchased products 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. Overall, about 10% of the respondents 

surveyed were both eligible for the on-site study and willing to take part in it. The lack of any 

recent purchases (43%) served as the most common 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 recentCFLs

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 information to help us explain this unexpected finding.1

 

1

 A reviewer voiced concern that awareness in this survey was lower than that estimated 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 were included). We believe the discrepancy relates to the 

fact that the Massachusetts study included numerous call backs to boost response rates in an effort to represent the 

state population while the current survey focused less on response 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 ‘recruited individuals’—that 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 may be more committed to CFLs than the other 

recent purchasers. While we did not collect information during the RDD survey to explore this 

question in more detail, the analyses 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 the 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

Allrecentpurchasers ‐ Winter

Allrecentpurchasers ‐ 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 participants through the RDD survey, we created a sample design 

for the on-site visits that ensured 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 disposition of products reported through the RDD 

survey, as well as additional recently purchased markdown products identified 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 panels are discussed in 

Chapter Error! Reference source not found.. 

Table 1–1: Disposition of Products Reported as Purchased during 

RDD Phone Survey and All Qualified 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 reported 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 1,073a 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 greater 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 Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont (26%).3

 They also had 

a predisposition toward lower wattage lighting 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 devoted to CFLs and to have lower wattage lighting 

products installed throughout their 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 such respondents have more multiple-socket fixtures 

or circuits rated only for lower wattage products instead of a few higher-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 installing lower-wattage products to reduce the electricity costs 

associated with having so many sockets in their homes. 

1.3 Task 5: Energy and Demand Savings (Chapter 5) 

This task involved the calculation and estimation of various parameters related to energy savings 

resulting from the use of markdown lighting products. Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4 present the 

winter and summer lighting profiles and Table 1–2 summarizes the energy savings parameters, 

with related precision factors for the coincidence 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 the percentage of CFL operation during a period of 

interest and are one component of the demand reduction calculation. 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 other 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 customer 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 markdown CFLs that get 

installed within a year of their purchase, while the 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 Profilea

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

Hour

Percent On

December

January

Winter
FINAL 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 Profilea

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

Hour

Percent 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 1,022b 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 
MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTIAL 

APPLIANCE SATURATION SURVEY 

(RASS)

VOLUME 1: SUMMARY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Final 

Prepared for: 

CAPE LIGHT COMPACT 

NATIONAL GRID 

NSTAR ELECTRIC 

UNITIL 

WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY 

Prepared by: 

OPINION DYNAMICS CORPORATION 

230 Third Avenue 

Third Floor 

Waltham, MA 02451 

(617) 492-1400 

www.opiniondynamics.com 

Contact: Antje Siems, Senior Project Manager 

April 2009
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................4

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................6

1. HOME CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................10

2. SPACE HEATING ..............................................................................10

3. SPACE COOLING..............................................................................10

4. WATER HEATING.............................................................................10

5. BUILDING SHELL.............................................................................10

6. LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ......................................................................10

7. FOOD PREPARATION ........................................................................10

8. REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS..........................................................10

9. ENTERTAINMENT EQUIPMENT .............................................................10

10.HOME OFFICE.................................................................................10

11.LIGHTING ......................................................................................10

12.MISCELLANEOUS APPLIANCES ............................................................10

13.ENERGY EFFICIENCY ........................................................................10

14.PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ................................................................10

DATA SUMMARY BY ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR ..10

DATA SUMMARY BY BUILDING TYPE..........................................................10

DATA SUMMARY BY PRIMARY HEATING FUEL ..............................................10

DATA SUMMARY BY INCOME CATEGORY .....................................................10
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page ii 

TABLE OF TABLES

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..........................................................................................10

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 Energy Efficiency Program Administrator...............10

Table 13. Refrigerators and Freezers – by Electric 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.........................................................................10
MA 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.........................................................................................10

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

TABLE OF FIGURES

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.) .........................................................................................10

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

Figure 28. Timeline for Installation/Replacement of Central AC.............................................10

Figure 29. Timeline for Installation/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.............................................................................................10

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.) .......................................................................................10

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.)......................................................................................10

Figure 57: Refrigerator Size (Adj.)...............................................................................................10
MA 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 Saturation 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 Saturation 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.............................................................................................10
MA 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 Comparison with Massachusetts Residents...............10

Figure 91. Years in Surveyed Home ...........................................................................................10

Figure 92. Household Size ..........................................................................................................10

Figure 93. Primary Language Spoken at Home.........................................................................10
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Five Massachusetts electric energy efficiency program administrators – Cape Light Compact, 

National Grid, NSTAR Electric, Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company 

(hereafter collectively referred to as “the Sponsors”) – retained Opinion Dynamics 

Corporation to conduct a state-wide residential appliance saturation survey (RASS). The 

study effort consisted of a mail/Internet survey of close to 3,000 Massachusetts residential 

customers and an in-home verification of customer-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 seen 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 was 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 

INTRODUCTION

Five Massachusetts electric energy efficiency program administrators – Cape Light Compact, 

National Grid, NSTAR Electric, Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company 

(hereafter collectively referred to as “the Sponsors”) – retained Opinion Dynamics 

Corporation to conduct a state-wide residential appliance saturation survey (RASS). The 

study effort consisted of a mail/Internet survey of close to 3,000 Massachusetts residential 

customers and an in-home verification of customer-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 analysis 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 Efficiency 
Introduction 

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 section 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 

METHODOLOGY

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 response rates, all written communications 

with customers were conducted on specially-designed stationary, displaying the logos 

of all five Sponsors. The cover letter included a reference to a website and a personal 

identification number (PIN), and offered customers 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 the completed survey by the specified 

deadline. 

Postcard reminders and a second copy of the 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 customers 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 electric 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 allocating 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 discussed below). To maintain an overall sample 

size of 12,000, the sample sizes of all other 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" substrata. 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" stratum 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 Electric Light. NSTAR's sample was first 

allocated among these three strata, and then among the "electric heat" and "nonelectric heat" substrata. Again, a proportional approach was used, which was then 

adjusted to achieve 10% precision for each substratum. 

Table 2 below summarizes, for each stratum and substratum, the population and 

sample sizes, the expected number of completed surveys (assuming a 25% response 

rate), and the expected precision levels (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 was drawn at random from the Sponsors’ 

customer databases to provide a statistically valid representation of the population. 

For the 40 Massachusetts municipal utilities, 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, sample weights were estimated as the ratio of 

the percentage of the population the stratum 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 all survey responses (120 / 2,667; see Table 

3). As a result, the sample weight for municipal utilities is 1.37 (6.15% / 4.50%). 

Table 3 summarizes the mail survey statistics – 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 - Non-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% 0.35 
Methodology 

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 completed surveys) were set aside and excluded 

from further consideration. Completed surveys 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 override 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 responses 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 determine the significance of differences 

observed between comparison groups: percentages were compared using the 

independent z-test for proportions/percentages; means were compared using the 

independent t-test for means (unequal variances). 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 different 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 significance 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 four analyzed key variables: 1) energy efficiency 

program administrator, 2) building type of the residence, 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 customers. It is calculated by dividing 

the total number of a particular appliance (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 questions 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 all 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 were 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 result, 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 adjust 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 adjust the mail survey responses for the items 

listed above.2 This method first develops an adjustment 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 Adjustment Factor =

 Step 2: Y sa = Adjustment Factor *Y s

Where: 

Ysa = adjusted mean/proportion for the item 

Xo = mean/proportion from the 118 in-home visits 

Yo = mean/proportion from the survey responses for the 118 households 

with in-home visits 

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

Consider the following example: 

The in-home visits found that 95% of refrigerators are frost free and 5% are manual defrost. 

By contrast, the mail survey responses provided 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: 1.06

90%

95% Adjustment Factor = =

Manual defrost refrigerators: 0.47

10%

5% Adjustment Factor = =

All mail survey respondents reported that 91% of refrigerators are frost free while 5% are 

manual defrost. Multiplying the adjustment factors by the proportions reported by all survey 

respondents yields: 

Frost-free refrigerators: Adjusted Value = 91%*1.06 = 96%

 

2 Judith T. Lessler and William D. Kalsbeek. Nonsampling Error in Surveys. 1992. p. 269. 
Methodology 

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

Manual defrost refrigerators: Adjusted Value = 9%*0.47 = 4%

When adjusting proportions, one has to be careful about how to use the results. When the 

data is categorical data, as in the example above, 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 decimal 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 proportions. In this case, the rebasing would look 

as follows: 

Frost-free refrigerators: Rebased Value 95.8%

100.5%

96.2% = =

Manual defrost refrigerators: Rebased Value 4.2%

100.5%

4.3% = =

In this example, rebasing the adjusted proportions 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 results of these adjustment calculations. 

Table 4. Adjustment Example 

Frost-free Manual Defrost 

Onsite results (Xo) 95% 5% 

Mail results for onsite HH (Yo) 90% 10% 

Adjustment Factor 1.06 0.47 

Mail results for all surveys (Ys) 91% 9% 

Adjusted Mail results for all surveys (Ysa) 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 adjustment 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 should 
Methodology 

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

be noted that the sample size for the onsite audits (118) was insufficient to develop 

separate adjustment factors for subgroups of interest (such as by program 

administrator, building type, primary fuel type, or income category). Therefore, when 

adjusting results that are presented by subgroup, a single adjustment factor was 

used across all groups. While there is no reason that subgroups should differ in their 

ability to provide correct answers to the mail 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 presented in Sections 1 through 14. 
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 17 

1. HOME CHARACTERISTICS

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 are 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 single 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 percentage of homeowner customers, it is not 

surprising that they also have the largest percentage of single family customers of all service 

providers. Low income customers more often live 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%

14% 7%

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, halls, 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

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

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 their 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 basement (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. SPACE HEATING

Ninety-two percent of Massachusetts residential customers pay to heat their home. Seven 

percent of customers have heat included in their rent or condo fee, and less than 1% report 

that the home for which they completed the survey is not heated. National Grid and NSTAR 

customers are more likely than other Massachusetts customers to have heating costs 

included in their rent or condo fee, reflecting the fact that they more often 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 electricity as their primary source of heat (adj.). 

CLC and NSTAR customers are more likely to use natural gas to heat 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%

53% 62%

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 varies 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 four units are more likely to have a natural gas 

system, and customers who live an apartment building 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%

4% 2%

9% 5% 1% 1%

53%

45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

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

n=2,367 Natural Gas Oil Electric Other

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 later). 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 water 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=2,367
Space 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 electric 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 Massachusetts customers. Low income customers 

are less likely to have an additional heating system. 

NSTAR customers, customers that live in an apartment 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, customers 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) use 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 that 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-three 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 years) 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%

15% 10% 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 years
Space 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 use oil (1.7 thermostats) or natural gas (1.6 

thermostats) as a primary fuel (adj.). 

Over half of Massachusetts residential customers are using only standard thermostats (adj.). 

Low income customers have fewer thermostats 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 use electric heat as their primary fuel type, 

and customers with heating systems over 20 years 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 systems 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 higher 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 gas 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-7pm

7pm-6am

1pm-5pm

9am-1pm

6am-9am
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 29 

3. SPACE COOLING

Overall, 81 percent of customers have some type of space cooling (adj.). Of those 

customers, 18% have only central air conditioning, 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.). Customers 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 central 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 Central 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 systems 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 conditioning 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 oldest central air conditioning systems (9.7 

years), compared to those built before 1970 (7.0 years) and those built after 1999 (4.3 
Space Cooling 

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

years), reflecting more recent additions or replacements 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 customers 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=765
Space Cooling 

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

Cape Light Compact customers, customers with electric 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-7pm

7pm-6am

1pm-5pm

9am-1pm

6am-9am

Room Air Conditioners 

Sixty-four percent of customers have room air conditioners. National Grid customers, 

customers who live in homes built before 2000, and low income customers are more likely 

to have room air conditioners. 

Customers who have room air conditioners have an average of two units. 

The average age of customers’ room air conditioners is 6.5 years (adj.). Customers that live 

in an apartment building with five or more units 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, customers 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 those 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 systems more frequently from the early evening 

through the night with around one-third of customers 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 currently 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 central air conditioning system in the next one to 

two years. 

Twenty-nine percent of customers that currently have a central air conditioning system are 

very or somewhat likely to replace that system. However, over 70% of those customers are 

planning to wait three or more years before making the replacement. 

Figure 28. Timeline for Installation/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 more
Space Cooling 

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

Fifteen percent of customers who do not currently have a room air conditioning unit are very 

or somewhat likely to install one 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 have 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 more
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 36 

4. WATER HEATING

Eighty-five percent of Massachusetts residential 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. Customers 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 the fuel types for space 

heating. However, compared to space heating 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=2,128
Water Heating 

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

Compared to other Massachusetts customers, customers 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 built before 2000 are more likely to heat their 

water using oil. 

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

76%

1% 4% 0%

49%

54%

9%

30%

48%

14% 13%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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

n=2,128 Natural Gas Oil Electric Other

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 cooling 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 systems 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, reflecting 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 customers 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 than 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 showerheads 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/faucets
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 40 

5. BUILDING SHELL

Insulation 

Seventy-five percent of Massachusetts residential 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-family 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 customers. Conversely, low income customers 

(22%) and NSTAR customers (14%) are more likely 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 customers 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=1,194
Building Shell 

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 41 

Windows 

Seventy-five percent of customers have double panes 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 windows 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 window 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=2,431
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 42 

6. LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT

Penetration of Laundry Equipment 

Eighty-six percent of Massachusetts residential 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 laundry 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 equipment 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 customers living in multi-family and other types of 

homes (including mobile homes). Customers who live in multi-family homes of five or more 

units and low income customers are more likely 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 served 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 they 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 customers 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%

19% 18%

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 customers 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 multi-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 laundry 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 per 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%

40% 41%

20% 21%

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 residential customers have clothes dryers for their 

private use (adj.). Of those customers, 82% own an electric dryer and 18% own a natural gas 

dryer. Less than 1% own a dryer powered by bottled gas (adj.). Customers in single-family 

homes and in multi-family homes of two to four units are more likely to own a natural gas 
Laundry 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% 5% 6% 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 dry 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% 6% 5% 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. FOOD PREPARATION

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 extremely high at 95% among all Massachusetts 

customers (adj.). Single family homes have the highest penetration of microwave ovens at 

97% (adj.). “George Foreman”-type indoor grills 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 family 
Food 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. Customers 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 winter 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 their 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 Never
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 52 

8. REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS

Penetration and Saturation 

Virtually all Massachusetts households (99.6%) have 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 customers 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 doors; 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 (19-22 cu. ft.; 36%) or very large (over 22 cu. ft.; 

39%) in size (adj.). Primary refrigerators tend 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 very large refrigerators. In addition, newer 

refrigerators tend to be larger than older refrigerators, 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, compared 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, whereas 
Refrigerators and Freezers 

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 54 

second refrigerators are more likely to be former primary refrigerators that have been 

relegated to secondary status when 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.). Not 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=541

 
Refrigerators and Freezers 

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 56 

Most of the stand-alone freezers are small (less 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 upright manual defrost models, while the largest 

percentage of recently purchased freezers are upright, 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. ENTERTAINMENT EQUIPMENT

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 their 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 television 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, large: 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 TVs 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’ additional TVs, followed by small screen LCD 

TVs. There is very little difference between customer’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% 3% 2% 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 Massachusetts residential customers are turned on 

4.9 hours on weekdays and 5.8 hours on weekend 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 Weekend
Entertainment Equipment 

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 61 

Fifty-nine percent of customers use their primary 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 Use of TVs on Weekdays 

36%

15%

70%

29%

23% 22%

15%

28% 27%

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 customers (83%) use a DVD player in their home 

(adj.). Additionally, 75% of customers have a stereo and 61% have a digital cable box (adj.). 

Customers in single-family home are more likely to use home audio and TV accessories than 

those living in buildings with five or more units. 

Customers are most likely to have multiple digital 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. These 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 likely 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. HOME OFFICE

Working from Home 

Seventeen percent of Massachusetts residential customers report that they (or someone in 

their 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 residential 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 one 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%

19% 20%

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 machine (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 addition, 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. LIGHTING

Lighting Penetration 

Ninety-seven percent of Massachusetts residents have standard incandescent light bulbs in 

their home (adj.). Additionally, 72% have compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and 60% 

have fluorescent tube lights (adj.). Much fewer 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 more 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 incandescent 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 multi-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 correctly identify CFLs: 14% of customers report 

having one or more CFLs while the in-home visit showed that they have none. 

Figure 79. Comparison of Number of CFLs: Self-Reported v. Fieldwork Adjusted 

14%

26%

18% 19%

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=2,112
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 70 

12. MISCELLANEOUS APPLIANCES

Penetration and Saturation 

Massachusetts residential customers use a variety 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, humidifiers, 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%

Saturation

3%

2%

9%

7%

1%

n=2,522 Penetration

*In home verifications not available 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 dehumidifiers 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 average) 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 average 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 Day
MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 73 

13. ENERGY EFFICIENCY

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 standards. These findings indicate strong awareness of the ENERGY 

STAR® label and high levels of knowledge regarding 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 purchase 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 and 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 information that the EnergyGuide label provides. Over half of 
Energy 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 meanings 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%

Appliance Energy Use

Estimated Yearly Operating Cost

Energy Use Comparison

Appliance Uses Less Energy

Tested, Meets Standards

Lower Utility Bills

High Quality

Government Endorsement

n=2,107

*Of customers who have seen the EnergyGuide label before. 

Knowledge of Energy Efficiency Programs 

Knowledge of utility-sponsored energy efficiency 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 “somewhat familiar” responses. 

Interest in Energy Efficiency Products and Services 

While awareness of utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs is relatively low, interest 

levels among Massachusetts customers are high: 78% of customers are interested in 

rebates for the purchase of energy efficient products or energy efficient home 

improvements; 67% are interested in green power; and 56% are interested in home energy 

audits. Non-low income customers are more interested 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 program. Heating systems and windows are the most 

popular choices, with 65% and 60% of customers 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/freezers (53%), insulation (43%), light bulbs and 

fixtures (36%), and clothes washers (35%). 

Compared to non-low income customers, low income customers are more likely to say that 

refrigerators and freezers (59%), light bulbs and fixtures (53%), and room air conditioners 

(30%) should receive rebates. 

Table 5. Interest in Product Rebates 

Energy Efficient Products 1st 

(n=1,892)

2nd 

(n=1,839)

3rd 

(n=1,813)

4th 

(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. PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

This section presents information about the residential customers that participated in the 

Home Energy Survey. In addition to providing key information about participating customer 

demographics, comparing this information with Massachusetts’ census data provides an 

indication of how representative survey respondents 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 respondents is approximately 52 years. Customers 

served by Cape Light Compact and the municipal 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 older9. 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/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&ds_nam

e=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US25 
Profile 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 not provide information about their household 

income. Among respondents who did share earnings 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 household 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=2,276
Profile of Respondents 

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 79 

The annual household income of survey respondents 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 income 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 created as a result of differences between the 

income categories used in the Home Energy Survey and those used by the U.S. Census. Note that 

American Community Survey income 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 largest percentage of seasonal residents of all 

electric service providers (42%). NSTAR customers 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 Community Survey.” U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

2007. Online at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_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 households 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 households have at least one member 60 years or 

older. Survey respondents are also representative 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%

6% 2% 2% 6%

1%

16% 15%

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 English is the primary language spoken in their 

homes (94.4%). While Spanish is the second most 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 residents 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 

DATA SUMMARY BY ELECTRIC ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR 

The following tables summarize responses to the mail/Internet survey for all 

Massachusetts customers (“Total” column) and by electric energy efficiency program 

administrator. Customers served by municipal utilities are grouped under the heading 

“Munis”. The final column presents the adjustment 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 smaller 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 RoomsA 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, pantries, 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 TypeA 

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 SystemA 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 TypeAB 

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 SystemC

Always/Often 

Rarely/Sometimes 

49% 

51% 

42%

58%

56%

44%

39%

61%

43%

57%

58% 

42% 

53%

47%

--

--

Have No 

ThermostatsC 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 

ThermostatsD

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 heat 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 

ConditionedA 82% 90% 83% 82% 52% 83% 47% 1.03

CAC System TypeA

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 SystemsA 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 0.99

Mean Age of Main 

CAC UnitA 7.7 6.4 7.8 7.6 8.7 7.7 8.1 --

Have No 

ThermostatsB 8% 6% 7% 10% 31% 10% 2% --

Have Programmable 

Thermostat(s)B 49% 32% 53% 47% 33% 57% 58% 1.20

Mean Number of 

ThermostatsC

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 ACsC 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.2 --

Mean Age of Room 

ACsC 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 SystemsC

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 

InstallD

ReplaceC

14% 

29% 

21%

25%

15%

35%

13%

21%

20%

42%

12% 

38% 

11%

30%

--

--

Room AC: Very/ 

Somewhat likely to 

InstallD

ReplaceC

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 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 

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 

TypeA 

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 

systemA 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.3 --

Primary water heater 

has insulation 

blanket/tank wrapA 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

1.47
Data 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 

TypeA

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 

WasherA 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.4 --

Mean Number of 

Loads per WeekA

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 TypeB

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 DriedB

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/RangeA

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 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 

Television 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 98% 99% 1.00

Mean Number of TVsA

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

1.48
Data 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 

ComputersA

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 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 

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

2.28
Data Summary by Electric Energy Efficiency Program Administrator 

MA RASS Report Vol 1 FINAL (2).doc Page 94 

Table 17. Miscellaneous Appliances – 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 

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 

DecisionA

80% 

 66% 

79%

69%

80%

65%

80%

66%

73%

60%

83% 

67% 

78%

70%

--

--

Meaning of ENERGY 

STAR® LabelA 

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 LabelB

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. 

Factor 

Mean 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 

DATA SUMMARY BY BUILDING TYPE

The following tables summarize responses to the mail/Internet survey for all Massachusetts 

customers (“Total” column) and by type of building 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 responses for any one question might be smaller 

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. 

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 RoomsA 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, pantries, 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 

TypeA 

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 SystemA 12.3 12.5 11.4 12.2 12.4 --

Uses Additional Heating 

System 32% 35% 25% 15% 31% 0.87

Additional Heating System 

TypeAB 

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 

SystemC

Always/Often 

Rarely/Sometimes 

49% 

51% 

52%

48%

49%

51%

25% 

75% 

42%

58%

--

--

Have No ThermostatsC 5% 3% 5% 19% 1% 1.00

Have Programmable 

Thermostat(s)C 41% 45% 37% 26% 22% 1.00

Mean Number of 

ThermostatsD

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 heat 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 

ConditionedA 82% 82% 82% 86% 69% 1.03

CAC System TypeA

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 

SystemsA 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.99

Mean Age of Main CAC 

UnitA 7.7 7.6 7.1 8.6 10.0 --

Have No ThermostatsB 8% 5% 10% 19% -- --

Have Programmable 

Thermostat(s)B 49% 56% 45% 30% 27% 1.20

Mean Number of 

ThermostatsC

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 

ACsC 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.8 --

Mean Age of Room ACsC 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 

SystemsC

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 

InstallD

ReplaceC

14% 

29% 

15%

29%

14%

24%

3% 

28% 

--

54%

--

--

Room AC: Very/ Somewhat 

likely to 

InstallD

ReplaceC

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 

TypeA 

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 systemA 7.8 8.0 7.0 6.4 7.6 --

Primary water heater has 

insulation blanket/tank 

wrapA 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

1.47
Data 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 TypeA

Top Loading 

Front Loading 

75% 

25% 

74%

26%

78%

22%

70% 

30% 

92%

8%

0.98

1.06

Mean Age of Clothes 

WasherA 6.9 7.1 6.5 5.5 9.0 --

Mean Number of Loads 

per WeekA

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 TypeB

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 DriedB

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/RangeA

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 TVsA

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

1.48
Data 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 ComputersA

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

2.28
Data 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 DecisionA

80%

 66%

82%

69%

78%

62%

71% 

59% 

69%

59%

--

--

Meaning of ENERGY STAR® 

LabelA

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 

LabelB

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 

DATA SUMMARY BY PRIMARY HEATING FUEL

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, Electric, 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 development 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; therefore the number of responses for any one 

question might be smaller 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. 

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 RoomsA 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, pantries, 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 TypeA 

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 SystemA 12.3 11.4 18.0 12.6 10.3 --

Uses Additional Heating System 32% 29% 18% 37% 52% 0.87

Additional Heating System TypeAB 

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 SystemC

Always/Often 

Rarely/Sometimes 

49%

51%

45%

55%

58%

42%

54% 

46% 

56%

44%

--

--

Have No ThermostatsC 5% 3% 8% 1% 18% 1.00

Have Programmable Thermostat(s)C 41% 47% 25% 42% 36% 1.00

Mean Number of ThermostatsD

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 heat 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 ConditionedA 82% 87% 78% 78% 84% 1.03

Cooling System TypeA

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 SystemsA 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.99

Mean Age of Main Cooling UnitA 7.7 7.6 9.1 7.5 7.5 --

Have No ThermostatsB 8% 4% 15% 7% <1% --

Have Programmable Thermostat(s)B 49% 58% 27% 47% 73% 1.20

Mean Number of ThermostatsC

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 SettingC

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 ACsC 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.2 1.9 --

Mean Age of Room ACsC 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 SystemsC

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 InstallD

Very/Somewhat likely to ReplaceC

14%

29%

16%

28%

10%

32%

14% 

28% 

9%

25%

--

--

Room Air Conditioning 

Very/Somewhat likely to InstallD 

Very/Somewhat likely to ReplaceC

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 TypeA 

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 

systemA 7.8 6.5 8.2 9.2 8.5 --

Primary water heater has insulation 

blanket/tank wrapA 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

1.47
Data 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 TypeA

Top Loading 

Front Loading 

75%

25%

75%

25%

75%

25%

76% 

24% 

58%

42%

0.98

1.06

Mean Age of Clothes WasherA 6.9 6.8 5.8 7.4 6.4 --

Mean Number of Loads per WeekA

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 TypeB

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 DriedB

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/RangeA

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 TVsA

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 ComputersA

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

2.28
Data 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 DecisionA

80%

66%

82%

66%

77%

64%

81% 

69% 

87%

76%

--

--

Meaning of ENERGY STAR® LabelA

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 LabelB

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 

DATA SUMMARY BY INCOME CATEGORY

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 household’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 than 60% of the median income in 

Massachusetts, but determination cannot be made 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 category (“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; therefore the number of responses for any one 

question might be smaller than the number 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 RoomsA 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, pantries, 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 TypeA 

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 

SystemA 12.3 12.8 13.4 11.9 12.6 --

Uses Additional Heating System 32% 28% 35% 34% 27% 0.87

Additional Heating System TypeAB 

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 SystemC

Always/Often 

Rarely/Sometimes 

49%

51%

51%

49%

53%

47%

50% 

50% 

41%

59%

--

--

Have No ThermostatsC 5% 11% 6% 3% 5% 1.00

Have Programmable Thermostat(s)C 41% 20% 37% 48% 39% 1.00

Mean Number of ThermostatsD

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 heat 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 ConditionedA 82% 51% 74% 85% 88% 1.03

CAC System TypeA

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 SystemsA 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.99

Mean Age of Main CAC UnitA 7.7 8.2 8.2 7.5 7.8 --

Have No ThermostatsB 8% 26% 19% 4% 6% --

Have Programmable Thermostat(s)B 49% 23% 34% 56% 46% 1.20

Mean Number of ThermostatsC

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 ACsC 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8 --

Mean Age of Room ACsC 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 SystemsC

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 

InstallD

ReplaceC

14%

29%

10%

38%

16%

39%

17% 

29% 

7%

23%

--

--

Room AC: Very/ Somewhat likely to 

InstallD

ReplaceC

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 TypeA 

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 

systemA 7.8 7.5 8.1 7.7 7.8 --

Primary water heater has insulation 

blanket/tank wrapA 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

1.47
Error! 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 TypeA

Top Loading 

Front Loading 

75%

25%

86%

14%

79%

21%

70% 

30% 

80%

20%

0.98

1.06

Mean Age of Clothes WasherA 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.6 7.8 --

Mean Number of Loads per WeekA

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 TypeB

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 DriedB

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/RangeA

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 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 

Television 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 1.00

Mean Number of TVsA

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 ComputersA

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

2.28
Error! 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 DecisionA

80%

66%

67%

55%

79%

65%

85% 

71% 

75%

63%

--

--

Meaning of ENERGY STAR® LabelA

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 LabelB

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% --