July 14, 2006 

Mary Cottrell, Secretary David L. O’Connor, Commissioner 

Department of Telecommunications and Energy Division of Energy Resources 

One South Station 100 Cambridge Street 

Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02114 

Re: The Cape Light Compact 2005 Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities 

Dear Secretary Cottrell and Commissioner O’Connor: 

I am pleased to enclose for filing with the Division of Energy Resources (DOER) and the 

Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) the Cape Light Compact’s 2005 

Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities. These reports are also being submitted 

electronically by e-mail to Hearing Officer Renner of DTE and Larry Masland of the 

DOER. 

Please note that per discussion with Hearing Officer Sheila Renner that the prior years 

Annual Reports of Energy Efficiency Activities from 2001 – 2004 will be submitted to 

DTE under separate cover. 

If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please feel free to contact 

me or the Compact Energy Efficiency Program Manager, Kevin Galligan. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Mahoney 

Chairman 

Cape Light Compact Governing Board 

Enclosure 
Cape Light Compact 

Annual Report on 

Energy Efficiency Activities 

in 2005 

Submitted to the 

Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy 

and the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources 

July 14, 2006 
This page intentionally blank. 
Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 

B. Report Organization ........................................................................................... 2 

C. Summary of Results ........................................................................................... 3 

D. Summary of Results by Sector........................................................................... 4 

II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology..................................................................... 10

III. Impacts by BCR Activity........................................................................................ 16

A. Residential........................................................................................................ 16 

B. Low-Income ..................................................................................................... 20 

C. Commercial & Industrial.................................................................................. 22 

Appendices....................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations.............................................. 28 

Appendix 2. 2005 Evaluation Impact Parameters................................................. 32 

Appendix 3. Detailed Savings Calculations of BCR Activities............................ 34 

Appendix 4. Post Program Savings Attributed to Selected 2005 Market 

Transformation Initiatives...................................................................................... 42 

Appendix 5. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive............................................... 43 

Appendix 6. Summary of 2005 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Reports............... 44 
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 2005. 

In 2005, the Compact implemented the following set of efficiency programs: 

• 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. 

• The Residential 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 non-electric efficiency measures, 

including financial support to switch electric space heating systems to more 

efficient systems that use alternative fuels. This program represents the integration 

of the Home Energy Services, Residential Conservation Services and the 

Residential High Use Programs that were offered previously. 

• 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. 

• Residential High Efficiency Central Air Conditioning Program (“MA COOL 

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

the purchase and installation of ENERGY STAR qualified central air conditioning 

systems in new construction and market conversion of older heating, ventilation 

and air conditioning (“HVAC”) units. The program also is designed to increase the 

number of trained technicians in the state and to improve the quality of 

installations.

• 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. 

• 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. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 1 
• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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.

• 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. 

• The Government Agencies Program, which provides technical assistance and 

financial incentives to all government facilities, including municipal, state and 

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

Annual Report, the results of efficiency activities with small government customers 

are included in the Small C&I Retrofit BCR Activity, the results of efficiency 

activities with large government customers are included in the Large C&I Retrofit 

BCR Activity, and the results of government new construction activities are 

included in the C&I New Construction BCR Activity. 

• 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 New Construction BCR Activity. 

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 non-energy 

benefits (NEBs), and the dollar values of the total benefits and the total costs. 

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 2005 Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP). Using this 

data allows for a direct comparison with the estimated savings from the 2005 EEP. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 2 
• 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 2005 

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 2005 

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 2005 EEP. 

The values in the “Amount” column are the 2005 results, based on all evaluations 

available at this time. 

Preliminary Filed Target

Prorgram Implementation Expenses $4,197,512 $ - Millions 0.0% -6.0%

Total Expenses $5,144,998 $ - Millions 0.0% NA

Annual Energy Savings 12 GWh -7.8% 24.8%

Annual Summer Demand Savings 1.87 MW -2.5% -27.4%

Annual Winter Demand Savings 2.77 MW -7.7% -18.4%

Lifetime Energy Savings 119 GWh -22.8% 1.6%

Lifetime Demand Savings 19.82 MW-Years -21.8% -33.0%

Total Resource Cost Test 2.36 Benefit / Cost -19.3% -9.7%

Performance Incentive - After Taxes 0 $ - Millions NA NA

SAVINGS AND EXPENSES FOR 2005

TABLE 1

Measurement Amount Percent Change Comparison Units

Program implementation expenses includes all of the costs incurred by the Compact, except for monitoring 

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

verification costs, plus customer contributions. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 3 
The Compact’s 2005 program implementation expenses were roughly 6% lower than the 

2005 budgets in the EEP. This was simply the result of cautiously managing year-end 

activities to ensure that the 2005 budgets were not overspent. 

The 2005 program results include the use of supplemental funding of approximately 

$136,000 made available to support energy efficiency activities from Barnstable County 

appropriations and the Compact’s competitive power supplier, ConEdison Solutions. 

The annual energy savings achieved in 2005 were roughly 25% higher than those 

estimated in the 2005 EEP. This difference is primarily due to relatively high savings in 

the Residential Lighting, Residential MassSAVE, and the C&I Large Retrofit Programs. 

The demand savings achieved in 2005 were significantly lower than those estimated in

the 2005 EEP. This difference is primarily because the 2005 actual results are based on 

(a) much better data regarding demand savings, and (b) better coincidence factors used to 

estimate summer and winter demand from total maximum demand. 

The benefit-cost ratio of the 2005 programs in total was 2.36. This indicates that the 

Compact’s programs in total continue to be highly cost-effective, where every $1.00 

spent reduces the net cost of electricity by $2.36. This ratio was slightly lower than what 

was estimated in the 2005 EEP (2.61). We expect that this difference is primarily due to 

the reduced demand savings and the reduced savings as a result of the most recent 

evaluation impact factors. 

All of the evaluated savings results are lower than the preliminary savings results. This is 

primarily because most of the evaluation impact factors used in creating the evaluated

results (i.e., free-ridership and realization rates) reduced the energy savings estimates. 

The difference between evaluated and preliminary lifetime energy and demand savings is 

also partly due to using improved measure life assumptions for the evaluated results.

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 2005 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 Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated $-Benefits $-Costs

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 3,493 3,791 1,150 1,168 $15,199 $15,199 $429,299 $411,100

A02b Residential HVAC 2,761 2,761 1,629 1,629 $0 $0 $487,874 $166,522

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 35,672 31,433 3,087 2,755 $57,354 $47,483 $2,017,535 $1,301,613

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 24,668 20,949 1,478 1,256 $169,193 $142,555 $1,260,335 $247,040

A04b Residential Appliances 8,443 8,443 4,149 4,150 $1,895,148 $1,895,213 $3,133,225 $426,477

Residential Total 75,036 67,377 11,494 10,956 $2,136,893 $2,100,450 $7,328,268 $2,552,751

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB TRC Values

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 4 
Figures 1 through 4 present the same information as Table 2. They indicate that most of 

the residential energy savings are obtained from the Residential Retrofit and Residential 

Lighting programs; that most of the capacity savings come from the Residential 

Appliance and Residential Retrofit programs; that most of the non-electric benefits come

from the Residential Appliances program; and that all residential programs are cost

effective. 

FIGURE1 – RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Preliminary versus Evaluated

Lifetime M

W

H

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

14,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Preliminary versus Evaluated

Lifeti

me 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

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 5 
FIGURE 3 - RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME$ NEB

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Preliminary versus Evaluated

Lifeti

me $ NEB

A04b Residential

Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load

Response

A03b Residential Retrofit

Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit

1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost

Opportunity

FIGURE 4 - RESIDENTIAL TRC VALUES

$0

$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

B enef it s versus C ost s

A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit

M ultifamily

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 2005 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. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activity Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated $-Benefits $-Costs

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity 2,295 2,295 379 379 $74,704 $74,704 $251,655 $235,446

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 4,242 3,990 453 453 $257,037 $248,265 $518,599 $291,947

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 1,452 1,452 7 7 $298,530 $298,530 $366,213 $260,251

Low-Income Total 7,989 7,737 839 839 $630,271 $621,499 $1,136,467 $787,643

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF LOW INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB TRC Values

Figures 5 through 8 present the same information as Table 3. They indicate that all of the 

programs are cost-effective. Most of the low-income energy, capacity and NEB savings 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 6 
are obtained from the lost opportunity and retrofit 1-4 programs. This is probably 

because the low-income retrofit multifamily program served a relatively small number of 

customers in 2005. Also, the multifamily retrofit program achieves fossil fuel savings, 

which are not presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7. 

FIGURE 5 – LOW INCOMELIFETIME MWH

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Lifetime M

WH

B03b Low -Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low -Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low -Income Lost

Opportunity

FIGURE 6 - LOW INCOME LIFETIME kW

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Preliminary Evaluat ed

B03b Low-Income Retrof it

Mult if amily

B03a Low-Income Retrof it 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost

Opport unit y

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 7 
FIGURE 7 - LOW INCOME LIFETIME $ NEB

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Preliminary versus Evaluated

Lifeti

me $ N

E

B

B03b Low -Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low -Income Retrofit

1-4

B02a Low -Income Lost

Opportunity

FIGURE 8 - LOW INCOME TRC VALUES

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

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 2005 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 Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated $-Benefits $-Costs

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 3,246 2,618 839 688 $2,061 $1,616 $258,382 $154,035

C03a Large C&I Retrofit 47,006 22,297 9,309 4,416 $26,641 $27,129 $1,788,464 $554,703

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 20,275 18,499 2,866 2,924 $255,322 $226,767 $1,619,633 $1,095,866

Total 70,527 43,414 13,014 8,028 $284,025 $255,512 $3,666,479 $1,804,604

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF C&I BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB TRC Values

Figures 9 through 12 present the same information as Table 4. They indicate that most of 

the Compact’s C&I savings are obtained from the two Retrofit programs. As indicated 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 8 
in Figures 9 and 10, the evaluated savings for the C&I Large Retrofit Program are 

significantly lower than the preliminary savings. This is partly due to the change in 

measure life assumption (from 14 years to 5 years) for the Building Operator 

Certification (BOC) Program, which makes up a large portion of the energy savings from

the Large C&I Program. 

FIGURE 9 – C&I LIFETIME MWH

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Lifetime M

WH

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

Preliminary Evaluated

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 9 
FIGURE11 - C&I LIFETIME$ NEB

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Lifetime $ NEB

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

FIGURE 12 - C&I 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

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology1

Preliminary Versus Evaluated Results 

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

“preliminary” and “evaluated” data. 

 

1

 Some of the text below was taken from the 2003 Annual Reports on Energy Efficiency Activities of 

NSTAR, Massachusetts Electric Company, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company, because 

similar evaluation practices are used across all Massachusetts Program Administrators. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 10 
• The preliminary data refers to savings estimates that are based on the evaluation 

impact factors that were used in the 2005 Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP).2

 Using 

this data allows for a direct comparison with the estimated savings from the 2005 

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 2005 

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 2005 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. 

The evaluation studies that were used to prepare the estimates of 2005 energy efficiency 

savings are listed below. The executive summaries of these reports are included in 

Appendix 6. 

• Measure Life Study, by energy & resource solutions, prepared for the 

Massachusetts Joint Utilities, October 10, 2005. 

• Impact and Process Evaluation Building Operator Certification (BOC) Program,

by RLW Analytics, prepared for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, June 

2005. 

• Free-ridership and Spillover Study, by PA Consulting, prepared for the Cape Light 

Compact in conjunction with National Grid and United Illuminating, June 2006. 

• Phase 1: Commercial Rooftop HVAC Unit Retrofit Programs, by New Buildings 

Institute, Inc., prepared for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, March 2006. 

• Market Research Report on NEEP Commercial Lighting Initiative, by energy & 

resource solutions, prepared for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership, June 

2006. 

• Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes: 2005 Baseline Study, Final Report, by 

Nexus Market Research, Inc. and Dorothy Conant, prepared for the Joint 

Management Committee, May 2006. 

• Analysis of Remaining Opportunities for the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR 

Appliances Program, by NMR, RLW Analytics, Inc., Dorothy Conant and Shel 

Feldman Management Consulting, prepared for Cape Light Compact, National 

 

2

 The primary evaluation impact factors that are relevant here are free-ridership rates, spillover rates, 

realization rates, persistence rates, and measure lives. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 11 
Grid USA, NSTAR Electric Company, Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric 

Company, October 2005. 

• Evaluation of the MassSAVE Program: Market Survey Results, by RLW Analytics, 

submitted to Bay State Gas, Berkshire Gas, Cape Light Compact, KeySpan Energy 

Delivery, National Grid, New England Gas Company, NSTAR Electric and Gas 

Corporation, Unitil, and Northeast Utilities/Western Massachusetts Electric, 

December 2005. 

• Kingman Yacht Center, Energy Audit Report, by RLW Analytics, prepared for the 

Cape Light Compact, January 2006. 

• Evaluation of the Cape Light Compact Residential New Construction Green 

Building 2003 Demonstration Project, by Vermont Energy Investment 

Corporation, prepared for the Cape Light Compact, March 2006. 

In addition, some program evaluation studies are currently in development. Final 

reports for the following studies are expected in summer 2006. 

• Market Progress and Evaluation Report (MPER) for the 2005 Massachusetts 

ENERGY STAR Residential Lighting Program, by Nexus Market Research, 

prepared for Cape Light Compact, National Grid USA, NSTAR Electric Company, 

Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Summer 2006. 

• Commercial HVAC Equipment Market Characterization, by KEMA Consulting, 

prepared for the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Summer 2006. 

Types of Evaluations 

The evaluation of 2005 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. 

In 2005 the Cape Light Compact joined National Grid in sponsoring a study to update 

free-ridership and spillover impact factors for Commercial and Industrial programs, 

based on standardized methods and survey instruments that were developed in 2004. The 

results of the 2005 study are included in Appendix 6. 

In July of 2005, a survey-based evaluation of the Building Operator Certification 

Program was also completed and is summarized in Appendix 6. Results of this study 

were used to report savings from 2005 participants in the BOC program. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 12 
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. 

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. 

Appendix 6 includes summaries of several studies that characterize current market 

conditions or report on market progress and aid in informing implementation of marketoriented energy efficiency programs implemented by the Compact, such as the residential 

new construction program, residential products program, and commercial and industrial 

products and services program. 

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. 

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 2005 EEP. 

This approach allows for a more direct comparison of the economic results between the 

2005 EEP and the 2005 Annual Report. The avoided cost estimates used for both of 

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

Supply Costs in New England, prepared for the Avoided Energy Supply Component 

(AESC) Study Group, August 21, 2003. 

That study was prepared for a group of sponsors and project advisors from the six New 

England states from Maine to Connecticut, including the Compact. The study was 

intended to support energy efficiency program planning and development, including 

regulatory filings. The study employed a detailed and integrated fundamentals modeling 

approach combined with market data to estimate supply costs considered to be avoidable. 

It projected spot market fuel market prices, wholesale energy and capacity prices, 

transmission and distribution avoided costs. The impacts of locational pricing were 

considered in the analysis, in light of the fact that locational pricing markets were under 

development. Avoided costs were calculated for all sub-regions in New England for 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 13 
2005 – 2040. In addition to the avoided electric supply costs, projections for gas, 

propane fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, kerosene heating fuel, and wood were also considered. 

In 2005, an update of projected avoided energy supply costs was completed for the same

parties, by the same consultant. These avoided costs were used in preparing the 2006 

EEP, and will be used in presenting the 2006 Annual Report.

Other Compact-Specific Research and Evaluation. The Compact completed site-specific 

analyses of two special projects: the Residential New Construction Green Building 2003 

Demonstration Project, and a custom project to identify efficiency opportunities for the 

Kingman Marina. While results of these studies are not used to develop savings 

estimates for this report, they help inform the design and delivery of the Compact’s 

programs. These studies are briefly summarized below; additional details are provided 

in Appendix 6. 

Evaluation of the Green Building Project included follow-up interviews with the 

homeowners and builders and suppliers, visits to each of the four houses in the project, 

development of a Cape Cod-specific reference home based on Massachusetts new 

construction baseline data, and an assessment to determine if the houses in the Project 

were performing as originally modeled. 

Key findings included: 

• Participants were very satisfied with their homes; 

• While useful, the Vermont Build Green checklist needs to be supplemented with 

additional informational resources; 

• Non-energy benefits, such as indoor environmental quality, durability, other 

factors, were more important than energy savings in motivating customers to build 

to a green standard. 

• The energy benefits of the homes were cost-effective (i.e. incremental costs were 

more than offset by the associated savings). 

• More generally, builders feel there is pent up demand for green building in the 

residential sector; lack of consumer awareness is the primary barrier to increased 

adoption of green building practices. 

• The four homes saved from 930 to 1,400 kWh and 110 to 300 therms annually. 

Under the TRC test, the savings measures (excluding solar water heating) are cost 

effective relative to the Massachusetts baseline home; however, inclusion of 

program administration costs resulted in an overall program benefit-cost ratio 

of 0.93. 

In 2005, the Compact contracted for an assessment of efficiency and energy management 

opportunities for the Kingman Yacht Center, a full service marina, restaurant and retail 

facility. The study included an analysis of two years of monthly billing history as well as 

construction of average dock load profiles based on monitoring of dock power 

consumption and recording of fifteen-minute interval data. 

Key findings included: 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 14 
• Kingman Yacht Center does not have enough discretionary kW to participate in 

regional load response programs. (The Center’s peak load is 199kW, of which 

89kW is dock load; 100 kW is the minimum required for the ISO-NE program). 

• The Yacht Center could benefit from participation in a regional load response 

program, if opportunities for customers to aggregate loads become available. 

Meanwhile, customer education is recommended to help manage peak dock load. 

• As a secondary priority, further investigation of usage in winter months and 

consumption by non-dock facilities is recommended to identify energy efficiency 

opportunities. 

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. 

Free-ridership and spillover rates for Commercial and Industrial Programs were 

determined as part of the study conducted jointly by National Grid, the Compact, and 

United Illuminating, and summarized in Appendix 6. For the purposes of the study, 

participants in the Compact’s Small C&I, Medium and Large C&I, and Government 

programs were combined, and impacts were developed by measure category and by new 

construction, retrofit, and product and service, where possible. The impacts were 

assessed through a survey of a sample of program participants and some design 

professionals and vendors. The number of survey completions for some measure 

categories was very low because some of the Compact’s programs, such as New 

Construction, had relatively few participants in 2005 and even fewer participants installed 

certain measures. Thus, although a high percentage of the 2005 program customers were 

sampled, as noted by the evaluators who conducted the analysis, “some caution should be 

used when interpreting results”. For the Compact’s C&I New Construction program, the 

Compact staff and advisors elected to use free-ridership and spillover results from

National Grid in reporting 2005 results, due to concerns about the small sample sizes 

from the Compact. For the Compact’s Government New Construction and Retrofit 

programs, the Compact elected to assume there is no free-ridership or participant 

spillover in 2005. This is because the government programs were designed and delivered 

in order to provide energy efficiency to customers who could not provide the same level 

of efficiency within their existing budgets3

. 

 

3

 The Compact will evaluate government program impacts in a 2006 evaluation study. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 15 
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 these 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. 

Measure lives for Commercial and Industrial Programs were updated based on results of 

a 2005 literature review and study jointly sponsored by Massachusetts’ energy efficiency 

program administrators. It is also summarized in Appendix 6. As defined by the 2005 

Measure Life Study, 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.”

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 HVAC, Lighting and Appliances Programs are particularly cost-effective. The 

Residential Lost Opportunity Program is less cost-effective than the others, in part 

because the baseline homes are increasingly efficient. Nonetheless, this program is still 

important because of the long-term lost opportunities that it addresses. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 16 
Benefit-Cost Ratio Benefit-Cost

Activity kWh kWh per

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

Customer TRC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 230 329,480 1,433 66.78 $760 3,493 1,168 $15,199 $411,100 $1,787 1.04

A02b Residential HVAC 269 138,040 513 81.43 $0 2,761 1,629 $0 $166,522 $619 2.93

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 1,996 2,512,200 1,259 240.85 $4,076 35,672 2,755 $47,483 $1,301,613 $652 1.55

A04a Residential Lighting 1,392 3,251,710 2,336 194.88 $23,295 24,668 1,256 $142,555 $247,040 $177 5.10

A04b Residential Appliances 3,888 567,750 146 305.61 $135,379 8,443 4,150 $1,895,213 $426,477 $110 7.35

Total 7,775 6,799,180 874 889.55 $163,511 75,036 10,956 $2,100,450 $2,552,751 $328 2.87

TABLE 5

IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime Cost

Customers

2. By End Uses 

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 savings from the residential programs. 

End Use

Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated

Lighting 36,367 32,403 2,180 1,972 $196,985 $168,096

HVAC 31,596 27,497 5,685 5,294 ($7,790) ($7,790)

Refrigeration 1,740 2,149 238 300 $0 $0

Hot Water 5,332 5,329 3,391 3,391 $1,947,698 $1,940,144

Motors NA NA NA NA NA NA

End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA

TABLE 6

IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL END USES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW $ Lifetime NEB

The negative NEB values are due to the assumption that efficient boilers should be tuned-up each year to

achieve the full level of efficiency savings. 

Figures 13 through 15 present the same information as Table 6. They indicate that much 

of the residential energy savings are obtained from the lighting measures, with most of 

the remaining coming from HVAC. 

The residential demand savings come primarily from HVAC and hot water. Lighting 

savings make up a relatively small portion of the demand savings, because only a small 

portion of the lighting measures are assumed to be operational during the peak demand 

period. Many of the residential non-electric benefits are from hot water savings, as a 

result of the saved water from ENERGY STAR clotheswashers and dishwashers. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 17 
FIGURE13 – RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH - END USE

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Lifetime MWH

Preliminary versus Evaluated

Lifeti

me M

W

H

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

FIGURE 14 - RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME kW - END USE

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Lifetime kW

Preliminary versus Evaluated

Lifeti

me kW

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

FIGURE 15 - RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME NEB - END USE

($500,000)

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Preliminary Evaluated

$ Lifetime NEB

Benefits versus Costs

$ - THOUSANDS

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 18 
3. Program Evaluation 

The Residential ENERGY STAR® New Construction Program 

Savings attributed to ENERGY STAR New Construction Program come from two main

areas: (a) heating, cooling, and water heating in the home; and (b) appliances and lighting 

installed in the home. Savings for appliances and lighting in certified homes were based 

on previous studies provided by Massachusetts program administrators. 

Heating, Cooling, Water Heating Savings: As part of the ENERGY STAR certification 

process, projected energy use is calculated for each ENERGY STAR home and a 

matching baseline home, the User Defined Reference Home (UDRH), using REM/rate 

software, a detailed residential simulation tool which is also the tool used to calculate 

both electric and fossil fuel energy savings due to heating, cooling, and water heating for 

all homes, both single and multifamily, certified in 2005. 

In May 2006, the Joint Management Committee (JMC) completed a study to characterize 

baseline new construction in Massachusetts. The reference home was revised based on 

many of the findings of this study, “Massachusetts ENERGY STAR HOMES: 2005 

BASELINE STUDY, Final Report.” However, the savings presented in this Annual 

Report do not reflect these results, as per the DOER definition of preliminary and 

evaluated results. 

The baseline study is one of several evaluation activities of the JMC relating to the MultiYear Program Evaluation and Market Progress Reporting Plan (MPER) beginning in 

2005. A homeowner survey was also conducted to obtain additional information such as 

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

in the 2005 Baseline Study. 

MassSAVE

In December 2005, “Evaluation of the MassSAVE Program: Market Survey Results” was 

released (Appendix 6). This is part of a larger multi-year evaluation plan. The market 

survey was conducted from a random sample of Massachusetts residents. It measured: 

residents’ name recognition, understanding, and valuing of the program; payback 

requirements for efficiency measures; and other characteristics of customers likely to be

targeted by the program. Results of this survey inform a table of market and program

indicators. 

Key findings included: 

• Continued need to emphasize the MassSAVE name; 

• Need to explore targeting landlords; 

• Need to overcome high first-cost barriers for some measures in various ways, 

including educating customers on the payback concept, and providing 

rebate/interest-free loan combinations. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 19 
The Residential ENERGY STAR Products and Services Program

2005 marked the beginning of a new Multi-Year Program Evaluation and Market 

Progress Reporting Plan (MPER) effort for lighting and appliances. 

An “Analysis of Remaining Opportunities for the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR 

Appliances Program” was completed in October 2005 (Appendix 6). The analysis is 

based on interviews with program administrators and ENERGY STAR partners as well as 

review of program materials. The purpose of this analysis is to help inform decisions 

about future program design as well as evaluation activities, given that significant 

progress toward market transformation has been made in recent years. Key findings 

included: 

• Need to maintain sales and marketing support mechanisms for an appliance 

program even with reduced program spending, in order to maintain visibility of 

ENERGY STAR and to push manufacturers toward higher appliance efficiencies. 

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. 

While the Single Family and Multi-Family Retrofit Programs are clearly cost-effective,

the Lost Opportunity Program is less so. We believe that the benefit-cost ratio for the 

Lost Opportunity Program is especially low this year as a result of relatively low activity 

in 2005. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio Benefit-Cost

Activity kWh kWh per

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

Customer TRC

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity 12 185,220 15,435 31.13 $5,841 2,295 379 $74,704 $235,446 $19,620 1.07

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 375 271,540 724 29.69 $16,327 4,242 453 $248,265 $291,947 $779 1.78

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 3 139,410 46,470 0.35 $29,697 1,452 7 $298,530 $260,251 $86,750 1.41

TOTAL 390 596,170 1,529 61.17 $51,864 7,989 839 $621,499 $787,643 $2,020 1.44

TABLE 7

IMPACT BY LOW INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime Cost

Customers

2. By End Uses 

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. 

Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated

Lighting 847 731 51 51 $22,893 $19,731

HVAC 2,454 2,454 24 24 $461,255 $461,255

Refrigeration 2,409 2,339 330 330 $89,420 $86,778

Hot Water 211 144 73 73 $9,969 $7,001

Motors NA NA NA NA NA NA

End User Behavior NA NA NA NA NA NA

TABLE 8

IMPACT BY LOW INCOME END USES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW $ Lifetime NEB End Use

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 20 
Figures 16 through 18 present the same information as Table 8. They indicate that most 

of the energy and demand savings are from the refrigeration and HVAC end 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.

FIGURE 16 – LOW INCOMELIFETIME MWH - END USE

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Preliminary versus Evaluated

Lifeti

me M

W

H

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

FIGURE17 - LOW INCOME LIFETIME kW - END USE

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

Preliminary Evaluated

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 21 
FIGURE 18 - LOW INCOME LIFETIME NEB - END USE

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

Preliminary Evaluated

Benefits versus Costs

$ -

T

H

O

U

SAND

S

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

3. Program Evaluation 

The Compact conducted no new evaluation activities since the 2004 process evaluation of 

the low income program. 

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. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio Benefit-Cost

Activity kWh kWh per

Customer kW $- NEB MWH kW $- NEB Activity perCustomer TRC

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 10 165,520 16,552 43.35 $108 3,246 688 $1,616 $154,035 $15,403 1.68

C03a Large C&I Retrofit 61 3,309,770 54,259 655.49 $2,087 47,006 4,416 $27,129 $554,703 $9,093 3.22

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 140 1,396,590 9,976 221.17 $17,444 20,275 2,924 $226,767 $1,095,866 $7,828 1.48

TOTAL 211 4,871,880 23,089 920.01 $19,638 70,527 8,028 $255,512 $1,804,604 $8,553 2.03

TABLE 9

IMPACT BY C&I BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime Cost

Customers

2. By End Uses 

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. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 22 
Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated Preliminary Evaluated

Lighting 26,262 24,215 4,461 4,442 $284,025 $255,512

HVAC 594 301 109 53 $0 $0

Motors / Drives 4,919 5,037 804 821 $0 $0

Refrigeration 863 865 137 138 $0 $0

Hot Water - - - - $0 $0

Compressed Air NA NA NA NA NA NA

Process NA NA NA NA NA NA

End User Behavior 37,888 12,996 7,503 2,574 $0 $0

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. They indicate that the 

energy and capacity savings are obtained primarily from lighting measures and, to a 

lesser extent, from end user behavior measures. 

The savings in the end user behavior measure category are from the BOC Program. The 

large reduction in lifetime MWh savings for the BOC Program between preliminary and 

evaluated estimates is a result using a much shorter measure life provided by the 2005 

BOC evaluation study. 

The non-energy benefits in the C&I sector are from reduced O&M costs as a result of

efficient light bulbs with longer operating lives. 

FIGURE 19 – C&I LIFETIME MWH - END USE

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Preliminary Evaluated

End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 23 
FIGURE 20 - C&I LIFETIME kW - END USE

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Preliminary Evaluated

End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting

FIGURE 21 - C&I LIFETIME NEB - END USE

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

Preliminary Evaluated

End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting

3. Program Evaluation 

Building Operator Certification Program

End User Behavior is addressed under the Building Operator Certification Program. 

Savings attributed to this program come from a combination of practices and measures 

implemented by facility managers as a result of training under this program. Impact 

estimates for this program were updated in 2005 (Appendix 6). The Compact reports 

energy impacts without rebated measures for the participants who have NOT participated 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 24 
in any other C&I program in the same year, and it reports energy impacts with rebated 

measures for the participants who have participated in an audit and/or installed measures 

during this program year. 

Lighting (Commercial Lighting Initiative)

The Commercial Lighting Initiative, facilitated by NEEP, has as its goal the 

transformation of the market for high performance lighting. While the Compact and 

other Massachusetts program administrators promote Super T8 technology, the 

availability of new lighting fixtures equipped with this technology has lagged behind the 

availability of individual lamps and ballasts. 

Late in 2005, a market research study was launched to determine the current status of 

market availability of Super T8 fixtures and to explore barriers to their availability. The 

goal of this research was to inform future program activities. Results of the study are 

based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 50 lighting distributors and 

manufacturers’ representatives. Key findings include: 

• Need to encourage manufacturers to stock Super T8s and to install them as part of 

their standard product runs; 

• Need to increase awareness of Super T8s among distributors who are not active 

participants in efficiency programs; 

• Need to focus on manufacturers’ reps as key agents likely to “up-sell”, since they 

typically provide design assistance, and they can benefit from increased profit 

margins on premium products (e.g. through circuit riding); 

• Need to transition to exclusive promotion of Super T8 and away from incentives 

supporting standard T8s. 

HVAC (Cool Choice)

The Cool Choice program, facilitated by NEEP, has as its goal the transformation of the 

market for high efficiency unitary HVAC equipment by promoting consistent standards 

and rebates among Massachusetts utilities and in the region. 

Late in 2005, two market research studies were launched to inform the design and 

possible future direction of Cool Choice and sponsors’ program activities. 

A study to characterize regional and national experience with commercial rooftop HVAC 

unit retrofit programs was completed in March 2006. Findings are based on expert 

interviews, literature research and critical review of program materials. The design and 

performance of programs in the Northeast, California and Northwest were examined. 

The key findings were: 

• Pilot efforts have shown possible energy savings of 1,800 kWh/unit treated; this is 

principally an energy resource, not a substantial demand resource; 

• Benefits are based on a variety of measures including charge, airflow, controls and 

economizers; 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 25 
• Need for additional impact evaluation results (most programs are in early stages); 

• Northeast may benefit from early replacement program to achieve maximum

demand savings potential from rooftop units. 

 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 26 
Appendices 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 27 
Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

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 

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 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 28 
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 

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 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 29 
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 

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. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 30 
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. 

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. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 31 
Appendix 2. 2005 Evaluation Impact Parameters 

The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated 

savings for the commercial and industrial programs in 2005. 

As noted earlier, Commercial and Industrial free-ridership and spillover results were

obtained from an evaluation jointly sponsored by the Compact and National Grid. The 

C&I Lost Opportunity program results shown below are from the National Grid sample, 

due to concerns about interpreting the results of the Compact. For the Compact’s 

Government New Construction and Government Retrofit programs, no free-ridership or 

participant spillover is assumed, due to the design and delivery of the program in 2005. 

Impact parameters for the C&I Large and Small Retrofit Programs are identical, because 

in the evaluation study Compact pooled the customers in the retrofit program in order to 

increase sample sizes. The nonparticipant spillover estimate reported below is based on a 

sample of vendors that combined National Grid and Cape Light Compact survey data, 

again, to increase the sample size to obtain a more meaningful result. 

Table A2.1 Commercial & Industrial Evaluation Impact Factors 

BCR Activity Program End Use

Free-Ridership

Rate

Spillover 

[Participant] Rate

Spillover [NonParticipant] Rate

kWh 

Realization

Rate

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction CMoDr 21.1% 17.7% 2.9% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction ALght 30.7% 6.2% 2.9% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction BHVAC 33.2% 8.8% 2.9% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction ALght 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit ALght 5.7% 3.2% 2.9% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit ALght 6% 3.2% 2.9% 86.4%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit DRefr 4.2% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit BHVAC 43.3% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large ALght 0.0% 3.2% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large DRefr 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large BHVAC 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large EHoWa 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large CMoDr 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large HEUBe 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small ALght 0.0% 3.2% 2.9% 86.4%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small DRefr 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small CMoDr 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small BHVAC 0.0% 0% 2.9% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c Cool Choice DRefr 35.9% 17.7% 2.9% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c Cool Choice BHVAC 67.5% 2.0% 2.9% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04e MotorUp CMoDr 8.3% 0% 2.9% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large HEUBe 0% 0% 2.9% 100%

Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% nor 0%.

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 32 
The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculated the evaluated 

savings for residential programs offered by the Cape Light Compact in 2005. 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 Compact’s Residential Low Income impact 

factors were not evaluated or updated in 2005. 

Table A2.2 Residential Evaluation Impact Factors 

BCR Activity Measure

Free-Ridership

Rate

Spillover

[Participant] Rate In-Service Rate

kWh Realization

Rate

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity CFL 6% 25% 100% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity HERS 0% 0% 100% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC HVAC 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL 2% 0% 100% 95%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 BOILRWATER 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 CFL 1% 0% 100% 90%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 FIXTUREIN 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 FIXTUREOUT 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 FURNACE 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 HOTWATER 5% 0% 100% 90%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 HVAC 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 INDIRECTDH 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION 2% 0% 100% 95%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 REFRIG (ES value) 10% 36% 100% 98%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 SWITCH 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 TORCHIERE 0% 0% 100% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 T-STAT 2% 0% 100% 95%

A04a Residential Lighting CFL 6% 25% 84% 100%

A04a Residential Lighting FIXTUREIN 8% 4% 95% 100%

A04a Residential Lighting FIXTUREOUT 12% 7% 87% 100%

A04a Residential Lighting TORCHIERE 6% 3% 83% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances CLOTHESWAS 0% 0% 100% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances DEHUMIDIFI 0% 0% 100% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances DISHWASHER 0% 0% 100% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances ECMHEAT 0% 0% 100% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances REFRIG 0% 0% 100% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances ROOMAC 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity AIRSEAL 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity CLOTHESWAS 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity DISHWASHER 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity FIXTURE 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity HEATSYSTEM 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity HOTWATER 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity INSULATION 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity REFRIG 0% 0% 100% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 AIRSEAL 0% 0% 100% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 CFL 0% 0% 100% 83%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 DEHUMIDIFI 0% 0% 100% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 HEATSYSTEM 0% 0% 100% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 HOTWATER 0% 0% 100% 67%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 INSULATION 0% 0% 100% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 REFRIG 0% 0% 100% 97%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamiAIRSEAL 0% 0% 100% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamiFIXTURE 0% 0% 100% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamiHEATSYSTEM 0% 0% 100% 100%

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity CILARGE 0% 0% 100% 100%

Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% nor 0%.

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 33 
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 Page 34 

BCR Net Benefits Benefits Costs

Low-Income Programs

LI Single Family 2.04 1,193,202 2,341,858 1,148,655

LI Multi-Family 3.34 1,217,519 1,737,440 519,921

LI New Construction 2.26 629,128 1,129,081 499,953

Total Low-Income 2.40 3,039,850 5,208,380 2,168,530

Residential Programs

New Construction 1.55 480,917 1,353,580 872,663

P&S - Lighting 5.86 4,955,979 5,974,973 1,018,994

P&S - Appliances 4.85 8,088,520 10,189,471 2,100,951

P&S - HVAC 3.37 1,714,287 2,436,435 722,148

MassSAVE 1.80 4,123,814 9,297,937 5,174,123

Total Non Low-Income 2.96 19,363,517 29,252,396 9,888,879

Total Residential 2.86 22,403,367 34,460,775 12,057,409

C&I Programs

Large New Construction 2.83 401,700 621,447 219,747

Large Retrofit 1.86 344,043 742,892 398,849

Small Customers 2.22 2,470,493 4,500,866 2,030,373

Government - Large 1.90 1,220,114 2,581,253 1,361,139

Government - Small 2.18 2,406,007 4,447,715 2,041,709

Products and Services ****   ** **  

Total Commercial & Industrial 2.13 6,842,356 12,894,173 6,051,817

Total Compact 2.61 29,245,723 47,354,949 18,109,226

Appendix 3. Detailed Savings Calculations of BCR Activities 

Table A3.1a TRC Benefits and Costs by Program (Reported) 

TRC TRC Total Total PA

Benefit/ Net Benefits Costs Costs

BCR Activity Cost Benefits ($000) ($000) ($000)

Residential

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 1.04 $18 $429 $411 $411

A02b Residential HVAC 2.93 $321 $488 $167 $167

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 1.55 $716 $2,018 $1,302 $937

A04a Residential Lighting 5.10 $1,013 $1,260 $247 $247

A04b Residential Appliances 7.35 $2,707 $3,133 $426 $426

Subtotal: Residential 2.87 $4,776 $7,328 $2,553 $2,188

Low-Income

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity 1.07 $16 $252 $235 $222

$519 $292 $285

$366 $260 $196

Subtotal $1,136 $788 $703

Com/Ind 

$258 $154 $125

$1,788

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 1.48 $524 $1,620

Subtotal: C&I 2.03 $1,862 $3,666

Grand Total 2.36 $6,986 $12,131

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 1.78 $227

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 1.41 $106

: Low-Income 1.44 $349

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 1.68 $104

C03a Large C&I Retrofit 3.22 $1,234 $555 $365

$1,096 $932

$1,805 $1,422

$5,145 $4,314

Table A3.1b TRC Benefits and Costs by Program -- From the 2005 EEP (Planned) 
Table A3.2a Costs by BCR Activity and Program (Reported) 

Sector BCR Activity Program

Total TRC

Costs 

($000)

Total PA

Costs 

($000)

Program

Implementatio

($000)

A - Residential $2,553 $2,188 $2,0

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity $411 $411 $3

A02a Energy Star Homes $411 $411 $3

A02b Residential HVAC $167 $167 $1

A02b Residential HVAC $167 $167 $1

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 $1,302 $937 $9

A03a Residential Conservation Service $1,302 $937 $9

A04a Residential Lighting $247 $247 $2

A04a Energy Star Lighting $247 $247 $2

A04b Residential Appliances $426 $426 $4

A04b Energy Star Appliance $426 $426 $4

B - Low-Income $788 $703 $7

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 $292 $285 $2

B03a Low-Income Single-Family Program $292 $285 $2

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily $260 $196 $1

B03b Low-Income Multi-Family Program $260 $196 $1

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity $235 $222 $2

B02a Low-Income Energy Star Homes $128 $115 $1B03c Low-Income Special Projects Progra $108 $108 $1

C - Commercial & Industrial $1,805 $1,422 $1,3

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity $154 $125 $1

C02a C&I New Construction $52 $52 $C02b C&I Govt New Construction $21 $21 $C04c Cool Choice $71 $42 $C04e MotorUp $10 $10 $

C03b Small C&I Retrofit $1,096 $932 $9

C03b C&I Small Retrofit $648 $485 $4C03d C&I Govt Small $448 $448 $4

C03a Large C&I Retrofit $555 $365 $3

C03a C&I Large Retrofit $197 $118 $1C03c C&I Govt Large $357 $246 $2

Grand Total $5,145 $4,314 $4,1

Program Implementation costs include: PP&A, marketing and education, customer incentives, and sales, technical assistance and trainCape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 
Table A3.2b Costs by BCR Activity and Program – From the 2005 EEP (Planned) 

Total TRC

Costs 

($000)

Total PA 

Costs 

($000)

Program

Implementatio

($000)

Sector BCR activity ProgramA - Residential A02a Residential Lost Opportunity A02a New Construction 326 243 21

A02b Residential HVAC A02b P&S HVAC 412 134 12A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 A03a MassSAVE 3,068 851 81A04a Residential Lighting A04a P&S - Lighting 300 300 27A04b Residential Appliances A04b P&S - Appliances 383 383 35

A - Residential Total 4,489 1,912 1,78B - Low Income B02a Residential Lost Opportunity L I B02a LI New Construction 150 150 14

B02b LI Special Projects 117 117 11

B03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 B03a LI Single Family 243 243 24B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily B03b LI Multi-Family 124 124 12

B - Low Income Total 634 634 62C - Commercial & Industrial C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a Large New Construction 120 44 4

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a Large Retrofit 79 44 4

C03e Products and Services 49 49 3

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b Small Customers 887 503 47

C03d Government Agencies 1,040 1,040 97

C - Commercial & Industrial Total 2,176 1,680 1,57Grand Total 7,299 4,226 3,98

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 
Table A3.3a Benefits by BCR Activity (Reported)

Summer Winter Peak Off Peak Peak Off P

Data

Sector BCR Activity Total Ben SumCapVal WinCapVal TransVal DistVal WinPkVal WinOffVal SumPkVal SumOResidential $7,328,268 $490,896 $255,555 $461,406 $1,142,246 $1,307,137 $640,664 $603,615 $326

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity $429,299 $55,743 $21,845 $49,480 $122,492 $77,112 $34,205 $36,433 $16A02b Residential HVAC $487,874 $79,416 $49,108 $69,212 $171,340 $35,184 $26,154 $35,562 $2A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 $2,017,535 $120,474 $71,027 $116,093 $287,397 $723,221 $272,389 $259,783 $119A04a Residential Lighting $1,260,335 $44,288 $49,291 $50,009 $123,801 $326,903 $237,584 $170,340 $115A04b Residential Appliances $3,133,225 $190,976 $64,285 $176,612 $437,216 $144,717 $70,332 $101,497 $52

Low-Income $1,136,467 $38,528 $15,573 $35,619 $88,178 $145,685 $67,882 $82,305 $4

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 $518,599 $21,275 $9,237 $19,238 $47,624 $68,722 $34,152 $43,144 $26B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily $366,213 $338 $2,749 $294 $728 $48,400 $13,496 $1,012 B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity $251,655 $16,916 $3,588 $16,087 $39,826 $28,563 $20,234 $38,149 $13

Com/Ind $3,666,479 $331,283 $70,752 $330,094 $817,173 $754,277 $387,346 $533,420 $186

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity $258,382 $32,649 $6,459 $29,313 $72,565 $31,278 $22,563 $46,278 $15C03a Large C&I Retrofit $1,788,464 $165,104 $30,472 $176,443 $436,797 $427,543 $141,665 $298,944 $84C03b Small C&I Retrofit $1,619,633 $133,531 $33,822 $124,339 $307,810 $295,456 $223,118 $188,198 $86

Grand Total $12,131,214 $860,708 $341,881 $827,119 $2,047,597 $2,207,100 $1,095,892 $1,219,340 $554BCR Activity

Total Benefits

Total

Benefits

Capacity

Generation

Trans MDC

Energy

Winter Summer

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 
Sector BCR Activity Ann kW Sum kW Win kW Life kW Ann MWh Lifet MWh

Residential 5,201 890 1,970 10,956 6,799 67,686

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 332 67 125 1,168 329 3,791A02b Residential HVAC 189 81 189 1,629 138 2,761A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 1,288 241 479 2,755 2,512 31,742A04a Residential Lighting 2,784 195 816 1,255 3,252 20,949A04b Residential Appliances 609 306 361 4,150 568 8,443

Low-Income 221 61 102 839 596 7,802

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 130 30 55 453 272 4,037B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 48 0 23 7 139 1,407B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity 44 31 24 379 185 2,358

Com/Ind 1,185 920 697 8,028 4,872 43,414

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 57 43 32 688 165 2,618C03a Large C&I Retrofit 771 655 455 4,416 3,310 22,297C03b Small C&I Retrofit 357 221 210 2,924 1,397 18,499

Grand Total 6,608 1,871 2,769 19,823 12,267 118,901

BCR Activity

Load Reduction MWh Saved

Annual Summer Winter Lifetime Annual Lifetime

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 
Table A3.3b Benefits by BCR Activity – From the 2005 EEP (Planned) 

Capacity Energy

Generation Winter Summer 

Summer Winter Trans MDC Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak 

Low-Income ProgramsLI Single Family 101,825 66,669 96,385 238,607 361,747 146,067 123,893 75,187 LI Multi-Family 85,693 36,535 81,067 200,688 124,645 79,700 101,282 60,798 LI New Construction 12,604 6,943 12,633 31,274 16,061 9,896 8,759 5,088 Total Low-Income 200,122 110,148 190,085 470,570 502,454 235,664 233,934 141,073 Residential ProgramsNew Construction 88,352 49,074 82,493 204,218 82,349 42,633 42,902 21,023 P&S - Lighting 631,681 399,181 687,355 1,701,601 787,904 569,277 410,821 277,750 P&S - Appliances 957,436 50,874 906,967 2,245,268 293,456 345,883 480,529 265,582 P&S - HVAC 470,414 21,504 421,560 1,043,605 180,940 46,717 193,312 58,383 MassSAVE 529,081 330,926 487,503 1,206,852 1,097,202 537,374 504,516 268,213 Total Non Low-Income 2,676,964 851,559 2,585,879 6,401,544 2,441,850 1,541,883 1,632,080 890,951 Total Residential 2,877,086 961,706 2,775,964 6,872,114 2,944,303 1,777,547 1,866,014 1,032,025 C&I ProgramsLarge New Construction 78,717 15,628 69,896 173,032 69,567 53,824 110,210 37,658 Large Retrofit 68,680 16,319 64,934 160,748 165,602 95,574 110,026 41,841 Small Customers 369,549 104,601 335,029 829,390 893,506 672,565 569,577 261,348 Government - Large 255,657 47,185 231,775 573,778 557,987 181,147 393,747 109,196 Government - Small 338,543 95,825 306,920 759,803 818,540 616,137 521,789 239,421 Products and Services ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total Commercial & Industrial 1,111,145 279,557 1,008,553 2,496,751 2,505,201 1,619,247 1,705,350 689,464 Total Compact 3,988,231 1,241,264 3,784,517 9,368,866 5,449,505 3,396,794 3,571,363 1,721,489 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 
Lifetime

Natural Natural

Energy Capacity Energy Capacity Electricity Gas Oil Electricity Gas Oil

(MWH) (kW) (MWH) (kW) MMBtu MMBtu MMBtu MMBtu MMBtu MMBtu

Low-Income ProgramsLI Single Family 373 68 5,754 785 1,274 -306 505 19,634 -5,500 10,596LI Multi-Family 233 57 2,985 662 794 95 77 10,185 2,378 1,924LI New Construction 34 11 319 102 116 544 15 1,087 13,600 379Total Low-Income 802 190 10,395 1,990 2,737 333 597 35,466 10,478 12,899Residential ProgramsNew Construction 140 54 1,513 681 479 1,239 35 5,163 30,964 864P&S - Lighting 2,488 835 16,130 5,461 8,488 0 0 55,036 0 0P&S - Appliances 893 689 11,342 7,334 3,048 1,703 801 38,701 23,840 11,217P&S - HVAC 248 230 3,727 3,455 848 0 0 12,715 0 0MassSAVE 1,451 302 19,535 4,013 4,952 5,972 6,370 66,653 112,701 120,380Total Non Low-Income 5,221 2,110 52,247 20,944 17,815 8,914 7,206 178,268 167,505 132,461Total Residential 6,023 2,300 62,642 22,933 20,552 9,247 7,803 213,734 177,983 145,360C&I ProgramsLarge New Construction 136 36 2,177 575 464 0 0 7,428 0 0Large Retrofit 294 46 3,284 525 1,003 0 0 11,206 0 0Small Customers 1,398 195 20,270 2,832 4,770 0 0 69,162 0 0Government - Large 694 135 9,716 1,892 2,368 0 0 33,150 0 0Government - Small 1,281 179 18,570 2,595 4,370 0 0 63,359 0 0Products and Services *** *** *** ***Total Commercial & Industrial 3,803 591 54,017 8,419 12,975 0 0 184,305 0 0Total Compact 9,826 2,891 116,659 31,352 33,527 9,247 7,803 398,039 177,983 145,360

Annual Lifetime Annual

Table A3.4 Outsourced and In-House Expenditures (Reported) 

Sector OutsourceR

A001 Program

Planning and 

Administration

A002 Marketing 

Advertising

A003

Customer

Incentive

A004 Sales,

Technical

Assistance,

Training

A005

Evaluation & 

Market

Research

A006 

Participant

Cost

Total

Compact

Percentage 

Outsourced

A - Residential No 117,724 15,218 0 66,551 8,987 0 208,480 --- 

Yes 117,724 35,509 1,146,503 598,956 80,884 364,695 1,979,576 --- 

A - Residential Total 235,448 50,727 1,146,503 665,507 89,871 364,695 2,188,056 90% 

B - Low Income No 48,057 4,954 0 14,115 96 0 67,222 --- 

Yes 48,057 11,560 448,766 127,031 861 84,146 636,275 --- 

B - Low Income Total 96,114 16,515 448,766 141,145 957 84,146 703,497 90% C - Commercial & Industrial No 78,370 10,131 0 15,357 2,526 0 106,385 --- 

Yes 78,370 23,639 1,052,702 138,217 22,735 382,556 1,315,663 --- 

C - Commercial & Industrial Total 156,741 33,770 1,052,702 153,574 25,261 382,556 1,422,048 93% 

Grand Total 488,303 101,012 2,647,971 960,226 116,089 831,397 4,313,601 91% 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 
Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005 
Appendix 4. Post Program Savings Attributed to Selected 2005 

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. To the extent that 

such savings exist, the actual savings and benefits of the 2005 activities will be greater 

than those reported here. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005
Appendix 5. 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. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005
Appendix 6. Summary of 2005 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. 

• Measure Life Study, by energy & resource solutions, prepared for the 

Massachusetts Joint Utilities, October 10, 2005. 

• Impact and Process Evaluation Building Operator Certification (BOC) Program,

by RLW Analytics, prepared for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, June 

2005. 

• Free-ridership and Spillover Study, by PA Consulting, prepared for the Cape Light 

Compact in conjunction with National Grid and United Illuminating, June 2006. 

• Phase 1: Commercial Rooftop HVAC Unit Retrofit Programs, by New Buildings 

Institute, Inc., prepared for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, March 2006. 

• Market Research Report on NEEP Commercial Lighting Initiative, by energy & 

resource solutions, prepared for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership, June 

2006. 

• Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes: 2005 Baseline Study, Final Report, by 

Nexus Market Research, Inc. and Dorothy Conant, prepared for the Joint 

Management Committee, May 2006. 

• Analysis of Remaining Opportunities for the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR 

Appliances Program, by NMR, RLW Analytics, Inc., Dorothy Conant and Shel 

Feldman Management Consulting, prepared for Cape Light Compact, National 

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

Company, October 2005. 

• Evaluation of the MassSAVE Program: Market Survey Results, by RLW Analytics, 

prepared for , December 2005. 

• Kingman Yacht Center, Energy Audit Report, by RLW Analytics, prepared for the 

Cape Light Compact, January 2006. 

• Evaluation of the Cape Light Compact Residential New Construction Green 

Building 2003 Demonstration Project, by Vermont Energy Investment 

Corporation, prepared for the Cape Light Compact, March 2006. 

In addition, some program evaluation studies are currently in development. Final 

reports for the following studies are expected in summer 2006. 

• Market Progress and Evaluation Report (MPER) for the 2005 Massachusetts 

ENERGY STAR Residential Lighting Program, by Nexus Market Research, 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005
prepared for Cape Light Compact, National Grid USA, NSTAR Electric Company, 

Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Summer 2006. 

• Commercial HVAC Equipment Market Characterization, by KEMA Consulting, 

prepared for the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Summer 2006. 

Cape Light Compact – Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities in 2005
Measure Life Study executive summary 1

1. ECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Massachusetts electric utilities (Massachusetts Electric, NSTAR, Western Massachusetts 

Electric and Unitil) and the Cape Light Compact (collectively referred to as “the sponsors” or 

MA utilities) contracted Energy and Resource Solutions, Inc. (ERS) to conduct a Common

Measure Life Study. The primary goals of the Common Measure Life Study were as follows: 

 Define measure life and related terms, such as persistence 

 Review the provided table of current measure lives 

 Survey other utility energy efficiency programs 

 Develop a table of technological measure lives 

 Recommend common measure lives and persistence assumptions to be used by

the sponsors. 

Each of the sponsors offers a number of energy efficiency measures to their commercial and 

industrial (C&I) customers through the C&I New Construction, C&I Retrofit and Small Business 

Retrofit programs. Each program has prescriptive and custom measures. Many of the measures

offered to customers are common among the sponsors. However, methodologies to estimate the 

expected lifetime savings of an individual measure sometimes vary for a specific measure. The 

measure lives sometimes differ as do use and/or magnitude of other factors such as persistence 

and realization. 

The number of individual measures across all programs is large. Thus, the sponsors provided a 

simplified table that groups individual measure lives by end use within each program. The

sponsors also provided a table of agreed upon measure lives with referenced sources. 

Section 1 of this report, the Executive Summary, provides an introduction to the project and

summary of completed tasks. 

Section 2, Measure Life Definition, details the final definition for measure life, persistence and

realization, and the supporting research. 

Section 3, Measure Life Review, presents the current table of measure lives, discussion of New

Construction versus Retrofit measures, Small versus Large measures, research results from the

CALMAC database, a summary of results from surveying national utilities and a table of 

technical measure lives. 

Section 4, Recommended Measure Lives, presents our final recommendations, conclusions and

justifications for each recommendation. 

ma utilities measure life study 1-1 energy & resource solutions ers
section 1 executive summary

1.2 MEASURE LIFE DEFINITION

As stated above, a primary goal of the Common Measure Life Study was to define uniform

measure life and related terms, such as persistence and realization. The sponsors and ERS reached 

consensus on a measure life definition via telephone, email correspondence, conference calls and

a draft report presentation and discussion. In proposing a definition, we first researched the 

pertinent uses of measure life with the utility representatives. Measure life is used for the three 

purposes listed below: 

1) Measure screening tools 

2) Program savings forecasting for Energy Efficiency Plans 

3) Program reporting Massachusetts Annual Reporting Spreadsheet (MARS) database 

In each case, we discussed the use of measure life, and its relation to Persistence and Realization 

with the sponsors. Originally, all parties agreed to define measure life as technical life, and to

incorporate all persistence factors as Persistence. However, following a conference call, and in 

assembly of the draft report, we concluded that separate technical lives and measure persistence 

factors were very difficult to ascertain accurately, and refinement of these values in the future

would be extremely difficult. Thus, we have slightly altered the definition of measure life to

include measure persistence, while defining Persistence as solely savings persistence. The 

resulting definitions are as follows: 

Measure Life: 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 

(see definition below). 

 Equipment life is the number of years installed equipment will operate until failure. 

 Measure persistence takes into account business turnover, early retirement of the installed 

equipment, and any other reason the measure would be removed or discontinued. 

In addition, this definition conforms in letter or in spirit with the definition of measure life used 

by most national utilities. 

Persistence: 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. In cases where short-term savings have been measured 

(Realization), savings persistence would be relative to this. 

Realization: The realization factor accounts for the short term measured savings of a project 

relative to the original estimation of savings projected during the screening process. 

In researching these definitions, we analyzed the MARS database to understand how each of

these factors is used. In addition, we reviewed how other organizations use measure life. Further

details of this effort are presented in Section 2. 

1.3 MEASURE LIFE REVIEW & RESEARCH

ERS reviewed the tables of agreed upon and disputed measure lives provided by the sponsoring 

utilities. As tasked in our proposal, we researched several sources to use in support of selecting

ma utilities measure life study 1-2 energy & resource solutions ers
section 1 executive summary

individual measure lives. We first thoroughly researched the CALMAC database. The CALMAC 

database provides a public depository for all persistence, technical degradation factor and other 

related studies performed in the state of California. Next, we surveyed many electric utilities and 

state utility commissions throughout the nation, obtaining other utilities’ tables of measure lives.

We obtained measure life tables used in 8 states by at least 14 different utilities. Finally, we 

performed a literature search, referenced technical sources and consulted equipment

manufacturers to establish a table of technical lives for each measure. In conjunction with these

efforts, we specifically researched the affect of New Construction versus Retrofit status on 

measure lives, as well as the affect of Small versus Large businesses. Further details are provided 

in Section 3. 

1.4 RECOMMENDED MEASURE LIVES

Using the established definition of measure life and the research results presented in Section 3, 

we developed recommendations for measure life for each measure for each program. In our 

decision making process, we evaluated the MA utilities measure lives, the mean national measure 

life, technical lives and input from the sponsors. Through this process we found that sometimes 

equipment life is the most important factor in determining measure life, while in other cases

measure persistence factors such as the proper use of the equipment is much more important than 

the equipment lifetime. ERS judged each of the measure life cases individually to determine a 

common measure life and documented each decision in Section 4. 

Several broad conclusions were reached concerning measure lives. ERS concluded that retrofit

projects should have slightly shorter measure lives than new construction projects. This 

conclusion was reached based on a discussion of qualitative factors with the sponsors. ERS also 

concluded that small businesses should have the same measure lives as large businesses. Again, 

this conclusion was reached based on a discussion of qualitative factors with the sponsors. 

Finally, all measure lives were capped at 15 years to reflect uncertainty in measure persistence,

with the exception of building shell measures. The 15-year cap was suggested by ERS in

discussion with the sponsors, and received no objection. 

Table 1-1 presents the final recommendations for prescriptive common measure lives. Table 1-2 

presents the final recommendations for custom common measure lives. Further details are found 

in Section 4. 

ma utilities measure life study 1-3 energy & resource solutions ers
section 1 executive summary

Table 1-1 

Prescriptive Common Measure Life Recommendations 

Small Bus. Large C&I Large C&I

Category Measure Retrofit Retrofit New Const.

Lighting

Fluorescent 13 13 15

Hardwired CFL 13 13 15

LED Exit Signs 13 13 15

Double Face Exit Signs 13 NA NA

HID 13 13 15

Lighting Controls

Occupancy Sensors 9 9 10

Daylight Dimming NA 9 10

HVAC

Packaged AC/HP NA NA 15

Chillers NA NA 15

Enthalpy Economizer NA NA 15

HVAC Controls

Programmable Thermostat 13 NA NA

EMS NA 13 15

Motors

Motors 13 13 15

VFDs

on HVAC Fans 13 13 15

on non-HVAC Fans 13 13 15

on CT/Chilled Water Discharge Pump 13 13 NA

Refrigeration

Fan Control 12 NA NA

Door Heater Control 12 NA NA

Cooler Shut Off 12 NA NA

Vending NA 10 NA

Vending (non-refrig) NA 10 NA

Compressed Air

15-75 HP Efficient Compressor NA 13 15

Dryer NA NA 15

Common Measure Life (Years)

ma utilities measure life study 1-4 energy & resource solutions ers
section 1 executive summary

Table 1-2 

Custom Common Measure Life Recommendations 

Small Bus. C&I C&I

Category Measure Retrofit Retrofit New Const.

Lighting

Custom Lighting Measures 13 NA NA

Lighting Systems 13 NA 15

Lighting Controls

Lighting Controls NA 10 10

Occupancy Sensors NA NA 10

HVAC

HVAC Equipment of Systems NA 13 15

HVAC Controls

EMS & HVAC Controls NA 13 15

Motors

Motors NA 13 15

VFDs

Drives on HVAC Systems NA 13 15

Drives on non-HVAC Systems NA 13 15

Refrigeration

Industrial Refrigeration NA 13 15

Process Cooling NA 13 15

Refrigeration NA 12 12

Compressed Air

Compressed Air NA 13 15

Other

Custom Non-Lighting Measures 13 NA NA

O&M Projects NA 5 NA

Process Equipment or Systems NA 7 7

Building Shell NA NA 20

Other NA NA 12

Comprehensive Design Project NA NA 15

Comprehensive Chiller Project NA NA 15

Common Measure Life (Years)

ma utilities measure life study 1-5 energy & resource solutions ers
Building Operator Certification (BOC) is a nationally recognized training program designed to educate 

facilities personnel in the energy and resource efficient operation and maintenance of building systems. In 

2005 NEEP served as project administer for an evaluation of the BOC program as delivered in 2002-2003. 

The evaluation was completed by RLW Analytics in July 2005 and was sponsored by: Efficiency Maine, 

Cape Light Compact, Unitil, National Grid, NSTAR, Northeast Utilities, United Illuminating, NYSERDA, Long 

Island Power Authority, and utilities in New Jersey represented by South Jersey Gas Company and 

consultants to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.1

 

Study Objectives:

• Estimate energy savings and identify non-energy benefits of BOC coursework. 

• Assess persistence of savings from program-induced savings from 2000/2001 participants. 

• Estimate costs associated with O&M activities by enrollees. 

• Examine process-related issues, including barriers and marketing approaches. 

• Assess perceived value of BOC course among participants. 

• Update performance indicators. 

Overall Energy Savings 

Savings data is per enrollee per square foot (avg facility = 616,045 sq ft/enrollee) 

Electricity 

(kWH) Oil (MMBTU) 

Gas 

(MMBTU) 

Water 

(Gallons) 

With Rebates 0.35 0.40 0.34 0.14

Without Rebates 0.18 0.40 0.31 0.14

School Facility Energy Savings 

Savings data is per enrollee per square foot (avg facility = 662,862 sq ft/enrollee) 

Electricity 

(kWH) Oil (MMBTU) 

Gas 

(MMBTU) 

Water 

(Gallons) 

With Rebates 0.26 0.77 0.41 0

Without Rebates 0.15 0.77 0.35 0

Non-School Facility Energy Savings 

Savings data is per enrollee per square foot (avg facility = 854,360 sq ft/enrollee) 

Electricity 

(kWH) Oil (MMBTU) 

Gas 

(MMBTU) 

Water 

(Gallons) 

With Rebates 0.40 0.14 0.29 0.24

Without Rebates 0.20 0.13 0.28 0.24

Persistence of Savings: The evaluation indicates that all of the water savings, over 114% of the 

electricity savings, and almost 109% of the gas savings estimated in the 2002 evaluation of the BOC 

program are continuing today due to the program’s influence. This shows that funding towards the BOC 

program is an investment towards continued energy savings. 

 

1

 Efficiency Vermont, Keyspan Energy Delivery (MA), and PSNH were involved in the BOC Program during the time 

period evaluated but did not participate in the evaluation. 
 Non-Energy Benefits

100%

Survey of Program Value: 

• 45% of non-participants think certification is important or very important. 

• 80% of enrollees and forty percent of supervisors recommended the BOC to others. 

• On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=not useful and 5=extremely useful), enrollees rated Level 1 courses 3.9 and 

Level 2 courses 4.3 (school enrollees) and 3.8 (non-school enrollees). 

• 22% of non-participants reported willingness to pay $1,400. Most enrollees and supervisors felt the 

course was worth $1,400. Many enrollees did not pay full price due to sponsor subsidies. 

Barriers to Participation: 

• 47% of non-school and forty percent of school enrollees said time and staff availability were major 

considerations in decision to participate. Similarly, 51% of non-participants mentioned time and staff 

availability as a consideration. 

• Cost was greatest barrier for 18% of non-participants, 60% of enrollee supervisors, and 47% of 

participants. 

• Financial resources were greatest barrier to implementing O&M improvements by majority of 

enrollees and their supervisors (70% and 87%, respectively). 

84% 85%

46%

9%

19% 17%

67% 67%

87%

13%

Enrollees (n=93)

Supervisors (n=15)

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Improved Saved Saved money Job title Increased Increased

occupant energy on labor change responsibilities compensation

comfort and materials

|-- Facility Benefits from Course --| |-- Job Benefits from Course --|

 
Cape Light Compact 

2005 Commercial and Industrial Programs 

Free-ridership and Spillover Study 

Executive Summary 

June 14, 2006 
Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

Cape Light Compact 

2005 Commercial and Industrial Programs 

Free-ridership and Spillover Study 

Executive Summary 

June 14, 2006 

© PA Knowledge Limited 2006 

PA Consulting Group 

6410 Enterprise Lane 

Suite 300 

Madison 

Wisconsin 53719 

Tel: +1 608 443 2700

Fax: +1 608 661 5181

www.paconsulting.com

Prepared for: 

Prepared by: 

Kevin Galligan 

Elizabeth Titus 

Laura Schauer 

Kimberly Bakalars 

Bryan Ward 

Pam Rathbun 

Version: 1.0 
1-1

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Executive Summary 1-1

1.1 Study Objectives 1-1

1.2 Study Methodology 1-1

1.3 Total Participant Free-Ridership Estimates 1-2

1.4 Participant “Like” Spillover Estimates 1-5

1.5 Nonparticipant Spillover Estimates 1-8
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Executive Summary report summarizes the draft findings of the year 2005 Commercial 

and Industrial Free-ridership and Spillover Study for Cape Light Compact (CLC). The 

emphasis of this study was to assess program free-ridership, participant spillover and 

nonparticipant spillover for the following programs offered by CLC: 

• New Construction 

• Products and Services 

• Retrofit 

This study for CLC ran concurrent with the free-ridership and spillover studies conducted for 

National Grid and United Illuminating. 

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES 

The primary objective of the year 2005 Commercial and Industrial Free-ridership and 

Spillover Study was to assist CLC in quantifying the net impacts of their commercial/industrial 

energy efficiency programs by estimating the extent of: 

• Program free-ridership 

• Participant “like” spillover 

• Nonparticipant “like” spillover 

1.2 STUDY METHODOLOGY 

The methodology used for this year’s study follows the Standardized Methods developed in 

2003 for a group of Massachusetts energy efficiency program administrators1

. 

To accomplish the above objectives, telephone surveys were conducted with samples of 

2005 program participants in each of the programs, with design professionals and equipment 

vendors involved in these 2005 installations. The program participant sample consisted of 

unique utility accounts, not unique customers names. The same customer name, or business 

entity, can be have multiple accounts in multiple locations, but program technical support and 

incentives are provided on behalf of an individual account. Thus for the purposes of this 

study, a customer or participant is defined as a unique account. 

The majority of these telephone interviews were completed with program participants 

between March 30 and May 12, 2006. All sampled participating customers were mailed a 

letter on CLC letterhead in advance of the telephone call. This letter explained the purpose of 

the call, informed customers that someone would be calling them in the next couple of weeks 

to ask them some questions about their experience with the programs, and thanked them for 

their cooperation in advance. This advance letter and repeated call attempts resulted in an 

 

1

 Rathbun, Pamela, Carol Sabo, and Bryan Zent, “Standardization Methods for Free-Ridership and 

Spillover Evaluation—Task 5 Final Report (Revised).” Prepared for National Grid, NSTAR Electric, 

Northeast Utilities, Unitil, and Cape Light Compact, June 16, 2003.

1-1

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06
1.Executive Summary... 

1-2

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

increased response rate, which increases the level of confidence in the survey results. The 

duration of interviews with program participants averaged nine minutes. 

In addition to the customer surveys, surveys were conducted with 

• Design professionals and vendors identified by customers as being the most 

knowledgeable about the decisions to install the equipment through CLC’s programs. 

These surveys were used for estimating free-ridership for those installations where 

the design professional/equipment vendor was more influential in the decision than 

the customer. 

• Design professionals and equipment vendors who had installed equipment through 

CLC’s programs. These surveys were used for estimating the extent of 

nonparticipant ‘like’ spillover for these programs. 

1.3 TOTAL PARTICIPANT FREE-RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES 

A program’s free-ridership rate is the percentage of program participants deemed to be free 

riders. A free rider refers to a customer who received an incentive through an energy 

efficiency program who would have installed the same or a smaller quantity of the same high 

efficiency measure on their own within one year if the program had not been offered. For free 

riders, the program is assumed to have had no influence or only a slight influence on their 

equipment purchase decision. Consequently, none or only some of the energy savings of 

equipment purchased by this group of customers should be credited to the energy efficiency 

program. Free riders account for costs but not benefits to the program, driving benefit-cost 

ratios down. 

For programs that offer monetary incentives for multiple measure categories (e.g., motors, 

lighting, HVAC), it is important to estimate free-ridership by specific measure category. 

Category-specific estimates produce feedback on the program at the level at which it actually 

operates and allow for cost-effectiveness testing by measure category. 

In addition, for commercial and industrial incentive programs, free-ridership has often been 

found to be highly variable among measure categories, making it essential to produce 

measure category-specific estimates. The ability to provide reliable estimates by measure 

category is dependent on the number of installations within that measure category—the fewer 

installations, the less reliable the estimation. 

It is also important to measure the extent of free-ridership for each customer. Pure free riders 

(100%) would have installed exactly the same quantity and type of equipment within one year 

in the absence of the program. Partial free riders (1-99%) are those customers who would 

have installed some equipment within one year on their own, but a smaller quantity and/or a 

lesser efficiency. Thus, the program had some impact on their decision. Non-free riders (0%) 

are those who would not have installed any high efficiency qualifying equipment within one 

year in the absence of the program services. The total free-ridership estimates in this report 

include pure, partial, and non-free riders. 

This year’s approach to estimating free riders follows the approach outlined in the 

Standardized Methodology Report, which consisted of a sequential question technique to 

identify free riders. This sequential approach asks program participants about the actions they 
1.Executive Summary... 

1-3

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

would have taken if the program had not been offered. This approach is considered an 

accurate method of estimating the actual level of free-ridership among program participants 

because it addresses the program’s impact upon project timing, measure quantity, and 

efficiency levels while explicitly recognizing that the cost of energy-efficient equipment can be 

a barrier to installation in the absence of utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs. This 

method is also recommended because it walks survey respondents through their decision 

process with the objective of helping them recall the program’s impact upon all aspects of 

project decision-making. 

One issue with the method is how to handle responses of “Don’t know.” The “Don’t know” 

responses to the initial free-ridership question are assigned a free-ridership value of 0%. For 

these cases, we then check their responses to the consistency questions and their response 

to open-ended question and adjust the free-ridership rate as appropriate. Note that program 

total free-ridership (pure and partial) rates illustrated in the following tables are not weighted, 

as we attempted to speak with a census of participants. When reviewing the measure 

category free-ridership rates it is important to consider the number of survey completions that 

the estimate is based upon. 

New Construction Free-ridership Rates. Table 1 summarizes the total free-ridership results 

overall and by measure category for 2005 New Construction installations. The total freeridership for the 2005 program year was 60.0%. 

Table 1 

CLC New Construction Program Total Participant Free-ridership Rates 

All 2005 Installations 

Total Participant Free-ridership Rate

Measure Description # Accounts 

(Survey/Pop) 2005 

2005 90% 

Error 

Margin 

2004

HVAC 1/1 100.0% — --- 

Lighting 2/5 75.0% ±39.0% --- 

Compressed Air 2/2 25.0% ±0.0% --- 

Overall New Construction 4/7 60.0% ±26.4% ---

Overall survey and population participant counts do not equal the sum of measure category survey and population participant 

counts; the same participant may be represented in multiple measure categories. 

No surveys were conducted with New Construction participants last year. 

CLC Products and Services Participant Free-ridership Rates. Table 2 summarizes 

Products and Services free-ridership results for 2005 HVAC installations. Refrigeration 

installations could not be assessed; only one account was identified for refrigeration, and that 

account was not reachable for this study. 
1.Executive Summary... 

1-4

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

Table 2 

CLC Products and Services Program Total Participant Free-ridership Rates 

All 2005 Installations 

Total Participant Free-ridership Rate

Measure Description # Accounts 

(Survey/Pop) 2005 

2005 90% 

Error 

Margin 

2004

HVAC 10/19 67.5% ±16.8% 22.4% 

Refrigeration 0/1 — — --- 

Overall Products & Services 10/20 67.5% ±17.2% 19.5% 

Overall survey and population participant counts do not equal the sum of measure category survey and population participant 

counts; the same participant may be represented in multiple measure categories. 

The HVAC rate was pulled from the 2004 C&I Products and Services category. Refrigeration was not part of the Products and 

Services sample in 2004. 

CLC Retrofit Participant Free-ridership Rates. Table 3 summarizes the total free-ridership 

results overall and by measure category for 2005 Retrofit Program installations. 

Table 3 

CLC Retrofit Program Total Participant Free-ridership Rates 

All 2005 Installations 

Total Participant Free-ridership Rate

Measure Description # Accounts 

(Survey/Pop) 2005 

2005 90% 

Error 

Margin 

2004

Custom 1/1 50.0% ±0.0% --- 

VSD / Motors 3/3 8.3% ±0.0% 0.0% 

HVAC 3/3 43.3% ±0.0% 8.1% 

Refrigeration 6/11 4.2% ±9.1% --- 

Lighting 77/103 5.7% ±2.2% 5.8% 

Overall Retrofit 86/116 7.5% ±2.4% 6.1% 

Overall survey and population participant counts do not equal the sum of measure category survey and population participant 

counts; the same participant may be represented in multiple measure categories. 

Rates were pulled from the 2004 Small C&I Retrofit category. Refrigeration was not part of the Retrofit sample in 2004.
1.Executive Summary... 

1-5

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

Overall Participant Free-ridership Rates. Table 4 shows the CLC programs included in the 

2005 free-ridership study have a total 2005 free-ridership rate of 15.7%. 

Table 4 

Overall Cape Light Compact Participant Free-ridership Rates 

All 2005 Installations 

Total Participant Free-ridership Rates 

Program # Accounts Surveyed / 

Population 2005 Total Free-ridership 90% Error Margin 

New Construction 4/7 60.0% ±26.4% 

Products & Services 10/20 67.5% ±17.2% 

Retrofit 86/116 7.5% ±2.4% 

ALL 100/142 15.7% ±3.3% 

1.4 PARTICIPANT “LIKE” SPILLOVER ESTIMATES 

Spillover refers to additional energy-efficient equipment installed by a customer due to 

program influences but without any financial or technical assistance from the program. 

Participant “like” spillover refers to the situation where a customer installed equipment 

through the program in the past year and then installed additional equipment of the same 

type due to program influences. In contrast to free-ridership, spillover adds benefits to the 

program, increasing the program benefits and benefit-cost ratio. 

Survey free-ridership questions were followed by questions designed to measure "like" 

spillover. These questions asked about recent purchases (since program participation in 

2005) of any additional energy-efficient equipment of the same type as installed through the 

program that were made without any technical or financial assistance from the utility. A “like” 

spillover estimate was computed based on how much more of the same energy-efficient 

equipment the participant installed outside the program and did so because of their positive 

experience with the program.

One of the issues with attempting to quantify spillover savings is how to value the savings of 

measures installed outside the program since we are relying on customer self-reports of the 

quantity and efficiency of any measures installed. We used a conservative approach and 

reported only those measures installed outside the program that were of exactly the same 

type and efficiency as the ones installed through the program. Our conservative approach 

allowed customers to be more certain about whether the equipment they installed outside the 

program was the same type as the program equipment. This, in turn, made it possible for us 

to use the estimated program savings for that measure to calculate the customer’s “like” 

spillover savings. 

When reviewing the measure category “like” spillover it is important to consider the number of 

survey completions that the estimate is based upon. The number of survey completions for 

some measure categories is low because very few customers in the sample installed the 
1.Executive Summary... 

1-6

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

measure. Thus, although a high percentage of the 2005 program customers completed 

surveys, some caution should be used when interpreting the results. 

New Construction Participant “Like” Spillover Rates. Table 5 presents the like spillover 

rate for year 2005 New Construction participants overall and by measure. The New 

Construction program has no spillover saving attributions for the purchase of like equipment 

outside of the program. 

Table 5 

CLC New Construction Program Participant “Like” Spillover Rates 

All Year 2005 Installations 

Total Participant “Like” Spillover Rate

Measure Description # Accounts 

(Survey/Pop) 2005 

2005 90% 

Error 

Margin 

2004

HVAC 1/1 0.0% — --- 

Lighting 2/5 0.0% — --- 

Compressed Air 2/2 0.0% — --- 

Overall 4/7 0.0% — --- 

Overall survey and population participant counts do not equal the sum of measure category survey and population participant 

counts; the same participant may be represented in multiple measure categories. 

No surveys were conducted with New Construction participants last year. 

Products and Services Participant “Like” Spillover Rates. Table 6 presents the like 

spillover rate for year 2005 Products and Services installations overall and by measure. 

Table 6 

Products and Services Program Participant “Like” Spillover Rates 

All Year 2005 Installations 

Total Participant “Like” Spillover Rate

Measure Description # Accounts 

(Survey/Pop) 2005 

2005 90% 

Error 

Margin 

2004

HVAC 10/19 2.0% ±5.0% 0.0% 

Refrigeration 0/1 — — --- 

Overall 10/20 2.0% ±5.2% 0.0% 

Overall survey and population participant counts do not equal the sum of measure category survey and population participant 

counts; the same participant may be represented in multiple measure categories. 

The HVAC rate was pulled from the 2004 C&I Products and Services category. Refrigeration was not part of the Products and 

Services sample in 2004. 
1.Executive Summary... 

1-7

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

CLC Retrofit Participant “Like” Spillover Rates. Table 7 summarizes the like spillover rate 

for year 2005 Retrofit installations overall and by measure. 

Table 7 

CLC Retrofit Program Participant “Like” Spillover Rates 

All Year 2005 Installations 

Total Participant “Like” Spillover Rate

Measure Description # Accounts 

(Survey/Pop) 2005 

2005 90% 

Error 

Margin 

2004

Custom 1/1 0.0% — --- 

VSD / Motors 3/3 0.0% — 0.0% 

HVAC 3/3 0.0% — 0.4% 

Refrigeration 6/11 0.0% — --- 

Lighting 77/103 3.2% ±1.7% 3.5% 

Overall 86/116 2.7% ±1.5% 2.7% 

Overall survey and population participant counts do not equal the sum of measure category survey and population participant 

counts; the same participant may be represented in multiple measure categories. 

Rates were pulled from the 2004 Small C&I Retrofit category. Refrigeration was not part of the Retrofit sample in 2004.

Overall “Like” Spillover Rates. Table 8 shows the like spillover rate for all CLC programs. 

Table 8 

Overall Cape Light Compact Participant “Like” Spillover Rates by Account 

All Year 2005 Installations 

Total Participant “Like” Spillover Rates 

Program # Accounts Surveyed / 

Population 2005 Total “Like” Spillover 90% Error Margin 

New Construction 4/7 0.0% --- 

Products & 

Services 10/20 2.0% ±5.2% 

Retrofit 86/116 2.7% ±1.5% 

ALL 100/142 2.5% ±1.4% 
1.Executive Summary... 

1-8

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

1.5 NONPARTICIPANT SPILLOVER ESTIMATES 

Nonparticipant spillover refers to energy efficient measures installed by program 

nonparticipants due to the program's influence. The program can have an influence on design 

professionals and vendors as well as an influence on product availability, product 

acceptance, customer expectations, and other market effects, all of which may induce 

nonparticipants to buy high efficiency products. The methodology for the 2005 study 

estimated nonparticipant like-measure spillover based on responses from design 

professionals and vendors participating in National Grid’s Energy Initiative and Design 

2000plus programs and Cape Light Compact programs (it does not survey non-participating 

designers and vendors). United Illuminating design professional / vendors were not included 

due to insufficient data. 

The data for the analysis could have been collected from nonparticipants directly or from the 

design professionals and vendors who recommended, sold and/or installed qualifying high 

efficiency equipment. We chose to survey the design professionals and vendors primarily 

because they could typically provide much more accurate information about the efficiency 

level of installed equipment than could the nonparticipants. Experience has shown that 

customers cannot provide enough data about the new equipment they have installed to allow 

for accurate estimates of the energy savings achieved from the equipment. While they usually 

can report what type of equipment was installed, they typically cannot provide sufficient 

information about the quantity, size, efficiency and/or operation of that equipment to allow us 

to determine whether the equipment is "program-eligible." On the other hand, design 

professionals and equipment vendors who have worked with the program are typically more 

knowledgeable about equipment and are familiar with what is and is not "program-eligible." 

Another argument in favor of using design professionals and equipment vendors to estimate 

nonparticipant spillover was that we could use data in the program tracking system database 

to attach kWh savings estimates to nonparticipant spillover. In the program tracking system 

database, measure-specific program kWh savings are associated with each design 

professional and vendor who participated in the program in 2005. 

To determine nonparticipant spillover, design professionals and equipment vendors were 

asked (by measure category they installed in the program) what percent of their sales met or 

exceeded the program standards for each program measure category and what percent of 

these sales did not receive an incentive through the programs. They were then asked about 

the program’s impact on their decision to recommend/install this efficient equipment outside 

the program. Using the survey responses and measure savings data from the program 

tracking system, the participating vendor nonparticipant like spillover savings could be 

estimated for each design professional/vendor and the results extrapolated to the total 

program savings. 

This method of estimating nonparticipant spillover is a conservative estimate for two reasons. 

First, not all design professionals and equipment vendors who are familiar with the programs 

specified and/or installed equipment through the program in 2005. Thus, we miss any 

nonparticipant spillover that was associated with these other design professionals/vendors 

(although it is less likely these design professionals/vendors had nonparticipant spillover if 

they were not involved with the program in 2005). 
1.Executive Summary... 

1-9

Cape Light Compact 7/13/06 

Second, this method only allows us to extrapolate nonparticipant spillover for those same 

measure categories that a particular design professional/vendor was associated with for the 

2005 programs. Thus, if a vendor installed program-eligible equipment in other measure 

categories in the year 2005 outside the program, but none through the program, we did not 

capture nonparticipant spillover savings with that particular type of equipment. In essence, we 

measured only "like" nonparticipant spillover; that is, spillover for measures like those 

installed through the program in 2005. 

The nonparticipant spillover results are based on surveys with 161 design professionals and 

vendors out of a vendor population of 266. The analysis indicates that nonparticipant spillover 

from the programs amounted to 1,658,927 kWh in the 2005 program year, which is 

approximately 2.9% of the total savings produced in 2005 by the Cape Light Compact, 

Design 2000plus and Energy Initiative programs combined (Table 9). Nonparticipant spillover 

for National Grid’s Small Business Services program was not estimated because of the small 

number of vendors involved in delivering the program. 

None of the vendors associated with Cape Light Compact applications reported any like 

spillover. 
1.Executive Summary... 

Table 9 

Combined National Grid and Cape Light Compact Nonparticipant Like Spillover Results f

A B C D E F G 

Survey 

Categories 

Vendor 

Population 

kWh 

Savings2

Number of Firms 

Surveyed with 

kWh Savings/ 

Number of Firms 

in Program with 

kWh Savings 

Surveyed 

kWh 

Savings3

Surveyed 

Savings 

Coverage 

Rate 

(D/B) 

Nonparticipant 

Spillover from 

Surveyed Firms 

(kWh)4

Estimated 

Spillover 

Percent 

(F/D) 

Motors 422,984 9/17 315,026 74.5% 644 0.2% HVAC 12,965,586 37/64 8,536,556 65.8% 23,320 0.3% VSD 5,530,615 12/21 4,563,367 82.5% 8,181 0.2% Lighting 47,379,237 99/159 27,010,871 57.0% 273,303 1.0% Transformers 46,165 2/3 10,811 23.4% 0 0% Compressed Air 6,522,010 14/20 5,665,012 86.9% 575,756 10.2% Refrigeration 2,809,999 9/11 2,150,586 76.5% 0 0% Other5 9,904,501 24/35 8,382,091 84.6% 777,723 9.3% Total 85,581,098 161/266 56,634,320 66.2% 1,658,927 2.9% 

Lower Bound 1.5% 

90% Confidence Interval 

Upper Bound 4.3% 

2 The vendor population kWhs represents the total savings for all measures for the Design 2000plus and Energy Initiative programs (including the Cmeasured for each vendor associated with the program. Because the same application (and associated kWh) can be the basis for more than one ve

than the customer population kWh.

3 The total surveyed kWhs represents the total savings for all surveyed design professionals and surveyed vendors in the program tracking system d

actual vendors, not participants.

4 Net of “like” spillover for the customers associated with the surveyed design professionals/vendors, as identified from the participating customer su5 Other is a residual category consisting of measures remaining from “Custom” after equipment was reassigned to existing categories such as “Moto
New Buildings Institute, Inc.

P.O. Box 653 

White Salmon, Washington 98672 

Phone: (509) 493-4468 

Fax: (509) 493-4078 

E-mail: info@newbuildings.org 

Website: www.newbuildings.org 

Phase 1: Commercial Rooftop HVAC Unit Retrofit Programs 

March 28, 2006 

Prepared by: 

 Mark Cherniack, Howard Reichmuth and 

David Hewitt, New Buildings Institute, Inc. 

Prepared for: 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 

Jon Linn, Program Manager 

5 Militia Drive 

Lexington, Massachusetts 02421 

(781)860-9177 

NEW BUILDINGS INSTITUTE, INC. Draft 3/16/06 
Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 3

2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

SIZE OF THE MARKET...........................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

DATA SOURCES....................................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3. ROOFTOP UNIT SERVICES PROGRAM EXPERIENCE ............ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT 

DEFINED.

PROGRAM BUSINESS MODELS..............................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Utility Contractor Model ........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Franchise Contractor Model..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Specialty Contractor Model....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS.....................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

AirCare plus ...........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB)............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

National Grid (NH, MA, NY, RI)............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)........Error! Bookmark not

defined.

NSTAR (Eastern MA)..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO)...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Premium Service.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

California ...............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Integrated Design of Small Commercial HVAC Systems, Summary of Problems Observed in Field 

Studies of Small HVAC Units, Architectural Energy Corporation, October 2003..... Error! Bookmark 

not defined.

EQUIPMENT STOCK CHARACTERISTICS................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Age of Units............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Refrigerant Charge.................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Measure Distribution..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

MEASURE COSTS .................................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

RTU MEASURE ENERGY SAVINGS.......................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

4. ELEMENTS OF A ROOFTOP UNIT PROGRAM DESIGN........... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT 

DEFINED.

MEASURE SELECTION ..........................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS SCREENING.......................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Measure Screening .................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assembling a Program ...........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

PROGRAM MARKETING........................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

PROGRAM INTEGRATION......................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

QUALITY CONTROL/BEST PRACTICES..................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TRAINING/CERTIFICATION ...................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

EVALUATION .......................................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Collaborative Approaches......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Confidence and Usefulness of Results....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Preliminary discussion of an M&V approach to RTUs..........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

The Baseline Approach: Research Level Monitoring.............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Expedited Measurements........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

NEW TECHNOLOGY..............................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Fault Detection and Diagnostics............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. CONCLUSION................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

NEW BUILDINGS INSTITUTE, INC. Draft 3/16/06 
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS.................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1. Executive Summary 

This report is sponsored by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP), to summarize regional 

and national experience with retrofit improvements to unitary HVAC equipment on commercial building 

stock. This report supports the collaborative effort among stakeholders in the NEEP service area to 

achieve better understanding of issues relating to establishing and maintaining energy efficient 

performance of rooftop package HVAC units. The report also assesses the elements that guide the design 

of utility programs aimed at accelerating the realization of energy and demand savings from operation of 

this technology. 

The energy and demand savings available from rooftop HVAC systems are second only to lighting 

savings in the commercial buildings sector. Utility-sponsored rooftop unit service programs in the 

Northeast, California and Northwest have shown this resource to be a viable utility program target. 

Pilot efforts have shown possible energy savings on the order of 1,800 kWh/unit treated in comprehensive 

rooftop unit service programs, but that overall demand savings of greater than 150W/unit are unlikely. A 

trial cost-effectiveness review showed that these savings have a levelized resource cost of 3.6 cents per 

kilowatt hour. This resource is principally an energy resource, not a substantial demand resource. 

The programs include a variety of unit service measures aimed at refrigeration charge, air flow, 

thermostats/controls and economizers in an assortment of configurations. Most programs seek 

partnerships with the existing HVAC trade, emphasizing enhanced diagnostics, training, and quality

control methods. The scale of both the program and the approach is driven by the new resource 

requirements of an individual utility and a region. 

This resource is broad enough and cost effective enough to be the basis for utility demand-side program

development. It is recommended that impact evaluation efforts be undertaken on a multi-utility basis to 

underpin the savings estimates for the principal portions of the resource in the Northeast. 

Also included herein are discussions of: 

• The several rooftop unit programs reviewed 

• The rooftop unit equipment stock 

• Estimated energy savings and cost-effectiveness 

• Standard utility rooftop program service measures 

• Key factors that guide the nature and scale of a rooftop program

• Marketing and training/certification and evaluation issues 

• Potential for new technologies to impact the rooftop services market. 

It is hoped that this report will support the design and implementation of a practical plan for the bringing 

energy and demand savings potential in the rooftop HVAC unit market to a level of certainty suitable for 

consideration as a resource for the region’s power system and as a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy for 

the entire region. 

NEW BUILDINGS INSTITUTE, INC. Draft 3/16/06 
The Massachusetts ENERGY STAR®

 Homes 

Program 

2005 PROGRESS REPORT 

Final Report 

Submitted to: 

The Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Program 

 Joint Management Committee 

Submitted by: 

Dorothy Conant, Consultant 

June 8, 2006 
Table of Contents 

1. Introduction..................................................................................................1

2. Metrics ..........................................................................................................1

2.1 New Construction #1: Utility Cost Indicator (UCI) ..................................1 

2.2 New Construction #2: Market Share of Agreements to build ENERGY 

STAR Homes in Massachusetts........................................................................1 

3. Over the Years .............................................................................................2

3.1 Annual Signed Housing Units.................................................................3 

3.2 Current Status of Signed Housing Units .................................................6 

3.3 ENERGY STAR-Certified Homes ...........................................................8 

3.4 HERS Ratings ......................................................................................10 

3.5 Cost per Completed Housing Unit ........................................................12 

4. 2005 Program Activity ...............................................................................14

4.1 2005 Housing Units Recruited..............................................................15 

4.2 2005 Housing Projects Recruited .........................................................17 

4.3 2005 Housing Units and Projects by Size Category .............................18 

4.4 2005 Signings and Completions ...........................................................19 

4.5 Builder Mix—New and Repeat Participants ..........................................20 

4.6 Distribution across Utility Territories .....................................................22 

5. Point Score Data........................................................................................25
List of Figures 

Figure 3.1: Annual Signed Housing Units ........................................................................3 

Figure 3.2: Year-to-Date Total Permits Issued 2002 - 2006 ............................................4 

Figure 3.3: Year-to-Date Single-Family Permits Issued 2002 - 2006...............................4 

Figure 3.4: Year-to-Date Multi-Family Permits Issued 2002 - 2006 .................................4 

Figure 3.5: Recruited Housing Units by Housing Category..............................................5 

Figure 3.6: Current Status of Signed Housing Units ........................................................6 

Figure 3.7: Current Status of Signed Housing Units ........................................................7 

Figure 3.8: Completed Housing Units by Housing Category............................................8 

Figure 3.9: ENERGY STAR Completions as Percent of State-Wide Completions ..........9 

Figure 3.10: 1999 – 2005 HERS Ratings.......................................................................10 

Figure 3.11: 2003 - 2005 Maximum and Average HERS Scores...................................11 

Figure 3.12: Annual Program Spending.........................................................................12 

Figure 3.13: Annual Cost per Housing Unit....................................................................13 

Figure 4.1: 2003 - 2005 Signings by Housing Category ................................................15 

Figure 4.2: Status of 2005 Signed Housing Units by Housing Category........................16 

Figure 4.3: Number of 2003 - 2005 Signed Projects by Housing Category ...................17 

Figure 4.4: Percent of 2003 – 2005 Projects and Housing Units by Size ......................18 

Figure 4.5: 2005 Signings Showing Multi-Family Signings by Stories ...........................19 

Figure 4.6: 2005 Completions Showing Multi-Family Completions by Stories...............19 

Figure 4.7: Percent of 2005 Signed Projects and Housing Units from New Builders.....20 

Figure 4.8: Percent of 2005 Signed Projects and Housing Units from Repeat Builders 21 

Figure 4.9: Electric Sponsor Signed Projects and Housing Units ..................................23 

Figure 4.10: Gas Sponsor Signed Projects and Housing Units .....................................24 

Figure 5.1: Percent of Points from Measures 2002 - 2005 ............................................25 

Figure 5.2: Percent of Certified Housing Units Installing ENERGY STAR Lighting and 

Appliance Measures 2002 - 2005 ...................................................................................26 

Figure 5.3: Percent of Certified Housing Units Installing ENERGY STAR Heating 

Systems and Windows 2002 - 2005................................................................................27 
1. Introduction 

2. 

The annual Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Homes Program 2005 Progress Report is a 

summary of 2005 program activity. Program performance information includes historical 

as well as current information to show the growth of the Program over time. 

Metrics 

There were two residential new construction metrics for 2005. As shown below, the 

Program expects to achieve the exemplary level for the first metric and achieved the 

exemplary level for the second metric. 

2.1 New Construction #1: Utility Cost Indicator (UCI) 

Analyze data and report on the UCI for ENERGY STAR Homes in Massachusetts in 

2005 compared to the annual average of the previous three years and achieve 1% 

improvement in 2005 compared to previous three year average. 

Threshold: Report UCI for 2005 and the average of three previous years and achieve a 

1% improvement. 

Design: Achieve 5% improvement in 2005 compared to previous three year average. 

Exemplary: Achieve 10% improvement in 2005 compared to previous three year 

average. 

Achieved the exemplary level based on preliminary estimates. 

2.2 New Construction #2: Market Share of Agreements to build 

ENERGY STAR Homes in Massachusetts 

Threshold: Achieve a 17% market share for signed ENERGY STAR Homes agreements 

as a percentage of statewide housing permits. 

Design: Achieve an 18.5% market share for signed ENERGY STAR Homes agreements 

as a percentage of statewide housing permits. 

Exemplary: Achieve a 20% market share for signed ENERGY STAR Homes 

agreements as a percentage of statewide housing permits. 

Achieved the exemplary level by recruiting a 20% market share. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 2

3. Over the Years 

The figures on the following pages show the Program’s achievements since 1999. They 

show the number of housing units recruited each year, the status of those units at the end 

of 2005, 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 percent of estimated total annual housing units completed in 

Massachusetts. As these figures will show, the number of housing units recruited 

increased sharply in 2004 and again in 2005. As of the end of 2005, over 18,300 housing 

units have been recruited, over 9,200 of these have been completed and ENERGY 

STAR-certified and over 7,100 remain as active projects. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 3

3.1 Annual Signed Housing Units 

As Figure 3.1 shows, the proportion of new housing units recruited to participate in the 

Massachusetts Program and committed to be built to ENERGY STAR standards has been 

12% or more of total statewide annual housing permits issued since 2000, except for

2003. Following declines in 2002 and 2003, the number of housing units recruited rose

sharply to 3,320 housing units in 2004 and to 4,761 housing units in 2005. The number of 

housing units recruited in 2005 is more than double the number recruited just two years 

earlier (2003). 

Annual signed housing units as a percent of total permits issued in Massachusetts reached 

20% in 2005. Single-family homes recruited through the Program represent just over 

12% of single-family permits issued in the state, which is 50% higher than in 2003 and 

2004. Multi-family housing units recruited through the Program as a percent of multifamily housing permits issued doubled from 14% in 2003 to 28% in 2004 and grew to 

30% in 2005. 

Figure 3.1: Annual Signed Housing Units

(Percent of MA Statewide Permits) 

5%

12%

16%

14%

10%

15%

20%

27.9%

8.1% 8.0%

12.2%

14.0%

30.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

946

2,085

2,715

2,423

2,063

3,320

Single-Family

Multi-Family

4,761

Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 on the following page show year-to-date total, 

single-family and multi-family permits issued for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and the first 

three months of 2006.1

 Total permits issued in 2005 are 8% higher, single-family permits 

4% lower and multi-family permits 30% higher than in 2004. Total permits issued

through March 2006 are 16% higher, single-family permits 12% higher and multi-family 

permits 22% higher than in 2005. 

 

1

 Total permits for each year are the final revised annual totals which are higher than the published 

December year-to-date totals. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 4

Figure 3.2: Year-to-Date Total Permits Issued 2002 - 2006 

17,465

20,257

22,477

24,171

5,279

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

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

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total Permits

Year-to-Date

Figure 3.3: Year-to-Date Single-Family Permits Issued 2002 - 2006 

13,636

13,037

14,842

14,223

2,992

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

Single-Family Permits

Year-to-Date

Figure 3.4: Year-to-Date Multi-Family Permits Issued 2002 - 2006 

3,829

7,220

7,635

9,948

2,287

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

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

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Multi-Family Permits

Year-to-Date
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 5

Figure 3.5 shows the number and percentage of housing units recruited in each year by

housing category, based on rebate definitions. Historically, the JMC classified housing 

units as single-family or multi-family, with a further breakdown into low income or non 

low income housing units. The criteria for classifying participating units as single-family 

or multi-family were based on the rebates paid. Under this approach, single-family 

includes single home projects and detached single-family home developments; multifamily includes all attached single-family developments and all multi-story projects, 

where the builder receives the lower multi-family rebate per housing unit.

In order to present information using consistent definitions across all years, the numbers 

of multi-family low income housing units recruited in Figure 3.5 include all housing units 

in low income projects, whether or not all the units in the project are low income units. In

2003 the Program began tracking the percentage of units in each low income project that 

are actual low income units: 72% of units in multi-family low income projects in 2003, 

and 96% of units in multi-family low income projects in both 2004 and 2005 are actual 

low income units.2

 

Figure 3.5: Recruited Housing Units by Housing Category

(Rebate Definitions) 

981

30% 667

313 12% 433 18% 32%

823

39%

742

16%

1,771

 53%

784

 38% 1,019

 42%

1,743

 64%

576

 28%

2,998

63%

568

17%

1,021

21%

686

33%

659

24%

971

40% 612

30%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year Signed

Single-Family Multi-Family Non Low Income Multi-Family Low Income

2,085

2,715

2,423

2,063

3,320

4,761

 

2

 The number of actual low income units is shown in subsequent tables that address 2003 to 2005 recruited

housing units by Census Bureau housing categories. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 6

3.2 Current Status of Signed Housing Units 

Since its inception, the Massachusetts Program has certified over 9,200 housing units as 

ENERGY STAR-qualified. Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7 show the status at the end of 2005 

of the homes recruited in each of the years 1999 through 2005. Figure 3.6 shows the 

number of homes that have been completed, are currently active or have dropped out of 

the Program; Figure 3.7 presents the same information expressed as the percentage of 

homes. In both figures the blue areas represent the proportion of homes recruited in a 

given year that were certified by the end of 2005, the red areas represent the proportion of 

homes recruited in a given year that have not yet been completed, and the gold areas

represent the proportion of homes recruited in a given year that have dropped out of the 

Program. Just over ten percent (1,968, or 11%) of the housing units signed up during the 

1999 through 2005 period have dropped out of the Program, either because they did not 

meet ENERGY STAR standards or because construction plans were cancelled. There are 

currently over 7,100 active housing units in the Program; these are housing units that are 

either currently under construction or planned to be built. The housing units signed up 

prior to 2005 that are still active generally reflect housing units in large projects with 

construction plans that cover several years. 

Figure 3.6: Current Status of Signed Housing Units 

(1999-2005 Signings) g g

518

415

1,577

4,383

550

1,223 1,454

2,263

1,663 1,388

890

342

520

206

260

176

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year Signed

Number of Housing Units

Completed Active Dropped Out

946

2,085

2,715

2,423

2,063

3,320

4,761
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 7

Figure 3.7: Current Status of Signed Housing Units 

(Percentage of Homes Completed, Active, Dropped Out) 

70%

83%

69% 67%

37%

7%

50%

5%

6%

26%

11% 10% 13% 16% 11%

94%

39%

48%

21% 20%

4%

92%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

Year Signed

Completed Active Dropped Out
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 8

3.3 ENERGY STAR-Certified Homes 

Figure 3.8 shows the number of homes recruited in each year that have been completed 

and certified as ENERGY STAR homes through the Program, broken down by housing 

category using the rebate definitions. The totals for each year in Figure 3.8 are the same

as the blue areas in Figure 3.6. 

Figure 3.8: Completed Housing Units by Housing Category

(Rebate Definitions) 

452

264 296 355

360

1,436

578

175

642

563

789

648

74

345

385 373

93

505

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year Signed

Certifi

e

d Housing Unit

s

Single-Family Multi-Family Non Low Income Multi-Family Low Income

1,454

2,263

1,663

1,388

1,223

Total 2000-2005 Certified Housing Units = 8,333

342
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 9

Figure 3.9 shows the number of housing units that have been certified each year through 

the Program and the percentage they represent of estimated total annual completed 

housing units in Massachusetts. The housing units certified in any year include housing 

units recruited in previous years. As shown, the number of housing units certified through 

the Program has increased each year, both in number and in percent of total completed

housing units, reaching 2,358 housing units and 11.1% of the market in 2005. 

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, as well as the rebate definitions. 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 interstructural public utilities such 

as water supply, power supply, or sewage disposal lines. Because housing units certified 

as ENERGY STAR since 2003 are tracked using the Census Bureau definitions, it is

possible to separately calculate the percentage of multi-family housing units completed in 

the state that are ENERGY STAR (19.8% in 2003, 22.5% in 2004 and 28.6% in 2005) 

and the percentage of single-family housing units completed in the state that are 

ENERGY STAR (6.0% in 2003, 6.5% in 2004 and 6.1% in 2005). 

Figure 3.9: ENERGY STAR Completions as Percent of State-Wide 

Completions p g

11.1%

9.3% 9.2%

6.4%

3.6% 3.0%

9.4%

6.0% 6.5% 6.1%

28.6%

22.5%

19.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

495 565

965

1,435 1,641

Multifamily

Single Family

1,854

2,358

 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 10

3.4 HERS Ratings 

The average HERS score for certified homes continues to rise. As shown in Figure 3.10, 

the average HERS score of homes certified in 1999 was 86.66 and in 2005 it is 88.99. 

This 2.33 point increase in the average HERS score equates to an increase of 11.6% in 

energy savings for certified homes.3

 Figure 3.10 also shows that each year some certified 

homes have achieved HERS scores that exceed the 86.00 score required for ENERGY 

STAR certification by more than five points. In 2003 and 2004 at least one home

received a HERS score of 94.00 or higher, which represents energy savings of 40% over 

a home with a minimum ENERGY STAR qualifying HERS score of 86.00. To 

encourage builders to make their homes as energy efficient as feasible, instead of just 

meeting the 86 HERS score requirement, the Program offers higher incentives to homes

with higher HERS scores. 

Figure 3.10: 1999 – 2005 HERS Ratings 

(Completed Housing Units Each Year) 

88.18

88.99

88.06

87.16 87.03 87.21 86.66

86.75 86.60 86.60

87.90 88.10

88.70

91.50

94.00

93.60

86.00

92.30 92.70

91.70

94.10

85.00

87.00

89.00

91.00

93.00

95.00

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year Completed/Certified

HERS R

ating

Average HERS Rating Median HERS Rating Maximum HERS Rating

 

3 Based on five percent increase in savings per point increase in HERS score. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 11

Figure 3.11 shows the maximum and average HERS scores by housing type for homes

certified in 2003, 2004 and 2005. As shown, the maximum HERS score for a singlefamily attached home in 2005 is much lower than in previous years, while the maximum 

HERS cores for multi-family units are higher than in previous years. The 2005 average 

HERS scores are virtually the same as in 2003 and 2004 for single-family homes and 

measurably higher than in 2003 and 2004 for multi-family housing units. 

Figure 3.11: 2003 - 2005 Maximum and Average HERS Scores 

88.22 88.06

87.83

88.53

89.26

89.66 89.53

88.13

88.99

91.70

92.90 93.00 93.00

87.92 87.80 87.55 87.80

88.39

94.10 94.10

91.80

94.10

92.10 91.70

92.10

93.90

93.60 93.60 93.60

85.00

86.00

87.00

88.00

89.00

90.00

91.00

92.00

93.00

94.00

95.00

Single-Family

Detached

Single-Family

Attached

Multi-Family

Non Low

Income

Multi-Family

Low Income

Total MultiFamilyTotal SingleFamilyAll Homes

H

ERS Rating

Average 2003 Average 2004 Average 2005

Maximum 2003 Maximum 2004 Maximum 2005
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 12

3.5 Cost per Completed Housing Unit 

Table 3.1 shows that the yearly number of housing units signed has more than doubled, 

from 2,085 in 2000 to 4,761 in 2005. Meanwhile the yearly number of housing units 

completed and certified has quadrupled, from 565 in 2000 to 2,358 in 2005. 

Table 3.1: 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 $4,925 3,320 1,854

2005 $5,153* 4,761 2,358

 *Preliminary Estimate

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. shows annual spending by electric 

Program Sponsors has increased by 63%, from just over three million dollars in 2000 to 

over five million dollars in 2005.4

 Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. also

shows that one and one-half million dollars, or 28% of total 2005 spending, was for low

income projects. 

Figure 3.12: Annual Program Spending 

$0.8 $0.6 $0.7

$1.5

$2.7 $3.5 $3.4

$3.4

$0.7

$1.5

$2.5

$3.7

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Millions

Low Income Non Low Income

$3.4

$4.1 $4.2

$3.2

$4.9 $5.2 Total Spending

 

4

 The cost data are from annual reports filed with the Division of Energy Resources (DOER) by the electric 

utilities and the 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. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 13

Figure 3.13 shows the annual cost per signed housing unit and per completed housing 

unit. The dramatic decrease in cost 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 certified. 

Figure 3.13: Annual Cost per Housing Unit 

$2,657

$2,185

$1,515 $1,265

$1,683

$2,016

$1,484

$1,082

$3,558

$5,592

$2,842

$2,552

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year Homes Signed or Completed

Cost Per Completed Housing

Cost Per Signed Housing Unit
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 14

4. 2005 Program Activity 

The Program strives to recruit a mix of project and housing types and to bring new 

builders into the Program, as well as maintain the involvement of currently participating 

builders, to sustain the Program’s momentum. The figures presented in this section 

address housing units signed up in 2003, 2004 and 2005. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 15

4.1 2005 Housing Units Recruited 

The Program strives to recruit a mix of housing types, including single-family detached, 

single-family attached and multi-family housing. As shown in Figure 4.1, approximately

one-half of the housing units recruited in 2003 were single-family homes and one-half 

were in multi-family buildings, with just over one-third of the multi-family housing units

qualifying as low income. In both 2004 and 2005, single-family homes accounted for just

over one-third (36%) and multi-family housing units almost two-thirds (64%) of recruited 

housing units. Just under one-fourth of the multi-family housing units in 2004 (22%) and 

just under one-third (31%) of the multi-family housing units in 2005 are low income

units. 

As mentioned earlier, in some low income projects there is a mix of low income and non 

low income units. In 2003 the Program began tracking the number of actual low income

units in low income projects. The numbers of low income housing units shown in 

Figure 4.1 are the actual numbers of low income units recruited. The total number of low 

income units signed in 2003 is 440 (359 multi-family, 80 single-family attached and one

single-family detached). The total number of low income units signed in 2004 is 568 (461 

multi-family, 83 single-family attached and 24 single-family detached). The total number

of low income units signed in 2005 is 985 (929 multi-family, 54 single-family attached 

and two single-family detached). 

Figure 4.1: 2003 - 2005 Signings by Housing Category

(Census Bureau Definitions) 

667 = 32%

957 = 29% 742 = 16%

941 = 20%

304 = 15%

129 = 4%

2,095 = 44%

653 = 32%

1,666 = 50%

929 = 20%

359 = 17%

461 = 14%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

2003

Housing Units

2004

Housing Units

2005

Housing Units

Num

ber of Housing Units

Multi-Family Low

Income

Multi-Family Non

Low Income

Single-Family

Attached Low

Income

Single-Family

Attached Non Low

Income

Single-Family

Detached

2,063

3,320

4,761
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 16

Figure 4.2 shows the status of the housing units recruited in 2005 as of the end of the 

year. Overall, seven percent of the housing units recruited in 2005 were also completed in 

2005. By housing category, the percentage of housing units both recruited and completed 

in 2005 ranges from a low of four percent of multi-family non low income housing units 

to a high of 13% of single-family attached housing units 

Figure 4.2: Status of 2005 Signed Housing Units by Housing Category

(Census Bureau Definitions) 

 845 = 91%

2,009 = 96%

866 = 87%

 663 = 89%

 65 = 7%

77 = 4%

126 = 13%

 74 = 10%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Single-Family

Detached

Single-Family

Attached

Multi-Family Non Low

Income

Multi-Family Low

Income

Active Housing Units Completed Housing Units Deactivated

Total Signed Units = 4,761

Total Units Deactivated = 36
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 17

4.2 2005 Housing Projects Recruited 

Figure 4.3 shows the number of projects recruited in 2003, 2004 and 2005 by housing 

category. Recruitment efforts focus on builders with multi-home projects, but many 

people building their own homes or builders certifying just one home at a time participate 

in the Program. The number of single home projects was 186 in 2004 and 156 in 2005. 

These single-home projects are a small percentage of total housing units committing to be

built to ENERGY STAR-standards, but they are valuable to the Program because they 

bring many local builders into the Program who may talk to other small builders, thereby

increasing awareness of the Program and its benefits. 

Figure 4.3: Number of 2003 - 2005 Signed Projects by Housing Category 

(Census Bureau Definitions) 

161 = 80% 176 = 59%

234 = 70%

41 = 14%

17 = 5% 49 = 16%

54 = 16%

16 = 8%

29 = 10%

26 = 8%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2003 Projects 2004 Projects 2005 Projects

Number of Pr

ojects

Multi-Family Low Income

Multi-Family Non Low

Income

Single-Family Attached

Low Income

Single-Family Attached

Non Low Income

Single-Family Detached

201

336

300
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 18

4.3 2005 Housing Units and Projects by Size Category 

Figure 4.4 shows the percentage of housing units and the percent of projects signed in 

2003, 2004 and 2005 falling into various size categories based on the number of housing 

units in the project. Not surprisingly single-homes account for more than one-half of all 

projects signed in each year, but a shrinking percent of housing units (seven percent in

2003, five percent in 2004 and three percent in 2005). The majority of housing units 

signed in every year are in non low income projects with over 25 housing units; 61% of 

all housing units signed up in 2003, 55% in 2004 and 59% in 2005.. 

Figure 4.4: Percent of 2003 – 2005 Projects and Housing Units by Size 

70%

52% 55%

7% 5%

7%

7%

13%

17%

9%

18%

16%

6%

7%

10% 10% 11%

61%

55%

59%

19%

10% 16%

3%

3%

4%

12% 5%

4%

5%

3% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Large Over 25 UnitsLow Income

Large Over 25 UnitsNon Low Income

Medium 6-25 UnitsLow Income

Medium 6-25 UnitsNon Low Income

Small 1-5 Units-Low

Income

Small 1-5 Units-Non

Low Income

Single Homes- Low

Income

Single Homes-Non

Low Income

Percent of Projects Percent of Housing Units
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 19

4.4 2005 Signings and Completions 

Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 below show the percentage of 2005 signings and completions 

by housing category, breaking the multi-family housing units into those in buildings less

than four stories and those in buildings four stories and higher. Going forward, the 

Sponsors are working on combining efforts with their commercial and industrial energy 

efficiency programs to better serve multi-family building four stories and higher. As 

shown, housing units in multi-family buildings four stories and higher accounted for 32%

of signings and 18% of completions in 2005. 

Figure 4.5: 2005 Signings Showing Multi-Family Signings by Stories 

2005 Signings

Muti-Family

Less Than 

Four Stories

31%

Single-Family

Attached

21%

Single-Family

Detached

16% Multi-Family

Four Stories & 

Higher

32%

Figure 4.6: 2005 Completions Showing Multi-Family Completions by

Stories 

2005 Completions

Muti-Family

Less Than 

Four Stories

43%

Single-Family

Attached

16%

Single-Family

Detached

23%

Multi-Family

Four Stories

& Higher

18%
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 20

4.5 Builder Mix—New and Repeat Participants 

Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 show the percentages of projects and housing units recruited in 

2005 coming from builders new to the Program (Figure 4.7) and builders who have 

previously participated in the Program (Figure 4.8). 

Efforts to recruit new builders into the Program continue to be successful: 57% of the 

projects, representing 53% of the housing units recruited in 2005, are with builders new 

to the Program. (The comparable percentages for 2004 are 60% of projects and 59% of 

housing units, for 2003 are 63% of projects and 57% of housing units recruited and for 

2002 are 76% of projects and 47% of housing units recruited.) 

Figure 4.7: Percent of 2005 Signed Projects and Housing Units from New

Builders 

62%

29%

51%

67%

64%

55%

58%

52%

57%

32%

11%

50%

65%

41%

45%

53%

14%

56% 55%

62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Single

Homes

Small 1-5

Units-Non

Low

Income

Small 1-5

Units-Low

Income

Medium 6-

25 UnitsNon Low

Income

Medium 6-

25 UnitsLow

Income

Large Over

25 UnitsNon Low

Income

Large Over

25 UnitsLow

Income

All 2005

Non-Low

Income

Signings

All 2005

Low

Income

Signings

All 2005

Signings

% Projects % Housing Units
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 21

Figure 4.8 shows that at least one-third of the projects recruited in 2005 in each project 

size category and the housing units recruited in each project size category are from

builders who have previously participated in the Program. They account for 43% of the 

projects and 47% of the housing units recruited in 2005. (The comparable percentages for 

2004 are 40% of the projects and 41% of the housing units recruited, for 2003 are 37% of 

the projects and 43% of the housing units recruited and for 2002 are 24% of projects and 

53% of housing units recruited.) 

Figure 4.8: Percent of 2005 Signed Projects and Housing Units from 

Repeat Builders 

38%

71%

49%

33%

36%

45%

42%

48%

43%

68%

89%

50%

36%

59%

55%

47%

86%

44% 45%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Single

Homes

Small 1-5

Units-Non

Low

Income

Small 1-5

Units-Low

Income

Medium 6-

25 UnitsNon Low

Income

Medium 6-

25 UnitsLow

Income

Large Over

25 UnitsNon Low

Income

Large Over

25 UnitsLow

Income

All 2005

Non-Low

Income

Signings

All 2005

Low

Income

Signings

All 2005

Signings

% Projects % Housing Units
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 22

4.6 Distribution across Utility Territories 

Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 on the following two pages show the number and percentage 

of projects and housing units signed in 2005 in each of the Sponsors’ service areas. 

Figure 4.9 addresses electric Sponsors’ service areas, and also municipal electric service 

areas, and Figure 4.10 addresses gas Sponsors’ service areas. The figures show the 

number and percent of total and low income projects and housing units recruited in 2005 

in each service area. The total number of 2005 signings in gas utility service areas is less 

than the total for participating electric utilities because some of the areas served by the 

Program do not have access to gas and are, therefore, not part of the gas utilities’ service 

areas; 31% of all projects and ten percent of all housing units signed in 2005 are outside 

gas service areas. 

Clearly, the projects and housing units are not evenly distributed across electric or gas 

service areas. One of the biggest changes from 2004 is an increase in the number and 

percentage of low income housing units recruited in Massachusetts Electric territory; the 

number of low income units recruited in Massachusetts Electric territory increased from 

60 housing units or 12% of all low income units recruited in 2004, to 454 housing units 

or 46% of all low income units recruited in 2005. 
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 23

Figure 4.9: Electric Sponsor Signed Projects and Housing Units 

Percent of Total Projects (300)

MECo

36%

WMECo

27%

CLC 5%

BECo

20%

CELCo 4%

Unitil

1%

CECo 5%

Munis

2%

 Percent of Low Income Projects (36)

Munis

3%

CECo

3%

BECo

WMECo 36%

19%

MECo

39%

Percent of Total Housing Units (4,761)

MECo

39%

BECo

31%

CECo 11%

CELCo 5%

WMECo

9%

Munis

0.2%

Unitil

1%

CLC 4%

 Percent of Low Income Units (985)

MECo

47%

Munis

0.4%

WMECo

14%

CECo

2%

BECo

37%

Electric Utility Total

Projects 

Non Low

Income 

Projects 

Low

Income 

Projects 

Total

Units 

Non Low

Income 

Units 

Low

Income 

Units 

Mass Electric (MECo) 111 97 14 1,844 1,390 454

Western Mass Electric (WMECo) 80 73 7 441 302 139

Boston Edison (BECo) 61 48 13 1,463 1,094 369

Cambridge Light (CELCo) 11 11 0 220 220 0

Commonwealth Electric (CECo) 14 13 1 529 510 19

Cape Light Compact (CLC) 16 16 0 208 208 0

Unitil 2 2 0 48 48 0

Municipals (Munis) 5 4 1 8 4 4

Totals: 300 264 36 4,761 3,776 985
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 24

Figure 4.10: Gas Sponsor Signed Projects and Housing Units 

Percent of Total Projects (300)

No Gas

31%

KEYSPAN

28%

FLLRVR

2%

Unitil

0.3%

BRKSH

6%

BAYST

20%

NSTAR

13%

 Percent of Low Income Projects (36)

BAYST

17%

No Gas

14%

BRKSH

6%

FLLRVR

3%

KEYSPAN

41%

NSTAR

19%

Percent of Total Housing Units (4,761)

BAYST

13%

NSTAR

24%

No Gas

10%

KEYSPAN

46%

FLLRVR

3%

Unitil

0.3%

BRKSH

4%

Percent of Low Income Units (985)

No Gas

15%

BRKSH

4%

FLLRVR

1%

KEYSPAN

68%

NSTAR

9%

BAYST

6%

Gas Utility Total

Projects 

Non Low

Income 

Projects 

Low

Income 

Projects 

Total

Units 

Non Low

Income 

Units 

Low

Income 

Units 

Bay State (BAYST) 59 53 6 611 552 59

KeySpan Gas 83 68 15 2,222 1,551 671

Berkshire Gas (BRKSH) 19 17 2 193 181 12

NSTAR Gas 40 33 7 1,124 1,039 85

Fall River Gas (FLLRVR) 6 5 1 132 121 11

Unitil 1 1 0 12 12 0

Blank 92 87 5 467 320 147

Totals: 300 264 36 4,761 3,776 966
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 25

5. Point Score Data

Figure 5.1 shows the percentage of points earned from several measures in each year 

from 2002 through 2005. ENERGY STAR heating systems earn four points and 

installing ENERGY STAR windows earns four points. ENERGY STAR refrigerators, 

room air conditioners, dishwashers, clothes washers and central air conditioning (SEER 

13+) each earn three points. Each ENERGY STAR lighting fixture installed earns two 

points and each ENERGY STAR compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb earns one point. 

Installing photovoltaics earns one point. The large majority of points come from lighting 

measures, with almost one-half of all points coming from CFL bulbs. The percentage of 

points coming from lighting fixtures continues to decline while the percentage of points 

from CFLs continues to rise, although the increase in 2005 is minimal following two 

years of very large increases. 

Several measures that earn points, and account for less than one percent of points, are not

included in Figure 5.1. The measures not included in Figure 5.1 and the percentage of 

total points they accounted for in 2005 are: room air conditioners (0.3%), 13+ SEER 

central air conditioning (0.3%), clothes washers (0.1%) and photovoltaics (0.1%). 

Figure 5.1: Percent of Points from Measures 2002 - 2005 

47%

6%

18%

9%

10%

38%

11%

9%

7%

10%

8% 8%

6%

23%

42%

11% 10%

7% 6%

10%

7%

27%

42%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Fixtures Bulbs Heating

Systems

Windows Dishwashers Refrigerators

Perc

e

nt of Points

2002 2003 2004 2005
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 26

Figure 5.2 shows the percentage of housing units certified in each year from 2002 

through 2005 that installed lighting and appliance measures. The percentages of housing 

units installing lighting and appliance measures changed little in 2005. 

Figure 5.2: Percent of Certified Housing Units Installing ENERGY STAR 

Lighting and Appliance Measures 2002 - 2005 

60% 59% 59% 57% 58%

47%

70% 68%

49% 50%

72%

62%

58%

6%

70%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Fixtures Bulbs Dishwashers Refrigerators

Percent of

H

o

m

e

s

2002 2003 2004 2005
2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes Progress Report Page 27

Figure 5.3 shows the percent of ENERGY STAR-certified housing units that installed 

ENERGY STAR heating systems and windows. As shown, the percentage of homes

installing ENERGY STAR heating systems has been relatively stable over the last four 

years while the percentage of homes installing ENERGY STAR windows increased by 

more than one-third in 2005. 

Figure 5.3: Percent of Certified Housing Units Installing ENERGY STAR Heating 

Systems and Windows 2002 - 2005 

66%

69%

53%

77%

73%

37%

77%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Heating Systems Windows

Percent of 

H

omes

2002 2003 2004 2005
22 Haskell Street Cambridge, MA 02140 

Phone: 617-497-7544 Fax: 617-497-7543 

www.nexusmarketresearch.com 

Evaluation of the MassSAVE Program: 

 Market Survey Results 

Final 

December 30, 2005 

Submitted to: 

Bay State Gas 

Berkshire Gas 

Cape Light Compact 

KeySpan Energy Delivery 

National Grid 

New England Gas Company 

NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation 

Unitil 

Northeast Utilities/Western Massachusetts Electric

Submitted by: 

Nexus Market Research, Inc. 
22 Haskell Street Cambridge, MA 02140 

Phone: 617-497-7544 Fax: 617-497-7543 

www.nexusmarketresearch.com 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. Characteristics of the Survey Respondents.............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. Knowledge of and Experience with MassSAVE ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

4. Interest in MassSAVE Participation and Preference for Incentives Error! Bookmark not defin

5. Willingness to Install Energy Efficiency Measures ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. Interest in MassSAVE Participation for Rental Units Error! Bookmark not defined.

7. Recommendations................ ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
22 Haskell Street Cambridge, MA 02140 

Phone: 617-497-7544 Fax: 617-497-7543 

www.nexusmarketresearch.com 

Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the findings of the MassSAVE Market Survey conducted from a 

sample of Massachusetts residents selected at random. A total of 779 individuals were 

surveyed in September of 2005; of these, 668 are considered targeted by the program. 

Targeted customers live in a one to four family structure and either own their homes or 

pay for their own heat or electricity. The survey is designed to measure: 

• Name recognition and where residents are hearing of the program 

• Understanding and valuing of the program offerings 

• Likelihood of installing energy efficiency measures with rebates, loans, or some 

combination of the two 

• Payback requirements for energy efficiency measures 

• Where appropriate, landlord receptiveness to MassSAVE offerings for their rental 

units 

• Proportion of housing units in one to four family structures, owner occupied units, 

and renters who pay for their own heating 

The survey is also designed to recruit qualified homeowners for on-sites to assess the 

remaining technical and market potential in existing housing stock. 

The survey was developed by Nexus Market Research, Inc. as part of a larger evaluation 

of the MassSAVE Program directed by RLW Analytics. Findings from this survey as 

they relate to the Multi-Year Evaluation Plan for the MassSAVE Program (submitted 

November 1, 2004) are shown in Appendix A. It is our intention to update the Table for 

Market/Program Indicators in Appendix A as more components of the overall evaluation 

are completed. 
 

Kingman Yacht Center 

Energy Audit Report 

January 2006 

Prepared for 

Kingman Yacht Center 

1 Shipyard Lane 

P.O. Box 408 

Cataumet, MA 02534 

and 

Cape Light Compact 

P.O. Box 427, Superior Courthouse 

Barnstable, MA 02630 

by 

179 Main Street, 3rd Floor 

Middletown, CT 06457

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

2 Facility Description................................................................................... 1

3 Load Characteristics ................................................................................. 2

3.1 Summary Statistics......................................................................... 2

3.2 Monthly Billing History .................................................................... 3

3.3 Detailed Energy Profiles.................................................................. 4

Demand (kW)................................................................................ 4

Power Factor ................................................................................. 5

Voltage ......................................................................................... 6

3.4 Comparison of Slips 11 and 12 ........................................................ 7

4 Demand Response ................................................................................... 8

5 Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................... 10

Investigate Winter Electrical Usage................................................ 11

Audit or Sub-Meter KYC Buildings .................................................. 11

Document Dock Voltage Supply..................................................... 11

Test Service Supply Voltage .......................................................... 11

Inventory Remaining Electrical Load .............................................. 11

Manage Peak Dock Load............................................................... 11

Test Dock 7 Circuit....................................................................... 12

Energy Conservation Measures...................................................... 12

Remain Vigilant............................................................................ 12

Listing of Tables

Table 1: 2003-2005 Annual Energy Statistics................................................... 3

Table 2: Summary of Slips 11 and 12 ............................................................. 7

Listing of Figures

Figure 1: Overview of Kingman Yacht Center .................................................. 2

Figure 2: 2003-2005 Monthly Electricity Trend................................................. 3

Figure 3: Average and Peak Day Comparison .................................................. 4

Figure 4: Average Weekend Demand by Dock ................................................. 5

Figure 5: Average Power Factor ..................................................................... 6

Figure 6: Comparison of Slips 11 and 12......................................................... 8

Figure 7: Illustration of Load Shed vs. Load Shift............................................. 9

i January 2006

1 INTRODUCTION 

Customer Name Kingman Yacht Center 

Account Number 427332300 

Location Cataumet, MA 

Industry Marina/Boatyard Services 

Date visited 7/22/05 

Site contact Scott Zayne 

Sponsor Contact Kevin Galligan, Energy Efficiency Program Manager,

Cape Light Compact, (508) 375-6828 

In 2005, RLW Analytics, Inc. was approached by Cape Light Compact to help Kingman 

Yacht Center understand their energy consumption, suggest conservation and energy

management opportunities, and investigate several overloaded circuits. In late July of 

2005, an RLW engineer visited the yacht center to perform a broad-scope energy audit. 

2 FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Kingman Yacht Center is Cape Cod’s largest, full-service marina, boatyard and cruising 

center. The facility has 235 slips and 130 moorings available for daily or seasonal

rental, and capacity for vessels up to 120' in length. All slips are serviced by fresh 

water, 110V and, at some slips, 220V electricity1

. Many boat slips at Kingman Yacht 

Center are available for “dockominium” ownership through the center’s 99-year slip

leasing program. 

As a full-service marina, KYC also provides overnight guest services such as restrooms & 

showers, laundry, office services, and wireless Internet. Kingman Yacht Center is also 

home to the Chart Room Restaurant & Piano Bar, one of the Cape's most popular

dockside spots. Crews Ltd. serves up breakfast and newspapers in season and stocks

basic convenience items, while Periwinkles Gifts sells boating gifts, souvenirs, and more. 

 

1

 This is according to the Kingman Yacht Center website. As we will explain, this is not accurate. 

1 January 2006
Figure 1: Overview of Kingman Yacht Center 

3 LOAD CHARACTERISTICS

This section examines the load characteristics of the site in detail. A thorough load

analysis contributes to understanding how the facility uses electricity both in aggregate

(e.g. total monthly kWh) and dynamically (e.g. kW by hour) and can ultimately lead to

identification of energy and demand reduction opportunities. 

3.1 SUMMARY STATISTICS

Table 1 presents a broad summary of the annual energy statistics for KYC for the years 

2003, 2004 and 20052

. Energy and demand has been notably stable over the past three 

years, with a slight decline in peak demand and <1% increase in annual energy 

consumption. 

 

2

 December 2005 data was not available at the time of report production, so the average of the 

prior two Decembers was used as a proxy for estimating annual kWh and peak kW. 

2 January 2006
 2003 2004 2005 

Annual kWh 562,883 566,604 572,065 

Peak kW 199.0 199.0 196.0 

Load Factor 32% 33% 33% 

Table 1: 2003-2005 Annual Energy Statistics 

Load factor is a measure of the average demand of a facility relative to its peak demand. 

AA facility with a load factor of 100% would have a peak demand and average demand 

that were equal, and the hourly load profile would be a flat line. In this case, KYC had a

2005 load factor of 33% percent which is fairly low and indicates that average annual 

demand of 65.3 kW (572,065 kWh/8,760 hours) is 33% of the peak demand of 196.0

kW. 

3.2 MONTHLY BILLING HISTORY

Kingman Yacht Center’s billing history for 2003-2005 is depicted graphically in Figure 2. 

The monthly usage patterns are remarkably similar across these three years. 

Kingman Yacht Center

2003-2005 Monthly Energy Trend

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Energy Consumption (kWh)

2003 2004 2005

Figure 2: 2003-2005 Monthly Electricity Trend 

Higher usage in the summer of 2005 is likely explained by ambient temperature. In

2005, average and peak temperatures were approximately 5°F and 10°F higher, 

respectively, than 2004. Incidentally, there seems to be a lot of winter electricity 

consumption for a summertime facility. The correlation with the two coldest months of

3 January 2006
January and February suggests electric heating loads, and fairly significant ones at that. 

If facility management cannot readily explain this wintertime usage, further investigation 

is warranted. 

3.3 DETAILED ENERGY PROFILES

Four 4-channel 3-phase true-RMS power recorders were installed to monitor dock power 

consumption from July 22nd through August 16th of 2005. This power meter sampled 

voltage, current, active power, and power factor at high frequency and recorded

integrated fifteen-minute interval data. 

DEMAND (kW) 

As seen in Figure 3, the hourly peak demand ranged from about 28 kW to nearly 90 kW

on the docks. The black line in the figure below represents the peak demand day of 

Friday, August 5, 2005, and the dashed red line indicates outdoor temperature. Peaking 

at 98 °F just after noon, this was the hottest day of 2005. Note the dramatic rise in

demand from noon to 6pm as temperatures rise and, presumably, boaters prepared for

weekend departure. In comparison, the average weekday/weekend profiles are 

considerably lower and more consistent. 

Kingman Yacht Center

Average and Peak Day Comparison

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour of Day

Demand (kW)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Temperature (°F)

Peak Day Avg. Weekday Avg. Weekend Temp °F

Figure 3: Average and Peak Day Comparison 

4 January 2006
Figure 4 is interesting, as it shows the relative contribution of each dock to the average 

weekend load profile. The top cumulative line follows the blue ‘Avg. Weekend’ line in

Figure 3 above. This stacked chart clearly indicates that the front docks are the most 

significant load at the yacht center. The front docks are also distinguished by a more 

pronounced 8-9 am crest in demand, yielding comparable demand in both the morning

and evening hours, probably due to departures and arrivals. 

Kingman Yacht Center

Average Weekend Demand by Dock

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Hour of Day

Average Weekend Demand (kW)

Front Docks

Slip 64-98

Slip 44-63

Slip 33-43

Slip 23-32

Slip 9-22

Front Docks 24.923.722.421.720.819.520.120.924.026.626.324.723.021.621.424.225.025.426.826.024.524.022.520.7

Slip 64-98 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.8 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.8

Slip 44-63 9.5 8.7 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.3 7.4 8.6 9.8 12.712.812.712.111.511.512.313.413.814.414.512.111.410.1 9.2

Slip 33-43 5.4 4.8 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.4 5.2 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.1 6.8 7.4 7.9 8.3 7.6 7.0 6.2 5.9 5.6 4.8 4.8

Slip 23-32 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.8 1.5 1.7 1.5

Slip 9-22 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.5 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.3 3.2 3.5 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Figure 4: Average Weekend Demand by Dock 

We have included a data table at the bottom of Figure 4 to provide KYC with useful

hourly estimates of demand on each dock. We do not have confident estimates of the 

number of boats contributing to these values, but KYC could divide these values by the

total number of slips to ascertain the mean kW per slip in each dock area. Additional

correlation of this information by average boat size or type might also prove insightful. 

POWER FACTOR

Power factor is defined as the ratio of real power to the apparent power and may be

thought of as the fraction of electrical current that performs useful work. Resistive 

linear loads such as incandescent light bulbs, resistance heating, and electric motors

maintain sinusoidal waveforms where the current waveform is in-phase with the voltage 

waveform and the power factor is one. Non-linear or inductive loads such as electronic 

ballasts, personal computer power supplies, and variable speed drives distort the current 

waveform and bring the current and voltage waveforms out of phase, thus lowering the 

5 January 2006
power factor. Figure 5 displays the peak demand and corresponding power factor by

hour as monitored in July and August 2005. 

Kingman Yacht Center

Average Power Factor Profile

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour of Day

Power Factor

Weekday Weekend

Figure 5: Average Power Factor 

The hourly power factor at KYC averages between 83% and 92%, which is reasonable

by most standards. Power factor fluctuations can be quite dynamic, and over the

monitoring study the 15-minute integrated power factor ranged from 78% to 99%. A

proper power quality study involves much more rigorous metering at very high

frequency, while this cursory review is merely a screen for significant disturbances or

out-of-range values. We consider these power factor findings to be quite acceptable. 

VOLTAGE

Sub-metering was performed in a vintage power house fed by 120/208V WYE service, 

and voltage was generally in range at KYC. However, there are several observations of

note. First, facility personnel spoke of voltage as 120/240V, when in fact the docks

were provisioned for 120/208V. RLW engineers are not highly knowledgeable of marine 

equipment, but much 240V equipment on-land is rated for 208/240V. Nonetheless, 

Kingman Yacht Center may want to review the electrical requirements of their vessels 

and display the supply voltage clearly on the docks to mitigate potential liability issues. 

Second, there were several periods of extremely low voltage. On Thursday, July 28th

from 1:00-1:30pm, voltage dropped as low as 32V on the circuit feeding Slips 44 

through 98. Facility management had suggested that this circuit was problematic for 

6 January 2006
them and that the breaker serving Dock 7 periodically trips. The low voltage anomaly 

was not related to a period of high amperage. We recommend specialized diagnostic

testing on this circuit to check for a ground fault, voltage leak, or corroded splice

connection. 

The voltage range measured throughout the study ranged from a low of 107V to a high

of 126V, which is very broad. Nominal voltage is 120V and a +5% feed of 126V is 

typical at substation output, but not at the end of a shoreline road. Acceptable voltage 

levels are ±10%, so 108V is generally considered the low voltage threshold, and voltage 

at KYC reached or broke this level on several occasions. Further investigation should be 

performed by utility distribution experts, but these findings suggest constraint or 

overload of the delivery system feeding the yacht center. 

3.4 COMPARISON OF SLIPS 11 AND 12 

In addition to all of the circuits feeding the docks, a power logger was installed 

specifically on two adjacent slips 11 and 12 for the purposes of contrasting power 

consumption of two similar sized boats. Besides the minor difference in length, the key

differentiator was the air-conditioning practice of the owners. The owner of the 38’ 

Sabreline rarely runs his air-conditioner, while the 42’ Maxum runs fairly continuously. 

Table 2 presents a summary of the monitoring findings over a 26-day period. This data

suggests that air-conditioning operating costs are about $2.50/day for a boat of this 

size. 

Average Average Average

Slip Boat kWh/day $/day kW Peak kW 

11 38’ Sabreline 3.38 $ 0.45 0.14 2.59

12 42’ Maxum 21.87 $ 2.92 0.91 4.26

Table 2: Summary of Slips 11 and 12 

Originally, we had intended to use these two boats in an air-conditioning experiment, 

setting one boat for a cabin temperature of 70 °F and another for 80 °F. However, the 

boat owners forgot to maintain these settings, so the study reverted to a simple 

comparison of air-conditioning versus non-air-conditioning for presumably otherwise 

similar boats. Figure 6 compares the average demand profiles of the two boats. 

7 January 2006
Kingman Yacht Center

Slip 11 vs. Slip 12

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0123 4 5 6 789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour of Day

Demand (kW)

Slip 11 Slip 12

Figure 6: Comparison of Slips 11 and 12 

As evidenced by the figure above, while on average these two loadshapes differ by just

0.77 kW, the hourly profiles differ significantly. At roughly a 2 kW peak impact, fifty

boats operating similarly to Slip 12 would contribute about 100 kW to the peak load on a

90+ °F day. With the seasonal and variable components of modern demand charges, it

is difficult to estimate the cost impacts of demand. But it is clear that the coincident

effect of multiple boats operating AC could accumulate a hefty kW load on a hot 

summer day. This would translate to a high demand charge and potential reliability 

problems, as the rear/side dock power distribution network at KYC is fairly constrained. 

4 DEMAND RESPONSE

Demand response is a concerted effort to temporarily reduce electrical consumption

during specific times of need, in response to high real-time wholesale electricity prices or

when the reliability of the region’s power grid is stressed. Some uses of electricity are 

discretionary, or easily done without, while others are mission-critical. Some uses are 

somewhere in between, depending on the urgency of the need or the magnitude of 

incentives that might be available. 

Demand response events are triggered by high loads or capacity shortfalls or forecasted

high wholesale prices. These hours of peak demand typically occur in the middle of the 

week during daytime hours, and are often associated with adverse weather conditions. 

8 January 2006
Customers can contribute demand reduction in a variety of ways: 

 Load shedding, such as turning off non-essential lights, office equipment, and

processes or adjusting HVAC set points

 Load shifting, for example delaying (until off peak times) or reducing 

manufacturing levels 

 Operating on-site generators 

Figure 7 presents a graphic depiction of load shedding and load shifting. The base load

in blue is the profile if no reduction actions were taken. For both methods, the 

reduction event itself is shown in the dashed black line. 

Load Shed versus Load Shift

0

50

100

150

200

250

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 of Day

De

mand (kW)

Base Load Shed Load Shift

Figure 7: Illustration of Load Shed vs. Load Shift 

In a load shed, electrical consumption is restored to original levels after the event. 

Load sheds impose no usage consequences of significance after the event is over. The

dashed load shed returns to the base load in blue after the event. 

A load shift is a demand reduction that necessitates delaying electrical consumption

until after the event. A manufacturing firm that shuts down a production line for a few

hours but must ‘make up’ that lost production at the end of the event is enacting a load

shift. The dashed-line load shift results in the deferred usage in red to compensate for

the duration of the event. 

Incidentally, demand reductions by increasing space temperatures on air conditioning

equipment exhibit characteristics of each method. The energy usage of cooling systems

will rebound after the demand reduction event to restore space temperatures, however 

the resultant cooling ‘backlash’ is typically of a shorter duration that the event itself. We 

9 January 2006
categorize such a reduction as a load shed, although it tends to include a small load 

shift. 

If generation is used to provide load reduction, the customer does not necessarily use 

any less electricity. However, the customer’s load profile as seen by the electrical grid

will look like the load shed illustration, with the amount of shed equal to the amount of

energy provided by the generator when it is running. 

Incentive payments are available to commercial and industrial electricity users in New

England through ISO-New England’s Demand Response Programs, offered to all

customers in New England. Incentives vary with the level of reduction and the length of 

notice needed by the customer to respond. The variety of programs gives customers

the flexibility to choose the program that best fits their individual needs. Contact the 

Cape Light Compact person identified on page 1 for more information about available 

programs and incentives. 

Customers who understand their hourly energy profile and can manage their 

consumption in response to wholesale prices or reliability events can become more 

attractive and valued customers to competitive electricity suppliers, which may translate 

into the customer negotiating a lower retail electricity price. Plus, the hourly usage 

information and software systems available to participating customers can be used to 

help manage energy consumption and demands every day of the year, helping to 

improve the customer’s energy efficiency. 

In addition to direct customer benefits, demand response participants provide an

important resource for New England. They help ensure the power grid’s reliability--

potentially avoiding power outages during times of high demand--reduce wholesale price 

volatility that drives up the cost of power for everyone, and reduce air pollution by 

enabling older, less efficient power plants to run less often. 

Kingman Yacht Center does not have enough discretionary kW to participate in regional 

load response programs. The minimum load shed for the ISO-NE Load Response 

Programs is 100 kW, and it is highly improbably that KYC could drop that much load. 

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Considerable effort was spent collecting and analyzing detailed electrical data on the 

docks at Kingman Yacht Center. KYC is now armed with excellent information on the 

kW load profiles of their docks. This data should prove useful for future expansion

purposes and also in project or cost-sharing calculations. 

While this study was useful in characterizing the average dock profiles, more important,

however, are some of the following findings and recommendations. 

10 January 2006
INVESTIGATE WINTER ELECTRICAL USAGE

A billing review shows considerable electricity consumption in the winter months. 

Correlation with the two coldest months of January and February suggests fairly 

significant electric heating loads. An examination of wintertime loads may be in order. 

RLW would gladly revisit the marina to review any excessive loads or conservation 

opportunities. 

AUDIT OR SUB-METER KYC BUILDINGS

This ‘stage one’ audit of KYC focused upon dock power and did not examine the usage 

of the office building, restaurant, or other surrounding structures. With approximately

100 kW of load unaccounted for, much of which appears in winter months, there is

additional load that may benefit from energy conservation measures. 

DOCUMENT DOCK VOLTAGE SUPPLY

The docks are provisioned for 120/208V, not 120/240V. As we are not experts on

marine power, this may not be an area of concern, but we recommend that facility 

management review vessel power requirements and rental agreements to ensure there

is no misunderstanding or potential liability on this issue. 

TEST SERVICE SUPPLY VOLTAGE

The voltage range measured throughout the study ranged from a low of 107V to a high 

of 126V, which is very broad and nearly out of the acceptable range. KYC should

request further study by local utility distribution engineers. The extent that KYC voltage 

varies with load suggests a possible constraint in the delivery system, transformers, or 

feeders servicing the yacht center. 

INVENTORY REMAINING ELECTRICAL LOAD

As an account, Kingman Yacht Center peaks at 199 kW. It is interesting to note, then,

that the 89 kW of dock load (see Section 3.3) comprise less than half of the demand of

the entire facility. At the facility manager’s direction, the audit focused mainly upon on 

dock power, but it turns out that the majority of the facility’s load remains yet 

unidentified. We speculate that the bulk of the remaining electrical load probably exists 

in the Chart Room Restaurant (electric ovens/warmers) and also in maintenance

buildings (air compressors/high-bay lighting). The office and gift shop spaces are likely

insignificant with expected total electrical density below 2.5 W/sqft. 

MANAGE PEAK DOCK LOAD

Peak load, at least on the docks, correlates with two variables: day-of-week and outdoor 

temperature. Docks are used more on Fridays and weekends, and boats draw more air 

conditioning power on hot days. 

• Ask boaters to conserve power on hot days by minimizing air conditioning and 

other dock power usage. A polite appeal and awareness campaign with

emphasis on electrical conservation and reliability tends to be quite effective.

For example, ventilating a cabin naturally for 15-minutes to exhaust the built-up

heat can dramatically reduce cabin temperatures and the resultant cooling load. 

11 January 2006
TEST DOCK 7 CIRCUIT

Facility management declared at our initial meeting that the feeders for Dock 7 are 

undersized, particularly when a large vessel docks at the end of the pier. As this was a 

trouble area for KYC, our engineer isolated this circuit for a short-term metering study. 

The occurrence of a voltage anomaly on just this circuit on July 28th suggests a deeper 

problem. 

• Perform rigorous diagnostic testing on this circuit for losses and/or leaks. At

minimum, replace the circuit breaker feeding the dock, as circuit breakers tend 

to trip more readily with each successive over-current incident. 

• To the extent practical, try to stagger electrical usage on Dock 7 when a large 

vessel docks until additional electrical capacity can be added. 

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

The preceding recommendations should take priority over energy conservation

measures. Surely there will be opportunities to retrofit lights, HVAC, motors, etc. at 

Kingman Yacht Center. However, we strongly recommend addressing the 

aforementioned issues before getting involved in a significant conservation project, for

there may be some work warranted on the marina’s customer-side distribution system. 

REMAIN VIGILANT

Even though the Kingman Yacht Center does not have enough discretionary kW to 

participate in regional load response programs, it is wise for facility management to

remain aware of load response and demand management initiatives in the region.

There are opportunities for customers, organizations, or consortiums to aggregate loads

and participate in these programs. As demand management becomes more important 

with each passing summer, seasonal facilities may find themselves under more scrutiny. 

Kingman Yacht Center should remain vigilant in the search for conservation and load 

management opportunities. 

12 January 2006
 

Evaluation of 

Cape Light Compact 

Residential New Construction 

Green Building 

2003 Demonstration Project 

 

 

 

 

Prepared for 

the Cape Light Compact 

March 8, 2006 

Jan Harris and Peter Schneider 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation 

255 South Champlain Street, Suite 7 

Burlington, Vermont 05401 

(802) 658 - 6060 

www.veic.org
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 1 

I. Executive Summary 

The 2003 Cape Light Compact’s Residential New Construction Green Building Demonstration 

Project was originated to maximize cost-effective energy savings and other non energy green 

benefits in four pilot homes. The project also set out to identify market barriers that inhibit the 

development of green or high-performance homes to inform its actions going forward. The 

evaluation team was asked to compare the Demonstration Project with the existing ENERGY 

STAR Homes program and to identify costs and benefits of the program in comparison to 

ENERGY STAR. The pilot involved the construction of four homes built to the Vermont Builds 

Greener (VBG) residential green building standard. The evaluation team visited each of the four 

houses, interviewed the homeowners and builders, and conducted a performance evaluation of 

each house to determine if they were performing as originally modeled. 

Overall Findings: 

• All participants are very happy with their homes in terms of size, functionality, aesthetics, 

maintenance, energy costs and comfort, and recommend the use of a green building 

standard on Cape Cod. 

• The VBG checklist was found to be a very useful/helpful tool which needs to be 

supplemented with additional information resources. 

• The energy benefits were found to be cost-effective, i.e. the incremental costs were more 

than offset by the associated savings. However the energy savings were not the primary 

customer motivation for building to a green standard. 

Other areas covered in this report include: 

• What were the challenges to building green? 

• The need for green building professional training; 

• Access to green building materials;

• Subcontractors and suppliers gaps in knowledge of green building methods and materials; 

and

• Non energy benefits.

Recommendations: 

• Continue to collaborate with and support the work of programs with similar goals such as 

ENERGY STAR Homes; 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 2 

• Leverage other resources that support green homebuilding objectives such as Federal tax 

credits, Massachusetts Technology Collaboartive (MTC) incentive programs, the Green 

Homes Northeast (GHNE) effort and others; 

• Utilize past participants as information resources; 

• Quantify and track non-energy benefits; and 

• Use the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED for Homes green building 

standard going forward. 

II. Introduction 

The practice of green home building utilizes methods and materials that are environmentally 

responsible and creates a building that is healthy to occupy, cost effective to build, own and 

operate and durable. This practice has been around for centuries, but has had a resurgence in the 

last few decades in response to the increased number of buildings constructed that were 

unhealthy, expensive to operate and were not lasting as long as they should. In response to an 

increasing problem of “green washing,” or invalid claims of green, standards were developed, 

along with third party verification to ensure that claims of green are well founded. In the 

residential sector several rating systems have emerged. For this pilot, the Cape Light Compact 

selected the Vermont Built Green standard as this was widely accepted as the most aggressive of 

the many U.S. sustainable residential building standards. Since that time, the LEED for Homes 

program has been developed by the USGBC with input from local and national stakeholder 

groups. As with all residential green building programs, it is a voluntary initiative promoting the 

transformation of the mainstream home building industry towards more sustainable practices. 

Like VBG, LEED for Homes helps define green buildings by establishing a common standard of 

measurement, promoting integrated, whole-building design practices and materials, stimulating 

green competition, raising consumer awareness of green building benefits, and working toward 

transforming the building market to more sustainable practices. 

 

III. Methodology 

The evaluation team and the Cape Light Compact agreed to the following methodology for the 

evaluation: 

1. Interview all homeowners and builders who participated in the demo to determine the 

amount of effort and/or specific dollar amount that was required to achieve the score on 

the Vermont Builds Greener (VBG) scorecard. (Additionally two perspective green home 

builders on the Cape were interviewed as well as two building suppliers and all staff who 

worked on the project: CLC, Honeywell, CSG, VEIC, NEEP.) 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 3 

2. Conduct a performance assessment using blower door and other performance evaluation 

equipment to determine if the houses are performing as modeled. 

3. Update the REM energy use assessment software files for the four homes with the post 

occupancy performance data 

4. Create a user defined reference home in REM taking a Cape Cod specific set of 

information from the 234 ENERGY STAR homes built on the Cape during the same time 

period to establish a baseline for comparison. 

5. Create a user defined reference home in REM taking a Cape Cod specific set of 

information from the Massachusetts new construction baseline study of homes built on 

the Cape during the same time period to establish a standard practice baseline for 

comparison. 

6. Collect, evaluate and analyze cost and savings data provided to the team from the 

homeowners and builders of the four demonstration homes and perform a life cycle cost 

assessment. 

7. Evaluate the input on the scorecards and suggest a revised scorecard for use in an ongoing 

program 

IV. Interview results 

The interviews were central to the evaluation. All four homeowners and home builders were 

interviewed as well as two potential new green homeowners, and two building suppliers. The 

participants were all extremely cooperative and had a lot to say about their experiences in the 

program and/or with green building in general. In order to most directly convey these 

experiences, we are providing you with a list of direct quotes from program participants. We 

have organized them into several numbered topics: 

1. Universally the participants found the checklist useful: 

The VBG checklist was created over the span of six years by independent regional experts; 

builders, architects, and energy consultants. Since the development team was comprised of 

volunteers without any sponsorship or affiliation, the VBG program presents straight-forward 

answers to questions about sustainable building that are specific to Vermont and untainted by 

green washing or specific product sponsorship. The resulting VBG checklist is widely considered 

to be the greenest residential green building standard in the country. The approaches have been 

customized for use in Vermont and are supported by local experts in construction, energy 

efficiency, and environmental sustainability. All builders and homeowners found that the 

checklist helped them understand the design elements and choices inherent in a green home as 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 4 

well as evaluate how environmentally considerate their home really is. Comments from the 

interviewees include the following: 

• “It helped to make me think about things that I might not have thought about.” 

• “The VBG checklist gave us ideas about where to focus our efforts.” 

• “Having to meet the requirements makes us more diligent to ensure that what we’d like to 

have happen actually does happen.” 

• “The scorecard gives us a benchmark, so we are not making arbitrary decisions about 

what is really important.” 

• “Because of the scorecard, we can understand where we should not negotiate on Green.” 

• “VBG is also a motivational tool! We are considering more than what we thought about 

originally. For example, a friend is redoing her kitchen and her ‘old’ cabinets are just fine, 

so I told her the story of VBG and the scorecard and asked what she was doing with her 

old cabinets. She is considering letting us use them in the house!” 

• “My top suggestion is finding ways of using the VBG scorecard more proactively: Having 

a scorecard means that the specific things to do are in black and white. This is very 

helpful. The scorecard also implies that it is both possible and better to do things as listed 

in the scorecard. This makes it objective – it is not just one wacky environmentalist’s 

idea. The organization, validation of practices and objectivity of VBG makes it a great 

tool for educating and motivating. No one can legitimately say ‘that doesn’t work’ if it’s 

on the scorecard! And with people backing up the scorecard who can explain HOW to do 

the things listed, the loop is closed.” 

• “We both learned from this project and without the drive from the program and checklist 

we likely would not have gone as far as we did” 

2. There was difficulty locating green products locally: 

Several participants expressed difficulty finding products locally that complied with certain 

approaches on the checklist. An interview with a local hardware and lumber supplier indicates 

that his customer’s top priority is quality and there is not evidence of a demand for 

environmentally-friendly products adequate to change his supply at this point. The lumber 

supplier interviewed had developed a relationship with a mill over time and is assured a certain 

level of quality (i.e. straight dimensional lumber). Unless their current mill was to begin offering 

FSC-certified lumber, they would be forced to establish a relationship with a new mill and risk 

losing the quality they were assured from their previous mill, The lumber supplier did suggest 

that if he could get sustainably harvested lumber with the same quality assurance, he would sign 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 5 

on because he understood the benefits of a well-managed forest. He further expressed that it is 

simply not practicable for him to offer both green certified lumber and non-certified lumber. 

 

At the same time a long standing hardware and lumber supply outfit in Provincetown will be 

changing hands and the new owner has expressed an intention to highlight environmentally 

friendly products. He plans to call his business the Northeast Green Building Supply Center and 

serve not only the tip of the Cape but also sell and deliver products throughout New England by 

truck, mail, and E-commerce. There is a growing demand, and concurrent education among 

other building material suppliers on the Cape regarding green products. As a result of these 

developments, and the potential for an ongoing CLC green building program, we perceive the 

barrier of access to green materials to be a temporary one. 

Some of the comments from the interviewees on green products included the following: 

• “Having green materials showcased locally would help.” 

• “My customers are demanding quality, not environmentally friendly products” 

• “Inventory space is too limited to carry two types of products” 

3. Clearly and repeatedly there was a need expressed for additional information resources. 

This need goes all the way from a preliminary plan review prior to the commencement of 

construction, to phone support throughout construction, to on site inspection. As the quotes 

point out, participants feel that one of the highest and best uses of program funding going 

forward would be to provide an accessible and responsive information resource. One participant 

suggested using the past participants as resources to future perspective green homeowners and 

builders. This approach could be a critical resource for future program success. This could be in 

the form of case studies, home tours, volunteer time to answer questions, or all of the above. 

Some of the quotes related to information resources included the following: 

• “If I could have accessed more information, I would have been able to do a lot more.” 

• “I would have liked to talk to a person for really specific questions.” 

• “There is nothing better than sitting down with a real person after going through the 

checklist. A face to face, where questions are answered and approaches are validated, is 

key. I would even volunteer to help others after we get certified!” 

• “This is only as good as the person who is the expert, but if volunteer experts can be 

trained, it would do a lot for educating less knowledgeable and skeptical homeowners and 

builders.” 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 6 

• “I would gladly have traded the incentives for more technical support. For example, I 

would have liked someone from the Cape Light to come to the site and assist me in 

explaining to a building inspector why I don’t need to vent a particular sloped attic. I felt 

like I was on my own.” 

In summary, participants foresaw a need to provide a plan review early on to identify problems 

and/or ways of enhancing the proposed design for sustainability. There was a suggestion to make 

sure air sealing and insulation are included in original construction documents to ensure their 

inclusion in the base contract and avoid change order extras. One of the VBG requirements is to 

provide the new homeowner with a user’s manual describing the systems and appliances in their 

new home. It was identified as a helpful suggestion that there should be a template for this 

manual to ensure that all the pertinent information is captured and conveyed to the new owners. 

4. Provide builder and subcontractor training, and a list of qualified and/or certified subcontractors (for example BPI (Building Performance Institute) certification). 

Homeowners and builders noted a gap in the knowledgebase of many of the subcontractors, 

builders, architects and suppliers on the Cape. One of the participants was representative of 

others when he said he felt there was a need to “Develop a community of contractors and 

builders with the skill and know how to quote, cost, and accomplish. If builders do not have the 

knowledge, they are unlikely to offer the options nor will they be capable of presenting the costs 

to owners in such a way as the owner can evaluate the options.” For example, it was difficult to 

locate a cellulose installer, or to get competitive quotes for a renewable energy system or to find 

local cotton insulation. Participants suggested a comprehensive training effort to bring 

subcontractors up to speed. A list of certified individuals and organizations would ease the 

process of implementing green building. 

• Based on our conversations, suggested training topics include the following: 

 Understanding green building standards and strategies; 

 Proper design and installation of renewable energy systems; 

 Sizing and appropriate design of HVAC systems; 

 Air sealing techniques; 

 Insulation options and proper installation; 

 Ventilation techniques (How to achieve good IAQ); 

 Waste reduction practices; 

 Advanced framing (Optimal Value Engineering); and 

 Include factory builders in education efforts. 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 7 

Some of the comments from the Demonstration Project included: 

• There are “huge knowledge gaps in the supplier/contractor community regarding 

building methods/techniques and materials.” 

• “A network of trained volunteers/staff that can reduce to practice the concept of green 

would be a way to keep homeowners excited, and keep builders from talking people out 

of their good intentions.” 

5. Incentives allowed participants to achieve approaches they otherwise would not have 

committed to, for example renewable energy systems, additional air sealing and insulation, and 

high performance heating and hot water systems were all installed because of the incentives 

offered as part of the Demonstration Program. 

IV. Costs and Savings: 

We found it difficult to obtain accurate and thorough incremental cost and savings data from 

participants. Participants complained that it is difficult to gather accurate cost and savings data 2 

years after project completion. It is recommended that the program provider require tracking 

and verification of costs and savings for all participants who receive incentives in any future 

program. This could be accomplished through a hold back on some of the incentive dollars until 

data is provided. We received excellent incremental cost data from the Habitat homes, but their 

cost of construction is not a reasonable proxy for average building costs. The other two homes 

provided partial cost and savings information. However, combining the information from all 

four homes with our own information regarding construction costs, we determined an average 

incremental cost of approximately 2% of total construction costs. This incremental cost is 

primarily for energy efficiency features such as HVAC, water heating, air sealing, insulation, 

lighting and appliance upgrades. To calculate savings, we used the REM/Rate software and actual 

post occupancy measurements of air infiltration and lighting and appliances in the four homes. 

We created two reference homes, one is a composite home created from Cape Cod specific 

homes in the MA residential new construction baseline study. The other reference home was 

created using information from the ENERGY STAR Homes program files to build a Cape Codspecific ENERGY STAR reference home. 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 8 

The summary in table 1 below details the energy savings of the green homes compared to the MA 

new construction baseline home. 

Savings from Cape Cod Green Homes compared to MA RNC Baseline Homes

kW and kWh Savings Include Line Loss Savings

No.

House 

Size 

(sqft)

Rating 

Date

HERS 

Score 

(v11.4)

Space 

Heating 

Therms 

Savings

DHW 

Therms 

Savings

Cooling 

Peak kW 

Savings 

(w/line 

loss)

Heating 

Peak kW 

Savings 

(w/line 

loss)

kWh 

Heating 

Savings

kWh - 

Cooling 

Savings

REM/ 

Rate kWh 

- L&A 

Savings

Est. kWh 

from E-Star 

Lights and 

Appliances

Total 

Annual 

kWh 

Savings / 

House 

1 1041 03-29-04 94 174.70 143.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 -31.32 962.50 931

2 2405 03/31/04 92 346.38 0.00 1.08 0.09 28.22 592.61 -103.36 962.50 1,480

3 1120 11/21/03 91.1 60.14 49.19 0.14 0.00 0.00 -32.89 962.50 930

4 1120 11/21/03 91.9 136.86 55.21 0.14 0.00 0.00 -32.89 962.50 930

TOTA 5686 718.1 247.5 1.1 0.4 28 593 -200.5 3,850.0 4,270.4

Avera 1,422 92.3 179.5 61.9 0.27 0.10 7 148 -50.11 962.50 1067.60

Notes:

1) Negative entry equals an increase in kWh, postive entry is a reduction in kWh

2) VEIC is evaluating the cooling kWh savings algorthims from REM/Rate compared to the Cool Homes savings algorthims (Proctor).

 As such, RNC cooling savings methodology may vary in the future.

3) L&A Savings are negative primarily because the UDRH home did not have mechanical ventilation and the rated homes do.

4) All kW and kWh reported savings include savings attributed to reduced line losses. 

5) E-star Bulbs: 50 kWh; E-Star Fixtures 75 kWh; E-Star RF 100kWh, E-Star CW 75 kWh, E-Star DW, 40 kWh; Gas Furnace with ECM Motor, 

6) Estimate 10 bulbs, 5 fixtures, 50% E-Star CW, 50% E-Star RF, and Gas Furnace with ECM Motor

7) Assumed baseline CAC was 13 SEER, with an actual adjusted SEER rating of 10.0. Assumed Green Home SEER was 13.0 as installed.

Savings estimates compiled by: Toben Galvin/Richard Faesy, VEIC, (802) 658-6060 x1110, tgalvin@veic.org

Table 1 

The summary in table 2 below compares the green homes to an ENERGY STAR baseline home: 

Savings from Cape Cod Green Homes compared to Avg. Cape Cod ENERGY STAR Home

kW and kWh Savings Include Line Loss Savings

No.

House 

Size 

(sqft)

Rating 

Date

HERS 

Score

Space 

Heating 

Therms 

Savings

DHW 

Therms 

Savings

Cooling 

Peak kW 

Savings 

(w/line 

loss)

Heating 

Peak kW 

Savings 

(w/line 

loss)

kWh 

Heating 

Savings

kWh - 

Cooling 

Savings

REM/ 

Rate 

kWh - 

L&A 

Savings

Est. kWh 

from E-Star 

Lights and 

Appliances

Total 

Annual kWh 

Savings / 

House 

1 1041 03-29-04 94 136.92 143.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 62.64 0.00 63

2 2405 03/31/04 92 260.79 0.00 1.26 0.08 24.34 538.74 -93.96 0.00 469

3 1120 11/21/03 91.1 35.54 52.62 0.12 0.00 0.00 61.08 0.00 61

4 1120 11/21/03 91.9 79.29 59.07 0.12 0.00 0.00 61.08 0.00 61

TOT 5,686 512.5 254.8 1.3 0.4 24 539 90.8 0.0 654

Aver 1,422 92.3 128.1 63.7 0.32 0.09 6 135 22.71 0.00 163.48

Notes:

1) Negative entry equals an increase in kWh, postive entry is a reduction in kWh

2) VEIC is evaluating the cooling kWh savings algorthims from REM/Rate compared to the Cool Homes savings algorthims (Proctor).

 As such, RNC cooling savings methodology may vary in the future.

3) L&A Savings are negative primarily because the UDRH home did not have mechanical ventilation and the rated homes do.

4) All kW and kWh reported savings include savings attributed to reduced line losses. 

5) Assume no L&A savings for the Green Homes as the penetration of efficient L&A would be the same as the E-Star Homes

6) Assumed baseline CAC was 13 SEER, with an actual adjusted SEER rating of 10.0. Assumed Green Home SEER was 13.0 as installed.

7) Assume Lighting and Appliance types in the Green Homes vs. the E-Star Homes are the same

Savings estimates compiled by: Toben Galvin/Richard Faesy, VEIC, (802) 658-6060 x1110, tgalvin@veic.org

Table 2 

Taking the savings outlined above for an average of the four houses, and the incremental costs as 

2% of the average home construction cost ($165/sq ft X 1400 sq ft X 2% = ~ $4,600) and 

calculating the cash flow impacts to homeowners, yields the following results for the average 

home compared to 1) the average new Massachusetts home (table 3) and 2) an average Cape Cod 

ENERGY STAR Home (table 4): 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 9 

CLC green homes compared to MA res new con baseline

Cash Flow Forecast cash flows

Present Value YR 1

Savings 404 $ 416 $ 

Loan payments (360) $ -$371

Net cash flow $44 $46

Cummulative cash flow $46

Net Presednt Value-NPV $44

Benefit to Cost ratio-B/C 1.12

Inputs: Loan term years 30

Loan rate 7.00%

Total Installed Cost $4,600

Incentive Buy Down $0

Incremental cost $4,600

Energy escalation 2.5%

Real discount rate 3%

CLC green homes compared to Cape Cod ENERGY STAR home baselin

Cash Flow Forecast cash flows

Present Value YR 1

Savings 235 $ 242 $ 

Loan payments (454) $ -$467

Net cash flow -$219 -$226

Cummulative cash flow -$226

Net Present Value-NPV -$219

Benefit to Cost ratio-B/C 0.52

Inputs: Loan term years 30

Loan rate 7.00%

Total Installed Cost $5,800

Incentive Buy Down $0

Incremental cost $5,800

Energy escalation 2.5%

Real discount rate 3%

Table 3 Table 4 

Year one cash flows in table 3 show the investments in energy savings pay for themselves when 

compared to the typical new home being built on the Cape (savings in year one are greater than 

the loan payment for the upgrades, $416-$371.) However, when the average of the four homes is 

compared to the average ENERGY STAR home in table 4, the analysis shows that the incremental 

costs to go above ENERGY STAR are not offset by the energy savings. 

When we add in the cost of the solar water heating system installed on one of the four homes it 

pushes the incremental cost of the average home to $5,800. (Cost of solar system ~ $4,800. We 

used 1⁄4 of this cost and 1⁄4 of the associated savings in the average home.) In this scenario 

outlined in table 5 below, when compared to the Massachusetts baseline home, there is a negative 

cash flow in years 1-5, then the cash flows go positive, cumulative cash flow goes positive in year 

11, and ultimately lead to a positive net present value and a benefit cost ratio > 1. Performing 

this calculation for the green home with solar water heating compared to the ENERGY STAR 

baseline (not shown), the net present value is negative and benefit to cost ratio is < 1. 

CLC green homes compared to MA res new con baseline

Cash Flow Forecast cash flows Year

Present Value YR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Savings 7,723 $ 416 $ $ 437 427 $ 448 $ 460 $ 471 $ 483 $ 495 $ 507 $ 520 $ 533 $ 

Loan payments (6,954) $ -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467 -$467

Net cash flow $769 -$51 -$41 -$30 -$19 -$8 $4 $15 $28 $40 $53 $66

Cummulative cash flow -$51 -$92 -$122 -$140 -$148 -$145 -$129 -$101 -$62 -$9 $57

NPV $769

benefit to cost ratio 1.11

Inputs: Loan term years 30

Loan rate 7.00%

Total Installed Cost $5,800

Incentive Buy Down $0

Incremental cost $5,800

Energy escalation 2.5%

Real discount rate 3%

Table 5 

Below are the results of running the pilot program impacts through the Massachusetts screening 

tool to consider societal cost effectiveness in terms of total resource benefits compared with total 

resource costs. 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 10 

Total Resource PV of BenefitNet Cost

Benefit Cost Benefits Ratio

1 Green homes without solar water heating

Program Total $4,996 $5,350 $(354) 0.93

Non-Measure $1,000

Total Measure $4,996 $4,350 $646 1.15

2 Green homes with solar water heating

Program Total $4,955 $6,600 $(1,645) 0.75

Non-Measure $1,000

Total Measure $4,955 $5,600 $(645) 0.88

Present Value

The results show that without solar water heating (labeled program 1) The savings measures on 

their own pass the screen, and show positive net benefits of $646, however the benefits are not 

adequate to cover the program costs, (estimated at $1,000 per house to administer the program) 

resulting in an overall program benefit-cost ratio of 0.93. 

The results further show that with solar water heating (program 2) neither the measures nor the 

program pass the cost effectiveness screen.1 2

 Again, it is critical to reiterate the size of the pilot, 

only four homes, and the inaccuracy of the cost information in considering our findings. Societal 

cost effectiveness screening is beyond the scope of this project. If this information were to be 

used to determine future program viability, we recommend further analysis of the screening 

assumptions used here. 

V. Non energy benefits 

Residential green building programs and standards typically include a host of strategies materials 

and methods that fall under the following general headings: 

• Siting and land use; 

• Building design; 

• Materials and resource use; 

• Energy and water use; 

• Indoor environmental quality; and 

 

1

 Regarding screening tool use; we conglomerated all savings data and created one average house to analyze. We 

used a 20 year measure life as an average aggregate of all savings measures. We did NOT calculate a weighted 

average measure life weighted by the benefits associated with individual measures. If further analysis were to be 

performed, we recommend screening each of the end use components with appropriate load shapes. 

2

 Water savings estimate: an ENERGY STAR washing machine save 4413 gallons/yr (Efficiency Vermont 

Technical Reference manual.) All houses reported using this technology. We captured the savings from the 

composting toilet and the xeriscaping from the following information sources: Water use information from the 

Town of Shrewsbury, MA sewer and water department. (We presumed 2 people per house, 4 flushes per person, and 

1.6 gallons per flush) and 40 gallons per day outdoor water use. We then spread these savings over the 4 houses and 

came to an average annual water savings of 9213 gallons/year, which we considered a conservative estimate. 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 11 

• Homeowner awareness. 

Costs, and perceptions about costs, are typically one of the largest hurdles to adoption of green 

building practices. In calculating costs and benefits of green construction, the easiest items to 

monetize are those related to energy. However there are many benefits of green building beyond 

energy savings, some of which are more difficult to quantify. In relation to these four pilot 

houses, some of the non-energy benefits (NEB’s) include the following: 

• Siting and Land Use – siting on an existing site, reduced lawn area, lawn mowing and 

water use, site impacts (i.e. protecting root zones, ecological preservation...); 

• Building Design – solar orientation, multi-use spaces, daylight strategies, smaller house 

size; 

• Quality/Durability - flashing details, long lasting materials with commensurate warranty, 

stainless fasteners, these equate to maintenance savings, occupant health; 

• Occupant health and IAQ - non-toxic materials selection, proper ventilation, reduce 

introduction of outdoor pollutants, sealed ductwork, amounting to reduced health care 

costs, higher productivity and occupant happiness; 

• Resource impacts -recycled/ reused products and materials, advanced framing techniques, 

engineered lumber, local materials, waste reduction, etc. These equate to the numerous 

societal benefits associated with minimizing overall impact of construction; 

• Reduced emissions – reduced need for combustion of fossil fuels and the resulting 

emissions into the atmosphere; 

• Occupant education (Owners manual, photo-journal of construction, properly 

functioning mechanicals.) This practice saves time and money for the homeowner for 

years after construction, and helps ensure the proper functioning of mechanical systems; 

• Personal integrity/ consistency of word and deed. This is very important to many home 

owners and home buyers. “We all like to think of ourselves as people who care about the 

environment. It is time we started building that way!” 

• Improved quality of life, “The joy of living”. Overall homeowner happiness; and 

• Comfort, as a result of well sized, properly distributed and responsive heating and cooling 

systems. 

Research has demonstrated consumer indifference to energy savings alone. In order for a green 

building program to stand on its own merits, there is a need to monetize non-energy benefits. 

Considerable work has been done in this area, and more needs to be done. Specifically some of 

the more easily quantified NEB’s are: 

• Property value increase and salability; 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 12 

• Reduced litigation expense; 

• Reduction in mold and mildew risks; averted health and building maintenance expenses; 

• Productivity – level of education, increased salaries, reduced incarceration rates; 

• Durability – averted maintenance; 

• Promoting in-fill development; and 

• National security, reduce foreign dependency. 

Participant perceptions of costs and savings and the value of non-energy benefits are summarized 

in the following quotes: 

• “I know of nothing I would eliminate to save money as it all adds to the comfort and 

energy efficiency of the building.” 

• “We think that the marginal added costs are more than offset by lower energy bills and 

quality of life. Even the PV has a 10 year payback period, so we see it not as an expense 

but an investment. We just bought all our energy up front!” 

VI. Residential green building standards going forward 

The Cape Light Compact’s residential demonstration project utilized the Vermont Built Green 

checklist as the standard for the four pilot homes. The Vermont Built Green (now Vermont 

Builds Greener) checklist has been updated and edited since CLC used the VBG checklist with the 

participants at the beginning of the pilot. In addition, a guidebook has also been developed 

which describes each approach in more detail, defines the rationale behind each approach, and 

lists resources available to help individuals achieve each approach. The guidebook, like the 

checklist, is an on-going work in progress and the VBG Committee has not had an opportunity 

to fully review nor update the checklist or guidebook’s contents over the past two years. 

While the VBG checklist was being used as a guide for builders, architects and homeowners on 

Cape Cod and in Vermont, the USGBC (United States Green Building Council) was using the 

checklist as a guide to develop a national residential green building standard, LEED for Homes. 

The resulting LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Homes Green 

Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing highperformance, sustainable residential buildings. 

When the USGBC took a new approach and requested local and regional organizations to 

provide technical, marketing and verification support to builders throughout a pilot phase, the 

Vermont Builds Greener Committee and VEIC decided to pursue becoming a LEED for Homes 

pilot provider. Both organizations felt that the LEED for Homes standard was similar enough to 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 13 

the VBG standard that they could begin utilizing the LEED for Homes checklist and supporting 

documents to provide a dual certification for VBG and LEED for Homes. 

VEIC spent a great deal of time comparing the various residential green building standards 

available to residents of Massachusetts through our work developing the Green Homes Northeast 

(GHNE) residential green building standard. Through that project, we determined that there 

was a great deal of overlap between the VBG and the LEED for Homes checklists. A few notable 

features incorporated in the LEED for Homes checklist include a house size factor, a 

comprehensive durability checklist and a foundation in the ENERGY STAR Homes program. 

Both VBG and LEED categorized their checklists using similar focus areas including siting and 

land use, indoor environmental quality, energy use, resource impacts, and homeowner 

awareness. In addition, an opportunity was provided in both VBG and LEED for Homes to 

achieve points/credits for approaches that were not listed but met the goal of the program. 

The analysis and comparison of green building programs in the development of the GHNE 

standard also identified some differences between LEED for Homes and VBG. While both 

programs factored in house size and penalized larger than average homes similarly, VBG awarded 

smaller than average homes more points than LEED for Homes. VBG also requires that homes 

not be built on prime agricultural land, 100-year flood plains, wetlands and critical wildlife 

habitat while LEED for Homes has these as optional. There are also a number of durability 

approaches required in VBG that are optional approaches in LEED for Homes such as a 

minimum 25-year roof warranty requirement in VBG. There are several other approaches 

required in VBG but not LEED such as non-mercury thermostats; keeping mechanical 

equipment accessible; and insulating ducts to at least R-7.5 when run in outside walls. At the 

same time, there are requirements in LEED for Homes that are optional or not listed in VBG 

including leaving 40% of the lot undisturbed; installing permeable material for at least 65% of the 

lot; sealing off ducts during construction; and minimizing construction waste to less than 2.5 lbs 

per square foot of conditioned floor area. 

Through this pilot, the VBG Committee has been working with the USGBC to set up a protocol 

which will allow State’s to regionalize the LEED standard. There is a need for the USGBC to 

recognize regional concerns or issues that are not sufficiently addressed in the LEED for Homes 

standard. The VBG committee feels there is also a need to maintain an optional more rigorous 

or stringent standard or requirement that encourages environmentally conscious builders or 

homeowners to strive for and be recognized for a higher standard of green building. 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 14 

The VBG Committee shall determine issues or elements of specific concern that it feels the LEED 

for Homes checklist does not adequately address; it shall establish added or altered criteria that 

address these; and it shall work with LEED for Homes personnel to addend or integrate these 

criteria into the VBG / LEED for Homes standard here in Vermont. 

As the Cape Light Compact moves forward with a green building standard, we recommend that it 

consider taking the same approach as VEIC and the VBG Committee and utilize the USGBC’s 

LEED for Homes program. We believe this is a great opportunity to reduce market confusion, 

utilize the strong brand name and resources of the USGBC, and support an effort to shift the 

current residential home building industry towards more sustainable practices. Currently, there 

are over 19,000 LEED Accredited Professionals supporting the commercial building industry, 

many of whom also design or assist residential projects in some capacity. As a LEED accredited 

certification becomes available for residential projects, we believe there will be a large support 

network for homeowners and builders who want to design and build LEED certified homes. 

Positioning the Cape Light Compact now for the inevitable green building marketplace will give 

the Compact and it’s customers a head start in the future if residential construction while 

working to minimize environmental impact on the Cape and its surroundings. 

VII. Conclusions 

Builders feel there is pent up demand for green building in the residential sector. A recent zero 

net energy home workshop on the Cape with no advertising, was overflowing with participants. 

As one builder on the Cape put it, “It is amazing sometimes what an easy sale this is. Who is 

going to say I don’t want a healthy house, don’t put that in the budget. I can’t afford this.” We 

see education as the primary barrier to wider spread understanding and adoption of green 

building practices. Once the market understands what is meant by “green” and knows how to 

value it appropriately, green building will be on a trajectory to becoming standard practice. 

Programs like that offered on the Cape are necessary to meet the demand for information about 

this burgeoning field. 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 15 

The Pilot Houses 

Builder: Peter Wade; Location: South Orleans, MA 

• VBG – 245.5 pts. 

• House Size - 83 pts. 

• Total – 328.5 pts. 

• HERS – 91.5 pts. 

Example of approaches achieved: 

• In-fill development 

• Restoration of damaged ecosystem 

• Permeable paving driveway 

• Optimal Value Engineering 

• High-quality lighting design 

• Dedicated Home Office 

Builder: Habitat for Humanity; Location: South Chatham, MA 

• VBG – 133 pts. 

• House Size - 175 pts. 

• Total – 308 pts. 

• HERS – 91.0 pts 

Example of approaches achieved: 

• Deed-protected affordable housing lot 

• Restoration of damaged ecosystem 

• No air conditioning installed 

• No carpet in the house 

• Engineered roof framing 

• Cellulose installed in walls and ceilings 
Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Building Demonstration Project Evaluation 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 16 

Builder: Habitat for Humanity; Location: South Chatham, MA 

• VBG – 133 pts. 

• House Size - 175 pts. 

• Total – 308 pts. 

• HERS – 91.0 pts 

Example of approaches achieved: 

• Natural-based product for finish siding and 

trim 

• Space provided for recycling 

• Landscape that requires no irrigation 

• No old growth wood used 

• Low-VOC paints, solvents and adhesives 

Builder: Bruce Torrey; Location: East Falmouth, MA 

• VBG – 184 pts. 

• House Size - 127 pts. 

• Total – 311 pts. 

• HERS – 90.7 pts 

Example of approaches achieved: 

• Previously built-on site 

• Landscaped with wildlife enhancing species 

• Permeable paving driveway 

• Mudroom 

• Solar water heating 

• Hydronic distribution designed and sized 

to match room-by-room loads 

• Salvaged and recycled materials used