## July 14, 2006
Mary Cottrell, Secretary David L. O’Connor, Commissioner Departm e nt of Telecommunications and Energy Division of Energy Resources One South Station 100 Ca m b ridge Street Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02114
Re: The Cape Light Compact 2005 Annual Rep o rt on Energy Efficiency Activities
Dear Secretary Cottrell and Comm is sioner O’Connor:

I am pleased to enclo s e for filing with the Division of Energy Res ources (DOER) and the Departm e nt of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) the Cape Light C o m p act’s 2005 Annual Report on Energy Efficiency Activities . T h ese repo rts are a l so bein g subm itted electronically by e-m a il to Hearing Officer Renner of DTE and Larry Masland of the DOER.
Please note that per discussion with H earing Officer Sheila Renner that the prior years Annual Reports of Energy Efficiency Activ ities from 2001 – 2004 will b e subm itted to DTE under separate cover.
If you have any questions or comm e n ts regard ing this report, please feel free to contact

m e or the Com p act Energy Efficiency Program Manager, K e vin Galligan.
Sincerely,

Robert Mahoney Chairm an Cape Light Com p act 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 Energ y Resources

July 14, 2006

## This page intentionally blank.

# Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

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

........................................................................................................ 1 B. Report Organization

........................................................................................... 2
C. Summ ar y of Results

........................................................................................... 3 D. Summary of Results by Sector

........................................................................... 4

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

III. Impacts by BCR Activ i ty

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

........................................................................................................ 16

B. Low-Incom e

..................................................................................................... 20
C. Commercial & Industrial

.................................................................................. 22

Appendices

..................................................................................................................... .. 27 Appendix 1. Glossary of Ter m s and Abbreviations

.............................................. 28 Appendix 2. 2005 Evaluation Im pact Param e ters

................................................. 32 Appendix 3. Detailed Savings Ca lculations of BCR Activities

............................ 34 Appendix 4. Post Program Savings A ttributed to Selected 2005 Market Transform a tion Initiatives

...................................................................................... 42 Appendix 5. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive

............................................... 43 Appendix 6. Summ ary of 2005 Ene r gy E fficiency Evaluation Reports

............... 44

# I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction

Since July 2001 the Cape Light Compact has de livered energy efficiency program s to all

m e mber towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. This A nnual Report provides detailed inform ation on the Com p act’s energy efficien cy activ ities and savings during the course of calendar year 2005.

In 2005, the Com p act implem ented the follo wing set of efficiency program s:

• 

## The Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

## New Construction Program , which provides hom e buyers, hom e builders, and construction trade allies with technical assistance and f i nancia l incen tive s to incre a se th e ef f i ciency of hom e s that ar e newly built o r undergo m a jor renovations.

• 

## The Residen tial MassSA V E Program , which prov ides a ll in ter e sted r e sid e ntia l
custom ers with energy savings education, the opportunity for a hom e energy audit and financial incentives for num e rous electr ic and non-electric efficiency m easures, including financial support to switch electric spa ce heating s y stem s to more efficient sys t em s that us e alternative fuels. This program represents the integration of the Hom e Energy Services, Reside ntial Conservation Services and the Residential High Use Program s th at were offered previously.

• 

## The Residential ENERGY STAR Products and Services P r ogram , which seeks to increase th e availability and use of ENERGY STAR qualified lighting and appliances, including: clothes washers, room air conditioners, dehum idifi e rs and refrigerators. This program is used to im ple m ent the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partner s hip (“NEEP”) in itiativ es and other regional m a rk et transfor m a tion efforts.

• 

## Residential Hi gh Ef f i ciency Centra l Air Conditio ning Progra m (“MA COOL SMART” with ENERGY STAR) , was introduced in the Spring of 2004, prom otes the purch ase and installation of ENERGY STAR qualif ied c e n tra l air con d ition i ng system s in new construction and m a rket conversion of older heating, ventilation and air cond ition i ng (“H VAC”) units. The progr am also is designed to in creas e the

num b er of trained technicians in the state and to improve the quality of insta lla tions.

• 

## The Low-Incom e Single Fam ily Pro g ram , which provides low-incom e custom ers in single-fam ily dwellings with assistance in purchasing and in stalling ef f i c i ent lighting, appliances, and weatherization m easures.

• 

## The Low-Incom e Multi- Fam ily Prog ram , which provides ow ners and m a nagers of low-incom e multi-f a m ily dwellings w ith ass i stanc e in purch asing and installing efficient lighting, appliances and space heating measures.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 1

### • 

## The Low-Incom e New Construction Program , which provides low-incom e housing developm ent agencies, weatherization assi stance program (“WAP”) providers, and residential construction trade allies w ith in centives to increas e the hom e energy rating of new low-incom e housing.

• 

## The Comm ercial and Ind u stri al New Construction Program , which provides technical ass i stan ce and financial in centiv es to increase the efficien cy in th e construction, renovation, and/or rem o de ling of all commerc ial, industrial,
governm e nt and m u lti-fam ily housing facilities.

• 

## The Medium and Large Comm ercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which provides technical and financ ial ass i s t ance to m e dium and large comm ercial and industrial (“C&I”) custo m ers seeking to do discretionary rep l acem ents of existing operating equipm ent and processes in th eir facilities with high -efficiency alte rnatives.

• 

## The Sm all Comm ercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which provides technical assis t ance, f i nancia l ince ntiv es and direct installation to sm all C&I custom ers to replace existing operating equipm ent and sy stem s with high-efficiency eq uipm ent.

• 

## The Governm e nt Agenc i es Program , which provides techn i ca l assistan ce and financial incentives to all governm e nt f acilities, including m unicipal, state and federal facilities. For the purposes of repor ting the results of this program in this Annual Report, the results of efficiency activities with sm all governm e nt custom ers are included in the Sm all C&I Retrofit BCR Activity, the results of efficiency activ ities with la rge gov ernm ent custom er s are included in the Large C & I Retrofit BCR Activity, and the results of governm e nt new construction activities are included in the C&I New C onstruction BCR Activity.

• 

## The Comm ercial and Ind u strial Products and Services Program , which seeks to increase th e availability and use of more efficient m o tors, lighting designs, and HVAC system s. This program is used to im ple m ent NEEP and other regional

m a rket trans f orm a tion in itiativ es. Th e resu lts of this program are included in the C&I New Construction BCR Activity.



## B. Report Organization

This Executive Summ ary provides an overvie w of the Com p act’s energy ef ficiency
program s’ (referred to as BCR Activities) bene fits and costs. For each sector there are tables summarizing the lifetim e energy savi ngs, lifetim e capacity savings, the non-energy benef its (NE B s), and the dolla r value s of the tota l benef its and the to tal co s t s. The savings data are presented in term s of both “prelim i nary” and “evaluated” data.

• 

## The prelim i n ary data ref e rs to savings estim ates that are based on the evaluation im pact factors that were used in the 2005 Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP). Using this data allows for a direct com p arison with the estim a ted savings from the 2005 EEP.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 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 eval uated data presents our best es tim ate of the efficiency savings, based on all the evaluation infor m a tion available at this tim e. Appendix 2 presents the im pact factors that were used to prep are th e evalu a ted results.
Section II of this Annual Report provides a di scussion of the m e thodology that is used for
program m o nitoring and evalua tion. It presents a brief summ a r y of the types of evaluations that are used, and a descripti on of the m e thodology for estim ated net energy savings. It also includes a list of the evaluation studies that w e re used to prepare the 2005 evaluated efficiency sav i ngs results. These evaluation studies are also used to inform
program design and delivery.

Section III o f this Annual Report p r o v ides m o re detailed resu lts of the p r o g ram activities. The table s in this se ctio n include inf o rm ation regarding the num b er of program participants, the annual efficiency savings and non-electric benefits, the benefit-cost ratio of the program , and the savings im pacts by type of end-use (lighting, HVAC, m o tors, refrigeration, hot water, and end-user behavior). This se c tion also summ arizes rec e nt evaluation report findings where relevant.
Finally, the appendices provide m o re deta il regarding the m o nitoring and evaluation results and the program savings. Of particular interest in this A nnual Report, Appendix 3 provides greater detail of program budgets (by category) and savings (by type).



## C. Summary of Result s
Table 1 provides a summary of the program e xpenses and savings. It also presents the
percen t chan ge between the final evaluated results and (a) the prelim inary evaluated results, and (b) the estimates of expenses a nd savings targets in the Com p a c t’s 2005 E E P. The values in the “Am o unt” colum n are th e 2005 results, based on all evaluations available at this tim e.

Pre l im inary F il ed T a rg et Pr org r am Im plem entation Ex p ens es $4,197,512 $ - Mil l i o n s 0.0%

- 6 .0% T o tal Ex pens es $5,144,998 $ - Mil l i o n s 0.0% NA Ann ual Energy Savi ng s 1 2 GW h

- 7.8% 24 .8% Ann ual Sum m er Dem and Sav i ngs 1.87 MW

- 2 .5%

- 2 7 .4% Ann ual W i nter De m and Sav i ngs 2.77 MW

- 7 .7%

- 1 8 .4% Lif e tim e Ener gy Sav i ngs 119 GW h

- 22.8% 1.6% Lif e tim e Dem and Savi ngs 19.82 MW -Y ear s

- 21.8% -3 3.0% T o tal Res o u r c e Cos t T e s t 2.36 B e n e f i t / Cos t

- 19.3%

- 9 .7% Per f orm anc e I n c entiv e - Af ter T a x e s 0 $ - Mil l i o n s NA NA SAVING S AND EX PENSES F O R 2005 T ABLE 1

Mea s ure m ent Am ount Per c ent Chan ge Com par is on Units



### Program i m ple m ent a tion ex pe nses i n cludes all of the c o sts i n curred by the Compac t, exce pt for monitoring

a n d verifica tio n co sts. To ta l exp enses in cl ud es p r o g r am i m p l emen t a tio n co sts, p l u s mon ito ring an d verifica tio n costs, p l u s cu stomer con t rib u t i o n s

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 3

## The Com p a c t’s 2005 program i m plem entation e xpenses were roughly 6% lower than the 2005 budgets in the EEP . This was sim p ly th e result of cautiously m a naging year-end activities to ensure that th e 2005 budgets were not overspent.
The 2005 program results include the use of supplem ental funding of approxim a tely $136,000 made available to support energy effici ency activities from Barnstable County appropriatio n s and the C o m p act’s co mpetitiv e po wer supplier, ConEdison Solutions

. The annual energy savings achieved in 2005 were roughly 25% higher than those estim ated in the 2005 EEP. This difference is prim arily due to relatively high savings in the Residen t ial Ligh ting, Re sidential MassSAVE, and the C& I Large Retrofit Program s.

The dem a nd savings achieved in 2005 were si gnif i cantly lower than those estim ated in the 2005 EEP. This difference is prim arily because the 2005 actual results are based on (a) m u ch better data regarding dem a nd savings, and (b) better coincidence factors used to estim ate summer and winter dem a nd from total m a xi m u m dem a nd.
The benefit-cost ratio of the 2005 program s in total was 2.36. This indicates that the Com p act’s program s in total continue to be highly cost-effective, where every $1.00 spent reduces the net cost of electricity by $2.36. This ratio w a s slightly lower than what was estim ated in the 2005 EEP (2.61). W e expe ct that this difference is prim arily due to the reduced dem a nd savings and the reduced savings as a result of the m o st recent evaluation impact factors.
All of the evaluated savings resu lts a r e lower tha n the pre lim inary saving s results. This is prim arily because m o st of the evaluation im p act factors used in creating the evaluated results (i.e., free-ridership a nd realization rates) reduced the en ergy saving s estim ates. The difference between evaluated an d prelim inary lifetim e energy and dem a nd savings is also partly due to using improved m e asure li fe as sum p tions for the ev alu a ted results.



## D. Summary of Result s by Sector

1. Residential Programs
Table 2 presents the lifetim e energy savings , lifetim e capacity savings, and lifetim e nonelectric benefits for each of th e resid e ntial program s. It also presents the total cum u lative benefits and costs, in 2005 present value dolla rs. These total benefits and costs are used to determ ine whether each program is cost-e ffective, based on th e to tal res ource cos t (TRC) test.

Be n e fi t-Co s t Ra ti o Ac t i v i t y P r eli m i n ar y E v a l ua ted P r e lim in ary E v a l ua te d P re lim in ary E v a lu ate d $- Be ne fits $

- C o s t s A02 a R e s i de ntia l Lo s t Op por tun i ty 3

, 49 3 3, 791 1

, 15 0 1

, 16 8 $1 5,1 9 9 $ 15, 199 $ 4 2 9 ,2 99 $4 11 ,10 0 A02 b R e s i de ntia l HV AC 2

, 76 1 2, 761 1

, 62 9 1

, 62 9 $0 $0 $ 4 8 7 ,8 74 $1 66 ,52 2 A03 a R e s i de ntia l Re tr o f it 1- 4 3 5

, 67 2 31, 433 3

, 08 7 2

, 75 5 $5 7,3 5 4 $ 47, 483 $2 ,01 7 ,5 35 $ 1 ,3 01 ,61 3 A03 b R e s i de ntia l Re tr o f it Mu ltif a m ily N A NA N A NA NA N A NA N A A03 c R e s i de ntia l Lo ad Re s p ons e N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A A04 a R e s i de ntia l Lig h tin g 24 ,66 8 20, 949 1

, 47 8 1

, 25 6 $16 9,1 9 3 $ 1 42, 555 $1 ,26 0 ,3 35 $2 47 ,04 0 A04 b R e s i de ntia l Ap plia nc e s 8

, 44 3 8, 443 4

, 14 9 4

, 15 0 $1 ,89 5 ,1 48 $ 1 ,8 95, 213 $3 ,13 3 ,2 25 $4 26 ,47 7 Res i de ntia l T o ta l 7 5

, 03 6 67, 377 11 ,49 4 10, 956 $2 ,13 6 ,8 93 $ 2 ,1 00, 450 $7 ,32 8 ,2 68 $ 2 ,5 52 ,75 1 TA B L E 2 S U M M A R Y OF R E S I DE NTIA L BC R A C T I VI T I E S Lif e t i me M W H L i f et im e kW T R C Va lu es Li fet i m e $ NEB



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 4

## Figures 1 through 4 present the sam e infor m ation as Table 2. They indicate that m o st of the residential energy savings are obtained fr om the Residential Retrofit and Residential Lighting p r o g ram s ; that most of the capaci ty savings com e fr om the Residential Appliance and Residential Retrofit program s; th at m o st of the non-electric benefits com e from the Residential Appliances program ; and that all residen tial programs are cos t effective.

F I G U RE 1 – R E S I DE NT I A L L I F E T I M E M W H

- 10

, 000 20

, 000 30

, 000 40

, 000 50

, 000 60

, 000 70

, 000 80

, 000

P r e lim in a r y E v a lu a t e d

P r el i m i nar y v e r s us E v a l uat edLifetimeMWH A 0 4 b R e s i de nt i a l A p p l i anc es

A 0 4 a R e s i de nt i a l Li gh t i ng

A 0 3 c R e s i de nt i a l Loa d R e s pon s e

A 0 3 b R e s i de nt i a l R e t r of i t M u lt if a m i l y
A 0 3 a R e s i de nt i a l R e t r of i t 1

- 4

A 0 2 b R e s i de nt i a l H V A C

A 0 2 a R e s i de nt i a l Los t O p p o r t u n i t y

F I G U RE 2

- RE S I D E NT I A L L I F E T I M E k W

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

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uated

P r e l i m i n ar y ve r s u s E val u a t e dLifetimekW A 04b R e s i dent i a l A ppl i anc es
A 04a R e s i dent i a l Li ght i n g
A 03c R e s i dent i a l Load R

e s pons e
A 03b R e s i dent i a l R e tr of i t M u lt if a m ily

A 03a R e s i dent i a l R e tr of i t 1- 4

A 02b R e s i dent i a l H V A C

A 02a R e s i dent i a l Los t O ppor t uni ty



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 5F I G U RE 3

- RE S I D E NT I A L L I F E T I M E $ NE B

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

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uat ed

P r e l i m i n ar y ve r s u s E valu a t e dLifetime$NEB A 04b R e s i dent i a l A ppl i anc es
A 04a R e s i dent i a l Li ght i n g

A 03c R e s i dent i a l Load R

e s pons e
A 03b R e s i dent i a l R e tr of i t M u lt if a m ily

A 03a R e s i dent i a l R e tr of i t 1- 4

A 02b R e s i dent i a l H V A C

A 02a R e s i dent i a l Los t O ppor t uni ty

F I G U RE 4

- RE S I D E NT I A L T R C V A L U E S

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

, 00 0, 0 0 0 $ 6 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 7

, 00 0, 0 0 0 $ 8 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$- B enef i t s $

- C o s t s

B e n e f i t s v e r s u s C o s t s A 0 4 b Re s i d e n t ia l A p p lia n c e s

A 0 4 a R e s i d ent i a l Li g h t i ng

A 0 3 c Re s i d e n t ia l L o a d Re s p o n s e

A 0 3 b Re s i d e n t ia l Re t r o f it M u lt if a m ily

A 0 3 a Re s i d e n t ia l Re t r o f it 1

- 4

A 0 2 b Re s i d e n t ia l H V A C

A 0 2 a R e s i d ent i a l Lo s t O p p o r t uni t y



## 2. Low

- Income Programs
Table 3 presents the lifetim e energy savings , lifetim e capacity savings, and lifetim e nonelectric benefits for each of the low-incom e program s. It also presents the total

cum u lative benefits and costs, in 2005 presen t v a lue dolla rs. These total benef its and costs are used to determ ine whether each pr ogr am is cost-ef f

ective, ba sed o n the to tal
resource cost test.

B e n e fi t-Co s t R a ti o Ac t i v i t y P r eli m in a r y E v a luat ed Pr el im inar y E v al ua t e d P relim in a r y E v a lu a t ed $- B e nef i t s $

- Cost s B0 2a Lo w- I n c o m e L o s t O p po r t u n i t y 2

, 29 5 2,295 379 37 9 $7 4, 7 0 4 $74,704 $251

, 6 5 5 $ 235,446 B 0 3 a L o w

- In co m e R e tr o f i t 1

- 4 4 ,2 4 2 3,990 453 45 3 $25 7, 0 3 7 $ 248,265 $518

, 5 9 9 $ 291,947 B03 b L o w-I n c o m e Ret r of it Multif a m ily 1, 4 5 2 1,452 7 7 $29 8, 5 3 0 $ 298,530 $366

, 2 1 3 $ 260,251 L o w

- In co m e T o t a l 7 ,9 8 9 7,737 839 83 9 $63 0, 2 7 1 $ 621,499 $1,136

, 4 6 7 $ 787,643 TA B L E 3 S U M M A R Y OF L O W I NCOM E BCR A C T I V I T I ES L i f e t i me M W H L if et im e kW T R C Valu es L i fe tim e $ NE B



## Figures 5 through 8 present the sam e infor m ation as Table 3. They indicate that all of the
program s are cost-effective. Most of the low-incom e energy, capacity an d NEB savings

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 6

## are obtained from the lost opportunity and re trofit 1-4 program s . This is probably because the low-incom e retrofit m u ltifam ily pr ogram served a rela tive l y s m all num b er of
custom ers in 2005. Also, the m u ltifam ily retrofit program achieves fossil fuel sav i ngs, which are not presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7.

F

I G U R E 5 – L O W I N C O ME L I F E

T I ME MW H

- 1, 0 0 0 2, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 4, 0 0 0 5, 0 0 0 6, 0 0 0 7, 0 0 0 8, 0 0 0 9, 0 0 0

P r el i m i nar y E v a l u ate dLifetimeMWH B 03b Lo w

- I n c o m e R e tr o f i t M u lt if a m ily

B 03a Lo w

- I n c o m e R e tr o f i t 1- 4

B 02a Lo w

- I n c o m e L o s t Op p o r t u n i t y



### F I G U R E 6 - LO W I N C O M E LI F E TI M E k W

- 10 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

P r el i m i nar y E v a l u at ed B 03b Low

- I nc o m e R e t r of i t
M u lt i f a m il y

B 03a Low

- I nc o m e R e t r of i t 1

- 4

B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor t uni t y



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 7F I G U R E 7 - L O W I N C O M E LI F E TI M E $ N E B

$0 $ 100 ,000 $ 200 ,000 $ 300 ,000 $ 400 ,000 $ 500 ,000 $ 600 ,000 $ 700 ,000

P r e lim in a r y E v a lu a t e d

P r e lim i n ar y ve r s u s E v a l u a t e dLifetime$NEB B 0 3 b Lo w

- I n c o m e R e tr of i t M u lt if a m il y
B 0 3 a Lo w

- I n c o m e R e tr of i t 1- 4

B 0 2 a Lo w

- I n c o m e Los t O p po r t un i t y

F I G U R E 8 - LO W I N C O M E TR C V A LU E S

$0 $20 0, 000 $40 0, 000 $60 0, 000 $80 0, 000 $1, 00 0, 000 $1, 20 0, 000

$- B enef i t s $

- C o s t s B 0 3b Lo w

- I n c o m e R e t r of i t M u lt if a m i l y
B 0 3a Lo w

- I n c o m e R e t r of i t 1- 4

B 0 2a Lo w

- I n c o m e L o s t O p por t u n i t y



## 3. Comme rcial & Ind u strial Pro g rams Table 4 presents the lifetim e energy savings , lifetim e capacity savings, and lifetim e nonelectric benefits for each of the Comm ercial & In dustrial p r og ram s . It als o presents th e total cum u lative benefits and costs, in 2005 pr esent value dollars. These total benefits and costs are used to determ ine whether each p r o g ram is cost-effective, b a sed on the total resource cost (TRC) test.

Be n e f i t-Co st Ra ti o A c ti v i ty P r e lim in ar y E valu at ed P r elim ina r y Evalua te d P r elim inar y E valua te d $

- B ene f i ts $- C o s t s C 02a C & I L o s t O p p o r t un ity 3 ,2 46 2

, 6 1 8 8 3 9 6 8 8 $ 2

, 061 $1, 6 1 6 $ 2 58, 38 2 $15 4, 035 C 03a L a r ge C & I R e t r of it 47 ,0 06 2 2

, 2 9 7 9

, 3 0 9 4

, 4 1 6 $2 6, 641 $ 27, 12 9 $ 1

, 7 88, 46 4 $55 4, 703 C 03b S m all C & I R e tr of it 20 ,2 75 1 8

, 4 9 9 2

, 8 6 6 2

, 9 2 4 $25 5, 322 $2 26, 7 6 7 $ 1

, 6 19, 63 3 $1, 09 5, 866 T o ta l 7 0, 52 7 4 3

, 4 1 4 13, 01 4 8

, 0 2 8 $28 4, 025 $2 55, 5 1 2 $ 3

, 6 66, 47 9 $1, 80 4, 604 T ABL E 4 S U MMARY O F C& I BCR ACT I V I T I E S L i f e t i m e MW H L if et im e k W T R C Va lue s Lif et im e $ N E B



## Figures 9 through 12 present the same inform ation as Table 4. They indicate that m o st of the Com p act’s C&I sav i n g s are obtain e d from the two Retrofit program s. As indicated

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 8

## in Figures 9 and 10, the evaluated savings for the C&I Large Retrofit Program are significantly lower than the prelim inary savings . This is partly due to the change in

m easure life assum p tion (from 14 ye ars to 5 years) for the Building Operator Certification (BOC) Program , which m a kes up a large portion of the energy savings from the Large C & I Program

.

F I G U R E 9 – C & I

LI F E T I M E M

W H

- 10, 000 20, 000 30, 000 40, 000 50, 000 60, 000 70, 000 80, 000

P r el i m i nar y E v a l u a t edLifetimeMWH C 03b S m al l C & I

R

e t r of i t

C

03a Lar ge C & I

R

e t r of i t
C

02a C & I

Los t O ppor t uni t y

F I G U RE 1 0 - C& I L I F E T I M E k

W

- 2, 00 0 4, 00 0 6, 00 0 8, 00 0 10

, 0 00 12

, 0 00 14

, 0 00

P r e lim in a r y E v a lu a t e d C 0 3b S m al l C & I R e t r of i t

C0 3 a L a r g e C& I Re t r o f i t

C

0 2a C & I L o s t O p po r t un i t y



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 9F I G U R E 11 - C & I LI F E T I M E $ N E B

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

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uatedLifetime $NEB C 03b S m al l C & I R

e tr of i t

C

03a Lar ge C & I R

e t r of i t

C

02a C & I Los t O ppor t uni ty

FI G U R E 1 2

- C & I TR C

V A L U E S

$0 $5 00

, 0 00 $1

, 0 00

, 0 00 $1

, 5 00

, 0 00 $2

, 0 00

, 0 00 $2

, 5 00

, 0 00 $3

, 0 00

, 0 00 $3

, 5 00

, 0 00 $4

, 0 00

, 0 00

$- B e n e f i t s $- C o s t s C 0 3 b S m a l l C& I Re t r o f i t

C0 3 a L a r g e C& I Re t r o f i t

C

0 2a C & I Lo s t O p po r t u n i t y



# II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology 1



## Preliminary Versus Evaluated Results
As noted above, the savings data in this report are presented in term s of both “prelim i nary” and “evaluated” data.

1 

### So m e o f t

h e tex t b e l o w was t a k e n fro m th e 2 003 Annu al R e p o rts o n En erg y Efficien cy Activ ities of NST A R, Mass achusetts Electric Com p any, a n d W e stern M a ssachusetts El ectric Com p any, beca use sim ilar evaluation practices are use d ac ross a l l M a ssachuset t s Pr og ram Ad m i ni st rat o rs.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 10

### • 

## The prelim i n ary data ref e rs to savings estim ates that are based on the evaluation im pact factors that were used in the 2005 Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP). 2 

## Using this data allows for a direct com p aris on with the estim ated savings from t h e 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 eval uated data presents our best es tim ate of the efficiency savings, based on all the evaluation infor m a tion available at this tim e. Appendix 2 presents the im pact factors that were used to prep are th e evalu a ted results.

Evaluation Studies Used in Pr eparing 2005 Evaluated Results
Since its inception in July 2001, the Com p act has participated in m a ny state-wide and regional m o nitoring and evaluation studies, al ong with other energy efficiency Program Adm i nistrators. The Compact has also conduc ted several evaluation studies specific to its own program s

. The evaluation studies that we re used to prepare the estim a tes of 2005 energy efficiency savings are listed b e low. The executive su mm ari e s 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 Op erator Certification (BOC) Program, by RLW Analytics, prep ared for Northeas t Energy Efficiency Partnerships, June 2005.

• 

## Free-ridership and Spillover Study , by PA Consulting, prepared for the Cape Light Com p act in conjunction with National Gr id and United Illum i nating, June 2006.

• 

## Phase 1: Commercial Rooftop HVAC Unit Retr ofit Progr a m s , 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 Northeas t 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 Managem e nt Comm ittee, May 2006.

• 

## Analysis of Remaining Opportunitie s for the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR

Appliances Program , by NMR, RLW Analytics, Inc., Dorothy Conant and Shel Feldm a n Managem e nt Consulting, prepared for C a pe Light C o m p act, National

2 

### The prim ary evaluation im pact fact or s t h at a r e rel e vant he r e are free -ri der s hi p rat e s, spi l l ove r rat e s, realizatio n rates, p e rsisten ce rates, an d m eas u r e liv es.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 11

## Grid USA, NSTAR Electric Com p a ny, Unitil, and W e stern Massachus etts Electric Com p any, October 2005.

• 

## Evaluation of the MassS AVE Program: Market S u rvey Resu lts , by RLW Analytics, subm itted to Bay State G a s, Berkshir e Gas, Cape Light Com p act, KeySpa n Energy Delivery, N a tional Grid, New England Ga s Company, NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation, Unitil, and Northeast U til ities/W e stern Mass ach u setts E l ec tr ic, Decem ber 2005.

• 

## Kingman Yacht Center, Energy Audit Report , by RLW Analytics, prepared for the Cape Light Com p act, January 2006.

• 

## Evaluation of the Cape Light Compac t Residential New Construction Green Building 2003 Demonstration Project , by Vermont Energy Investm e nt Corporation, prepared for the Cape L i ght Com p a c t, March 2006.

In addition, som e program evaluation studies are currently in developm ent. Final reports for the following studies are expected in summer 2006.

• 

## Market Progress and E v aluation Report (MPER) for the 2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Residential Lighting Program , by Nexus Market Research, prepared for Cape Light Com p act, Nati onal Grid USA, NSTA R Electric Com p any, Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric Co mpany, Summ er 2006.

• 

## Commercial HVAC Equi pment Market Characterization , by KEMA Consulting, prepared for the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Summer 2006.

Ty pes of Evaluations
The evaluation of 2005 energy efficiency progr am im pacts reflects the Compact’s efforts to apply appropriate m e thodologies and adjust them for individual program characteristics. The diverse nature of the programs, includi ng the m a gnitude of prelim inary kW and kWh im pacts, the num be r of custom ers served, and the end uses affected, calls for the adoption of different evaluation approaches. Evaluations of som e program s use several m e thodologies to deve lop overall im pact results and provide

m eaningful feedback on program delivery a nd direction. Som e of these methodologies are briefly described below.
Survey-Base d Im pact Param e ter Studies . Survey-based im pact param e ter studies focu s on the analysis of information collected th rough custom er surveys. They are generally used to m easure f r ee- rid e rship and s p illov e r. Th ese stud ies p r ovide tim ely f eedback to
program m a nagers as well as input to the im pact evaluations.
In 2005 the Cape Light Com p act joined Nati onal Grid in sponsoring a study to update free-ridership and spillover im pact factor s for C o mm ercial and Industrial program s, based on standardized methods and survey in strum e nts that were developed in 2004. The results of the 2005 study ar e included in Appendix 6.
In July of 2005, a survey-based evaluation of the Building Oper ator Certification Program wa s also com p leted and is summ ari zed in Appendix 6. Results of this study were used to report savings from 2005 pa rticipants in the BOC program

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 12

## Billing Ana l yses . Billin g analyses involve the analys is of billing d a ta, com b ined in som e cases with survey data, to determ ine im p acts for program s where a large num b er of participan ts insta ll s i m ilar m easures. Since billin g data a r e av ailab l e f o r all custom ers, billing analysis techniques m a y include repr esentative sam p les of both par tic ipants and non-participants in an evaluation.
Site Specific Measurem ent Analysis . Im pact evaluations for m a ny of the end uses and
program s covered in this report rely on engi neering estim ates that are based on sitespecific m e tering and on-site telephone a ssessm ents of m easure perform a nce and persistence.

Process and Market P r ogress Evaluation Studies . Process evaluations review energy efficiency program design and im plem en tation, and recomm e nd m odifications to
program delivery. The scope of these evalua tions includes all aspects of the program includ ing ad m i nistrativ e efficiency, the quali ty of service provided, and the databases used for program tracking and reporting. Pro cess evaluations assess the early stages of energy efficiency program s. They specifica lly provide an assessm ent of ( a ) whether actual operations resem b le the intended program design and operation plan, and (b) whethe r real-world e xperien ce sh ows that the original program design and im ple m entation plan are appropriate given the existing field conditions.
Appendix 6 includes summaries of several st ud ies that characterize cu rrent m a rket conditions or report on m a rket progress and ai d in inform ing im ple m entation of m a rketorien t ed energy efficiency program s implem ented by the Compact, such as the res i den t ial new construction program, residential products program , and commercial and industrial products and services program

. Econom ic Modeling and Analysis S t udies. The benefits and cost -effectiv eness of energy efficiency program s are based on m o deling and an alysis that values en erg y efficiency in relation to the avoided costs of energy supply projected ove r the life of the program s and

m easures installed. Avoided costs are typica lly projected based on forecasting m odels.

The cost- e f f

ectiv eness r e sults p r ese n ted in th is report – both prelim inary and evaluated – are all based on the avoided cost estim a tes that were used in preparing the 2005 EEP. This approach allows for a m o re direct co m p arison of the econom i c resu lts between the 2005 EEP and the 2005 Annual Report. The avoi ded cost estim a tes used for both of these studies are taken from th e following report: ICF Consulting, Avoided Energy Supply Costs in New England , prepared for the Avoide d Energy Supply Com ponent (AESC) Study Group, August 21, 2003.
That study was prepared for a group of sponsor s and project advisors from the six New England states from Mai n e to Connectic ut, including the Compact. The study was intended to support energy efficiency progr am planning and developm ent, including regulatory filings. The study em ployed a deta iled and integrated funda m e ntals m odeling approach combined with m a rket data to estim a te supply costs considered to be avoidable. It projected spot m a rket fuel m a rket pr ices, wholesale energy and capacity prices,
transm ission and distribution avoided costs. The impacts of locational pricing were considered in the analysis, in light of the fact that locational pr icing m a rkets were under developm ent. Avoided costs were calculat ed for all sub-regions in New England for

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 13

## 2005 – 2040. In addition to the avoided electr ic supply costs, projections f o r gas, propane fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, kerosene heating fuel, and wood were also considered.
In 2005, an update of projected avoided ener gy supply costs was com p leted for the sam e parties, by the sam e consultant. These a voided costs were used in preparing the 2006 EEP, and will be us ed in presenting the 2006 Annual Report.

Other Com p act-Specific Research an d Evaluation. The Com p act com p leted site-specific analyses of two special projects: the Resi dential New Construction Green Building 2003 De m onstration Project, and a custom project to identify efficiency opportunities for the Kingm a n Marina. W h ile results of these studies are not used to develop savings estim ates f o r this repor t, they help in f o r m the design and delivery of the Com p act’s
program s. These studies are briefly summari zed below; additional details are provided in Appendix 6.
Evaluation of the Green Building Project includ ed f o llow-up inte rviews with the hom e owners and builders and suppliers, visits to each of the four houses in the pro j ect, developm ent of a Cape Cod-specific refe rence hom e based on Massachusetts new construction baseline data, and an assessm ent to determ ine if the houses in the Project were perform i ng as originally m odeled.
Key findings included:

• 

## Participan ts were very sa tisf i ed with their hom es;

• 

## While useful, the Verm ont Build Green ch ecklist needs to be supplem ented with additional infor m ational resources;

• 

## Non-energy benefits, such as indoor e nvironm ental quality, d u rability, o t her factors, were m o re i m portan t than en ergy saving s in m o tivatin g custom ers to build to a green standard.

• 

## The energy benefits of the hom es were co s t -effective (i.e. in crem ental costs were more than offset by the associated savings).

• 

## More generally, build ers feel there is pent up de mand for green building in the residen t ial s ector; lack o f consum er awar eness is the prim ary barrier to in creas ed adoption of green building practices.

• 

## The four hom es saved fr om 930 to 1,400 kW h and 110 to 300 therm s annually. Under the T RC test, the savings m easures (excluding solar water heating) are cost effective relative to the Massachus etts baseline hom e ; however, inclusion of
program adm i nistration costs resulted in an overall program benefit-cost ratio of 0.93.

In 2005, the Com p act contracted for an assessm ent of efficiency and energy m a nagem e nt opportunities for the Kingm a n Yacht Center, a fu ll service m a rina, restaurant and retail facility. The study included an analysis of tw o years of m onthly billi ng history as well as construction of average dock load prof iles based on m onitoring of dock power

consum ption and recording of fifteen -m inute interval data.
Key findings included:

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 14

### • 

## Kingm a n Yacht Center does not have enough discretionary kW to participate in regional load response program s. (The Ce nter’s peak load is 199kW

, of which 89kW is dock load; 100 kW is the minim u m required for the ISO-NE program ).

• 

## The Yacht Center could benefit from part icipa tio n in a reg i on al load respo n se program , if opportunities for customers to aggregate loads becom e available. Meanwhile, custom er education is recomme nded to help m a nage peak dock load.

• 

## As a secondary priority, fu rther investigation of usage in winter m onths and

consum ption by non-dock facilities is reco mm ended to identify energy efficiency opportunities.

Generic Impact Equations
The general for m of the impact equation fo r m o st of the m easures ins t a lle d is:

Net Im pacts = Gross Im pacts * Realizati on Rate*(1-Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Persis tence Factor.

Realiza tion Rates are stu dy- specific param e ters, whic h typically com p are the energy or dem a nd perform ance of i n stalled equipm ent to in itial estim ates of perfor m a nce. They are typically based on engineeri ng or billing analysis.

Free-ridersh i p includes both partial and pure free-ri dership, w h ere such infor m ation is available, as required by D.T.E 98-100.
Free-ridership and spillover rates for Co mm ercial and Industrial Program s were determ ined as part of the study conducte d jointly by National Grid, the C o m p act, and United Illum i nating, and summarized in A ppendix 6. For the purposes of the study, participan ts in the Com p act’s Sm all C&I, Medium and Large C&I, and Governm e nt program s were com b ined, and im pa cts were developed by measur e category and by new construction, retrofit, and product and serv ice, where possible. The im pa cts were assessed through a survey of a sa m p le of program participants and som e design professionals and vendors. The number of survey com p letions for som e m easure catego r ies w a s very low because som e of the Compact’s pro g ram s , such as New Construction, had relatively few participants in 2005 and even fewer participants installed certain m easures. Thus, although a high percen tage of the 2005 program custom ers were

sam p led, as noted by the evaluators who conduc ted the analysis, “som e caution should be used when interpreting results”. For the Com p act’s C&I New Construction program , the Com p act sta f f and advisors ele c ted to us e f r ee-r i dership and spillov e r res u lts f r om National Grid in reporting 2005 results, due to concerns about the sm all sample sizes from the Compact. For the Com p act’s G overnment New Construction and Retrofit
program s, the Com p act elected to as s u m e there is no free-ridership or participant spillov e r in 2005. This is because th e governm e nt program s were design ed and deliv e red in order to provide energy e fficiency to custom ers who coul d not provide the sam e level of efficiency within their existing budgets 3



## .

3 

### Th e Co m p act will ev alu a te go v e rn m e n t p r og ram i m p acts in a 20 06 ev aluatio n st u d y

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 15

## In energy efficiency program s , spillover m a y occur am ong both participants and nonparticipants. Both participant and nonpa rticipant spillover were used in the calculation of savings for these progra m s , consistent with D.T.E. 98-100. The nonparticipant spillover impact used in this report is based on the com b ined results of National Grid and Com p act surveys.

Persis tence indicates the continued p r esence of sa vings over tim e as indicated by followup surveys that confirm the m easure rem a in s installed, and verify it is operating as intended. A s defined by the 2005 Measure L i fe Study, “Savings persistence is the percent change in expected savings due to changed operating hours, changed process operation, and/or degradation in equipm ent efficiency relative to the baseline efficiency option”.

Measure liv es are applied to net annual kW and kW h to calculate lifetime kW and kWh. Measure lives for Comm ercial and Industria l Program s wer e updated based on results of a 2005 literature review and study jointly sponsored by Mass achusetts’ energy efficiency
program adm i nistrators. It is also summa rized in Appendix 6. As defined by the 2005 Measure L i fe Study, m e asure life is “The m e dian num b er of years that a m easure is installed and operational. This definition im plicitly includes equipm ent life and m easure persis tence, but not sav i ngs persistence....In ad dition, this d e finition con f or m s in letter or in spir it with the def i nitio n of m easure lif e used b y m o st natio nal utilities. ”

Performance Metrics
As a not-for-profit inter- governm e ntal organization, the Compact does not require shareholder perform a nce incentives, and thus does not need to m onito r or track any form of perfor m a nce m e trics.



# III. Imp act s by BCR Activity

A. Residential

1. By BCR Activity
Table 5 presents a summary of the number of custom ers served, the annual savings, the lif etim e savings, and the costs in curr e d f o r the residential program s . It also presents the benefit cost ratio, based on the to tal r e source cost test. The costs and benefits used to derive this r a tio a r e th e s a m e as those presented in Table 2.
The HVAC, Lighting and Appliances Program s are particularly cos t -effective. The Residential Lost Opportunity Program is le ss cost-effective than the others, in part because the baseline ho m e s are increasing l y effi cient. Nonetheless, th is program is still im portant because of the long-term lo st opportunities that it addresses.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 16Ben e fit- Cost Ratio B e n e fi t- C o st

A c ti vi ty k W h k W h pe r Cust o m er kW $- NE B M W H kW $- NE B A cti v ity per Cu st o m er TR C

A02a Res i dential Los t Opp o rtunity 230 32 9,480 1,433 66.78 $760 3, 493 1

, 168 $15 ,199 $411,100 $1,787 1.0 4 A02b Res i dential HVA C 269 13 8,040 513 81.43 $0 2, 761 1

, 629 $0 $166,522 $619 2.9 3 A03a Res i dential Retr of i t 1

- 4 1 ,996 2,51 2,200 1,259 240.85 $4,076 35, 672 2

, 755 $47 ,483 $1,301,613 $652 1.5 5 A04a Res i dential Lighti n g 1 ,392 3,25 1,710 2,336 194.88 $23,295 24, 668 1

, 256 $142 ,555 $247,040 $177 5.1 0 A04b Res i dential App l i anc es 3,888 56 7,750 146 305.61 $135,379 8, 443 4

, 150 $1,895 ,213 $426,477 $110 7.3 5 To t a l 7,775 6,79 9,180 874 889.55 $ 163,511 75, 036 10 ,956 $2,100,450 $2, 552,751 $328 2.8 7 TA B L E 5 IM PA CT BY RE SIDE NT IA L BCR A C T I V I T I ES

A n nu a l Li fe t i me Cos t Cu st om ers



## 2. By End Uses
Table 6 presents a summary of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the residential program s

. Lighting and HVAC provide the m a jority of sa vings from t h e residential program s.

E nd Us e Pr el i m i n ar y E v a l uate d P r el i m i nary E val uated P r el i m i nary E va l uated L i ghti n g 36, 367 3 2 ,403 2,1 8 0 1

, 972 $ 196,9 8 5 $ 168,0 9 6 HVAC 31, 596 2 7 ,497 5,6 8 5 5

, 294 ( $7,7 90) ( $7,7 90) Ref r i ger at i o n 1 ,740 2,149 2 3 8 300 $0 $0 Hot W a ter 5 ,332 5,329 3,3 9 1 3

, 391 $1, 947,6 9 8 $1, 940,1 4 4 M o tors NA NA N A NA NA NA E nd Us er B ehav i o r N A N A N A N A N A N A T ABLE 6 IMP A C T BY RESIDEN T IAL E N D USES Li f e ti m e M W H L i f eti m e k W $ Li f e ti m e NE B



### The ne gat i ve N EB val u es are due t o t h e ass u mpt i o n t hat ef

f

i ci ent b o i l e rs s h oul d be t u ne d- up eac h ye ar t o achieve t h e f u ll level of efficiency savings.



## Figures 13 through 15 present the sam e infor m at ion as Table 6. They indicate that much of the residential energy savings are obtained from the lighting m easures, with m o st of the rem a ining com i ng fr om HVAC.

The residential dem a nd savings com e prim ar ily from HVAC a nd hot water. Lighting savings m a ke up a relatively sm all portion of the dem a nd savings, becaus e only a sm all portion of the lighting measures are assum e d to be operati onal during the peak dem a nd 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 dishw a shers.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 17F I G U R E 1 3 – R E S I DE N T I A L L I F E T I M E M W H - E N D US E

- 10, 000 20, 000 30, 000 40, 000 50, 000 60, 000 70, 000 80, 000

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uated

L i f e t i me MW H

P r e l im in ar y ve r s u s E v a l u a t e dLifetimeMWH E nd U s er B ehav i o r
Mo t o r s
H o t W a te r
R

e f r i ger at i o n
H VAC

Li ghti n g

F I G URE 1 4

- R E S I DE NT I A L L I F E T I M E k W

- E N D US E

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

P r el i m i nar y E v a l u at ed

Li f e ti m e k W

P r e l i m in ar y ve r s u s E valu a t e dLifetimekW E nd U s e r B ehav i o r
Mo t o r s
Ho t W a t e r
R

e f r i ger ati o n
H VAC

Li ghti n g

F I G U R E 1 5 - RE S I DE N

T I A L L I F E T I M E NE B

- E N D U S E

( $ 500, 000) $0 $ 500, 000 $1, 000, 000 $1, 500, 000 $2, 000, 000 $2, 500, 000

P r e lim in a r y E v a lu a t e d

$ L i f e ti m e N E B
B

e ne f i t s v e r s us C o s t s$-THOUSANDS E n d U s er B eha v i or
Mo t o r s
H o t W a te r
R

e f r i g er at i o n
HV A C

Li ght i n g



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 18

## 3. Program Evaluation

The Reside ntial ENERGY STAR ® 

### New Construction Progr am 

## Savings attributed to EN ERGY STAR New Cons truction Program com e from two m a i n areas: (a) heating, coolin g, and water heating in the hom e; and (b) appliances and lighting installed in the hom e. Savings for appliances and lighting in certifi ed hom e s were based on previous studies provided by Massac husetts program administrators.
Heating, Cooling, W a ter Heating Savings: As part of the ENERGY STAR certification
process, p r ojected en ergy use is calcu l ated for each ENERGY STAR home and a

m a tching baseline hom e, the User Defined Reference Hom e (UDRH), using REM/rate software, a detailed residential sim u lation tool w h ich is also the t ool used to calculate both electric and fossil fuel energy savings due to heating, cooling, and water heating for all hom es, both single an d m u ltifam ily, certified in 2005.
In May 200 6, the Join t Managem e nt Comm ittee (JMC) completed a stud y to char acte rize baseline new construction in Massachusetts. The reference hom e was revised based on

m a ny of the findings of this study, “Ma ssachusetts ENERGY STAR HOMES: 2005 BASELINE STUDY, Final Report.” However, the savings presented in this Annual Report do n o t ref l ec t the s e resu lts, a s per the DOER def i nitio n of prelim inary and evaluated results.
The baseline study is one of several evaluati on activities of the JMC relating to the MultiYear Program Evaluation and Market Progr ess Reporting Plan (MPER) beginning in 2005. A hom eowner survey was als o conducted to obtain ad dition a l info rm ation such as awareness and interest in energy efficiency from the owners of the 150 hom es inspected in the 2005 Baseline S t udy.

MassSAVE



## In Decem be r 2005, “Evaluation of the MassSAVE Program : Market Su rv ey Results” was rele ased (Ap p endix 6). This is pa rt of a larger multi-ye ar e v aluation plan. The m a rket survey was conducted from a random sa m p le of Massachusetts residents. It m easured: residents’ nam e recognition, understanding, and valuing of the program ; payback requirem e nts for efficiency m easures; and othe r c h arac ter i stic s of custom ers lik ely to b e targeted by the program . Results of this surv ey inform a table of m a rket and program indicators.
Key findings included:

• 

## Continued need to em phasize the MassSAVE na m e ;

• 

## Need to explore targeting landlords;

• 

## Need to overcom e high first-cost barriers for som e m easures in various ways, including educating cu stom ers on the payback concept, and providing rebate/in ter e st-f ree loan com b inations.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 19

### The Reside ntial ENERGY STAR Products and Services Program



## 2005 m a rked the beginning of a new Multi -Year Program Eval uation and Market Progress Reporting Plan (MPER) effo rt for lighting and appliances.
An “Analysis of Re m a ining Opportunities for the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Appliances Program ” was com p leted in Oc tober 2005 (Appendix 6). The analysis is based on interviews with program adm i nistra tors and ENERGY STAR partners as w e ll as review of program m a terials. The purpose of this analysis is to help inform decisions about future program design as well as ev aluation activities, gi ven that significant progress toward m a rket transform a tion has b een m a de in recent years. Key findings included:

• 

## Need to m a intain sales and m a rketin g support mechanism s for an appliance
program even with reduced program spendi ng, in order to m a intain visibility of ENERGY STAR and to push m a nufacturers to ward higher appliance efficiencies.



## B. Low-Income

1. By BCR Activity
Table 7 presents a summary of the number of custom ers served, the annual savings, the lif etim e savings, and the costs in curr e d f o r the low-incom e program s. It also presents the benefit cost ratio, based on the to tal r e source cost test. The costs and benefits used to derive this r a tio a r e th e s a m e as those presented in Table 3.

W h ile the Single Fam ily and Multi-F a m ily Retrof it Progr am s are c l ear ly c o st-ef f

e ctiv e , the Lost Opportunity Program is less so. W e believe that th e benef it- co st ra tio f o r the Lost Opportunity Program is esp ecially low this year as a re sult of relatively low activity in 2005.

Be nef i t

- C os t R a tio Be n e fi t- Co st

Ac ti vity k W h kW h p e r Cu s t om er kW $

- N E B M W H kW $

- N E B A c t i v i t y per Cu st om e r TR C

B02 a Lo w

- Inc o m e Los t O ppo rt unity 1 2 185 ,220 1 5 ,43 5 3 1 .1 3 $5, 841 2

, 295 379 $74 ,70 4 $23 5,44 6 $ 19,6 2 0 1 .07 B03 a Lo w

- Inc o m e Re tr of it 1- 4 3 7 5 271 ,540 72 4 2 9 .6 9 $ 16, 327 4

, 242 453 $ 248 ,26 5 $29 1,94 7 $ 7 7 9 1 .78 B03 b Lo w

- Inc o m e Re tr of it M u lti f am i l y 3 139 ,410 4 6 ,47 0 0.3 5 $ 29, 697 1

, 452 7 $ 298 ,53 0 $26 0,25 1 $ 86,7 5 0 1 .41 T O T A L 3 9 0 596 ,170 1,52 9 61. 17 $5 1,86 4 7 ,989 839 $6 21, 499 $ 787 ,643 $2,0 2 0 1 .44 T ABL E 7 IMPAC T BY LO W IN CO M E BC R AC T I VIT I ES Ann ual L i f e tim e Cos t Cu st om er s



## 2. By End Uses
Table 8 presents a summary of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the low-incom e program s.

Pr elim in ar y E valu ated P r elim inar y E valuate d P r elim inar y E valua t ed Lig h ting 847 731 51 51 $22,893 $19 ,731 H V A C 2

, 454 2,454 24 24 $461,255 $461 ,255 R e f r iger at ion 2 ,409 2,339 3 3 0 330 $89,420 $86 ,778 H o t W a ter 211 144 73 73 $9,969 $7 ,001 M o t o rs N A NA NA N A NA NA End U s er Behavior N A N A N A N A N A N A T A BL E 8 IMPACT BY LO W INCO ME END US ES Lif e tim e MW H L if etim e k W $ L i f e tim e N E B End U s e



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 20

## Figures 16 through 18 present the sam e infor m at ion as Table 8. They indicate that most of the energy and dem a n d savings are fro m the refrigeration and HVAC end uses.

Most of the low-incom e non-electric benefits com e from the HVAC m e a s ures. This is because the hom e energ y audits resu lt in b e nefits associated with (a) im proved property values, (b ) r e duced f i re, illn ess and moving cost s, and (c) f o ssil-f u el sav i ngs. All of the low-incom e program s also have non-electric be nefits as a result of reduced usage of the low-incom e discount rate. The low incom e pr ogram s also have non-electric benefits that are experienced by non-low-incom e residential custom ers, su ch as lighting O&M savings and reduced water usag e.

F I G U R E 1 6

– L O W I N C O M E L I F E T I M E M W H

- E ND US E

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

P r e l i m i nar y E v a l uat ed

P r e l i m in ar y v e r s u s E valu a t e dLifetimeMWH E nd U s er B ehav i o r
Mo t o r s
Ho t W a t e r
R

e f r i ger ati o n
H VAC

Li ghti n g

F I G U R E 1 7 - LO W I N C O M E LI F E TI M E k W - E N D

U S E

- 100 200 300 400 500 600

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uat ed E nd U s er B ehav i o r
Mo t o r s
H o t W a te r
R

e f r i ger at i o n
H VAC

Li ghti n g



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 21F I G U R E 1 8 - L O W I N C O M E L I F E T I M E NE B - E N D US E

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uat e d

B

e ne fi t s v e r s us C o s t s$-THOUSANDS E nd U s er B ehav i o r
Mo t o r s
Ho t W a t e r
R

e f r i ger ati o n
H VAC

Li ghti n g



## 3. Program Evaluation

The Com p a c t conducted no new evaluation activi ties since the 2004 process evaluation of the low inco m e program

.



## C. Commercial & Industrial

1. By BCR Activity
Table 9 presents a summary of the number of custom ers served, the annual savings, the lifetim e savings, and the costs in curred for the commercial & i ndustrial program s. It also presents the benefit cost ratio, based on th e total resource cost test. The costs and benefits used to derive this ratio are the sam e as those presented in Table 4.

Ben e f i t

- Co s t R a tio B e nefi t -C ost

Ac tivi t y k W h k W h pe r Cus t o m er kW $

- N E B M W H kW $

- N E B A c t i v i t y pe r Cu s t om er TR C

C 0 2 a C& I Lo st Op po rtu n i t y 1 0 165

, 5 2 0 1 6 ,5 52 43 .3 5 $ 1 0 8 3

, 2 4 6 68 8 $1 ,6 16 $1 54 ,0 35 $ 1 5

, 4 0 3 1 .6 8 C0 3a L a r g e C& I R e t r of it 61 3,3 0 9

, 7 7 0 54

, 2 5 9 65 5. 49 $ 2

, 0 8 7 47 ,0 06 4

, 41 6 $2 7, 12 9 $ 55 4, 70 3 $ 9, 09 3 3

. 2 2 C0 3b Sm a l l C&I Re tr o f it 1 4 0 1 ,3 96 ,5 90 9,9 7 6 22 1. 17 $1 7, 44 4 2 0

, 2 7 5 2

, 92 4 $2 26 ,7 67 $1 ,0 95 ,8 66 $7 ,8 28 1

. 4 8 T O T A L 2 1 1 4

, 87 1, 88 0 23

, 0 8 9 9 2 0 .0 1 $1 9, 63 8 7 0

, 5 2 7 8

, 02 8 $2 55 ,5 12 $1 ,8 04 ,6 04 $8 ,5 53 2

. 0 3 TA B L E 9 IMPACT BY C&I BC R A C T I V I T I ES A n nu al Li f e ti m e Co st Cu s t o m er s



## 2. By End Uses
Table 10 presents a sum m a ry of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the co mmercial & industrial
program s.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 22Pr elim ina r y E va lua t e d Pre lim i n a r y E valu at ed Pr elim ina r y E valu at ed L i ghti n g 26,26 2 24,215 4, 46 1 4, 442 $ 284 ,0 25 $25 5,51 2 HVAC 5 9 4 301 109 53 $0 $0 Mo to r s / Dr i v e s 4,91 9 5,037 804 821 $0 $0 Ref r i gerati o n 8 6 3 865 137 138 $0 $0 Hot W a ter

- - - - $0 $0 Com p r e ss ed Air N A N A N A N A N A N A Pr oc e s s N A N A N A N A N A N A E n d Us e r B e h a v i or 37,88 8 12,996 7, 50 3 2, 574 $0 $0 T ABL E 1 0 IMPAC T BY C & I END USES Li f e ti m e MW H L i f eti m e k W $ Li feti m e NE B End U s e



## Figures 19 through 21 present the sam e infor m at ion as Table 10. They indicate that the energy and capacity savings are obtained pr im arily from lighting m easures and, to a lesser extent, from end user behavior m easures. The savings in the end user behavior m easure category are from the BOC Program . The large reduc tion in lif etime MW h savi ngs for the BOC Program between prelim inary and evaluated estim ates is a result using a m u ch shorter m easure life provided by the 2005 BOC evaluation study.
The non-energy benefits in the C&I sector ar e from reduced O&M costs as a result of efficient light bulbs with longer operating lives.

F I G U R E 19 – C & I LI F E T I M E M

W H - E N D U S E

- 10

, 000 20

, 000 30

, 000 40

, 000 50

, 000 60

, 000 70

, 000 80

, 000

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uat ed E nd U s er B ehav i o r
P

r oc es s
C

o m p r e s s ed A i r
H o t W a te r
R

e f r i ger at i o n
M o to r s / D r i v e s
H VAC

Li ght i n g



### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 23F I G U RE 2 0 - C & I

L I F E T I M E k

W

- E N D US E

- 2, 00 0 4, 00 0 6, 00 0 8, 00 0 10, 00 0 12, 00 0 14, 00 0

P r el i m i n a r y E v a l u at ed E n d U s er B e h a v i or
Pr o c e s s
Co m p r e s s e d A i r
H o t W a te r
R e f r i g er at i o n
M o to r s / D r i v e s
HV A C

Li gh ti ng

FI G U R E 2 1 - C & I

L I FE TI M E N E B - E N D U S E

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

P r el i m i nar y E v a l uat ed E nd U s er B e hav i o r
Pr o c e s s
C

o m p r e s s ed A i r
H o t W a te r
R

e f r i ger at i o n
M

o to r s / D r i v e s
H VAC

Li ght i n g



## 3. Program Evaluation

Building Operator Certification Progr am



## End User Behavior is addressed under the Building Operator Cer tif ica tion Program

. Savings attributed to this program com e fr om a c o m b ination of practices and m easures im ple m ented by facility m a nagers as a result of training under this program. I m pact estim ates for this program were updated in 2005 (Appendix 6). The Compact reports energy im pacts without rebated m easures for th e participants who ha ve NOT participated

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 24

## in any other C&I program in the sam e year , and it reports energy im pacts with rebated

m easures for the particip ants w ho have participated in an au d it and / or in stalled m easur es during this program year.

Lighting (Commercial Lighting Initiat i ve)



## The Comm e r cial Lighting Initiative, fac ilitated by NEEP, has as its goal the transform a tion of the m a rket for high pe rform a nc e lighting. While the C o m p act and other Massachusetts program adm i nistra tors promote Super T8 technology, the availability of new lighting fi xtures equipped with this technology has lagged behind the availability of indivi dual lam p s and ballasts.

Late in 2005, a m a rket research study was la unched to determine the current status of

m a rket availability of Super T8 fixtures and to explore barriers to th e i r av ailab i lity. T h e goal of this research was to inform fut u re program activities. Re sults of the study are based on telephone interviews with a random sa mple of 50 lighting distributors and

m a nufacturers’ representativ es. Key findings include:

• 

## Need to encourage m a nufacturers to stock S uper T8s and to install them as part of their standard product runs;

• 

## Need to increase awareness of Super T8s am ong distributors who are not active participan ts in efficiency program s;

• 

## Need to focus on m a nufacturers’ reps as ke y agents likely to “up-sell”, since they typically provide design assi s t ance, and they can bene fit from increased profit

m a rgins on prem ium pr oducts (e.g. through circuit riding);

• 

## Need to tr an sition to exc l usive p r omoti on of Super T8 and away from incentives supporting standard T8s.

HVAC (Cool Choice)


## The Cool Choice prog ra m, f acilita te d by NEEP, has as its go al the tran sf orm a tion of the

m a rket for high efficiency unitary HVAC e quip m ent by promoting consistent standards and rebates am ong Mas s achusetts utilities and in the region.

Late in 2005, two m a rket research studie s were launched to infor m the design and possible future direction of Cool Choi ce and sponsors’ program activities.
A study to characterize regional and national experience with commercial rooftop HVAC unit retrofit program s was com p leted in March 2006. Findings are based on expert inte rviews, lite ratu re re s earch and cr itical re view of program m a terials. T h e design and perform a nce of program s in the Northeast, California and Northwest were exam ined. The key findings were:

• 

## Pilot efforts have shown possible energy sa vings of 1,800 kWh/unit treated; this is principally an energy resource, not a substantial dem a nd resource;

• 

## Benefits are based on a variety of m e asures i n c l udi ng c h a r ge , a i r f l o w, c o nt r o l s a nd

econom izers;

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 25

### • 

## Need f o r addition a l im pact eva l uatio n results (m ost progr ams are in ear l y stages );

• 

## Northeast m a y benefit from early rep l acem ent program to achieve m a ximum dem a nd savings potential from rooftop units.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 26

# Appendices

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 27

## Appendix 1. Glossary of T e rms and Abbreviations

Annual kWh Reduction Expected net annual energy savi ngs after all im pact factors have been taken into consideration.

AMP Appliance Managem e nt Program
BBRS Board of Building Regu lations and Standards
CAP Community Action Program
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CFL Com p act Fluorescen t L a m p s Coincident Peak Demand Dem a nd for electricity at the tim e of t h e Com p any’s peak dem a nd.

Delta Watts The difference in th e wattage between pre-ex istin g or baseline lighting equipment and energy efficient lighting equipm ent.
Demand The am ount of electric energy used by a custom er or a piece of equipm ent at a specific tim e, expressed in kilowatts. Demand Adjustment Factor This factor is a com b ination of one or m o re evaluation im pact param e ters applied to gross dem a nd savings in the calculation of net dem a nd savings. Diversity That characteris tic of a v a riety of electric load s whereby individual maxim u m de m a nds usually occur at different tim es. Diversity F a ctor Percent of savings available at the tim e of the Com p any’s peak dem a nd.
DOE Departm e nt of Energy
DOER Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources
D&R D&R Intern ationa l, the contra ctor to DOE and EPA that monitors sales of ENERGY STAR® appliances.
DSM De m a nd Side Managem e nt
DTE Massachusetts Departm e nt of Telecommunications and Energy

EFLH Equivalent Full Load Hours Energy Adjustment Factor A factor m a de up of one or m o re evaluation im pact param e ters applied to gross kW h savi ngs in the calculation of net kW h savings.

EPA Environm ental Protection Agency
EPACT Energy Policy Act

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 28

## ENERGY S T AR® Brand nam e for the voluntary en ergy efficiency labeling initiative sponsored by the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency and Departm e nt of Energy.
Free Riders Custom ers who participate in an energy efficiency program but would have installed the sa m e measure(s) on their own if the program had not been available.
Free-Riders hip Rate The percent of savings attr ibu t able to Free Riders.
Gross kW Expected dem a nd reduction based on a com p arison of standard o r replaced equipm ent, and equipm ent installed through an energy efficiency program

. Gross kWh Expected kWh reduction based on a com p arison of standard or replaced equipm ent, and e quipment installed through an energy efficiency program.
GWh Gigawatt-hour – a m easure of electricity usag e ov er tim e equal to 1,000 m e gawatt-hour s or 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours.
Hours of Use The estim ated num ber of hours per year that a m easure operates.
Hours of Us e Realiz ation Rate Ratio of actual m e tered hours of use data to estim ated hours of use data.

HP Horsepower
HVAC Heating Ven tilation and Air Conditio ning Impact Factor Generic term for persistence, re aliza tion r a tes, in -serv i ce rates, non-coincid en t co nnected dem a nd factors, etc., developed during the evaluation of energy efficiency
program s and used to calculate net savings.
JMC The Joint M a nagem e nt Comm ittee of utility an d non-utility parties that m a nages the ENER GY S T AR® Ho mes Program

. kWh Kilowatt-hour – The basic unit of electric energy usage over tim e. One kWh is equal to one kW of power supplied to a circuit for a period of one hour.

kW Kilowatt – A m easure of electric dem a nd – 1000 watts

kW – Years See: Lifetim e kW
Lifetime The expected length of tim e , in years, that an installed

m easure will be in s e rvice and prod ucing sav i ng s. Lifetime kW The expected dem a nd sa vings over the lifetim e of an installed m easure, calcu l ated by m u ltiplying the annual peak kW reduction associated with a m easure by the expected lifetim e of that m easure. It is expressed in units of kW

years. Lifetime M W h The expected energy sav i ngs over th e lifetim e of an installed

m easure, calculated by multiply ing the annual MW h

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 29

## reduction as sociated with a m easure by the expected lifetim e of that m easure. LIHEAP Low Incom e Heating As sistan ce Pro g ram Maximum Annual kW Savings Peak annual dem a nd savings of a m e asure. At the program level, this equals the sum of the annual peak dem a nd savings across all m easures.
Measure Specific technology or practice that produces energy and/or dem a nd savings for which the com p any provides financial incentives.

MPER Multi-Year Program Evaluation and Market P r o g ress Reporting, or Market Progre ss and Evaluation Report, developed f o r various residential program s

. MW Megawatt – a m easure of electric dem a nd equal to 1,000 kilowatts.

MWh Megawatt-hour – a m easure of energy use over tim e equal to 1,000 kilowatt-hours.
NAT E North Am erican Techn i cian Excellence Program

NEEP Northeast E n ergy Efficiency Partn e rships
O&M Operation and Maintenance Off-Peak energy kWh The kW h reduction that occurs during the Com p a ny’s offpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 9 p.m . t o 8 a.m

. and all day of weekends and holidays)
On-Peak E n ergy kWh The kW h reduction that occurs during the Com p a ny’s onpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 8 a.m

. t o 9 p.m

., except ho lid ays)
Persistence Rate Percentage of first year ener gy or dem a nd savings expected to pers ist ov er the life of the ins t alled energy efficiency equipm ent; developed by conducting surveys of installed equipm ent severa l year s af ter ins t alla tion to d e te r m ine presence and operational capab ility of the equip m ent.
RCS Residential Conservation Services. Form erly Energy Conservation Services or ECS Seasonal (Winter/Summer) kW The net demand reduction during either the W i nter or Summ er seasons. Spillover Additional energy efficient equipm ent installed by custom ers that were influenced by the Com p any’s sponsored program

, but without direct fi nancial or technical assistance from the
program . Spillov e r is se parated into Participan tand Nonparticipan t factors. Non-participating custom ers m a y be influenced by product availabi lity, publicity, education, and other facto r s that are affected by th e program

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 30

## Spillover R a te Estim ate of energy sav i n g s attribu t ab le to sp illov e r ef f

e cts expressed as a percent of savi ngs in stalled by p a rticipan ts through an energy efficiency program

. VSD Variable Speed Drive
WAP Weatherization Assistance Program

Watt The basic electrical unit of power.

Muc h of t

h i s gl oss a ry w a s t a k e n f r om Ma ssa chu s et t s El ect ri c an d N a nt uck e t El ect ri c, 2 0 0 3 E n er gy Efficien cy Annu a l Repo rt
, submitted to t h e Ma ssa c hu setts Dep a rtmen t o

f Teleco mmun ica t io n s and En ergy, Sept e m be r 20 0 4

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 31

## Appendix 2. 2005 Evaluation Imp act Parameters

The table b e low presents the im pact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated savings for the comm erc i al a nd industrial program s in 2005.

As noted ear lie r, Commercia l and Ind u strial f r ee -r idersh ip and spillov e r re sults wer e obtained from an evaluation jointly sponsored by the Com p ac t and National Grid. The C&I Lost Opportunity program results shown below are from the National Grid sam p le, due to concerns about interpreting the re sults of the Com p act. For the Compact’s Governm e nt New Construction and Governm e nt Retrofit program s , no fr ee-ridership or participan t s p illov e r is as sum e d, due to the des i gn and deliv ery of the program in 2005.

Im pact para m e ters f o r the C&I Large and Sm all Retrof it Pro g ram s are id entic al, bec a u se in the evaluation study Com p act pooled the cust om ers in the retrofit program in order to increase sample sizes. The nonparticipant spil lover estim a te reported below is based on a

sam p le of ve ndors that com b ined National Gr id and Cape Light Com p act survey data, again, to increase the sample size to obtain a m o re m eaningful result.

Table A2.1 Commercial & Industr ial Evaluation Impact Factors

BC R A c tivity Pr ogr a m E nd Us e F r ee- R i d ers h i p Ra te S p i llov e r [P ar ti ci pa nt ] Ra te S p i llov e r [N o n Pa r t ic ip a n t] Ra te kWh Re a liza t ion

Ra te C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t unity C 02a C & I N e w C o ns tr u c t i on C M oD r 2 1

. 1 % 17 .7 % 2

. 9 % 100 % C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t unity C 02a C & I N e w C o ns tr u c t i on AL ght 3 0

. 7 % 6

. 2 % 2. 9% 100 % C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t unity C 02a C & I N e w C o ns tr u c t i on BH V A C 3 3

. 2 % 8

. 8 % 2. 9% 100 % C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t unity C 02b C & I G o vt N e w Co ns t r uc tion AL ght 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 2

. 9 % 100 % C 03a L a r ge C & I Re tr o f it C 03a C & I Lar g e Re tr of it AL ght 5 .7 % 3 .2 % 2

. 9 % 100 % C 03b S m a ll C & I Re tr o f it C 03b C & I Sm all Re tr of it AL ght 6 % 3 .2 % 2

. 9 % 8 6

. 4 % C 03b S m a ll C & I Re tr o f it C 03b C & I Sm all Re tr of it D R e f r 4 .2 % 0 % 2

. 9 % 100 % C 03b S m a ll C & I Re tr o f it C 03b C & I Sm all Re tr of it BH V A C 4 3

. 3 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C0 3 a La rg e C& I R e t r ofit C0 3 c C&I Go v t La rg e A Lg h t 0. 0% 3. 2% 2

. 9 % 1 0 0 % C 03a L a r ge C & I Re tr o f it C 03c C & I G o vt L a r g e D Re f r 0

. 0 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C 03a L a r ge C & I Re tr o f it C 03c C & I G o vt L a r g e B H V AC 0

. 0 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C 03a L a r ge C & I Re tr o f it C 03c C & I G o vt L a r g e E H o W a 0

. 0 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C 03a L a r ge C & I Re tr o f it C 03c C & I G o vt L a r g e C MoD r 0

. 0 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C 03a L a r ge C & I Re tr o f it C 03c C & I G o vt L a r g e H EU B e 0

. 0 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C0 3 b Sm al l C& I R e t r ofit C0 3 d C& I Go v t Sm al l A Lg h t 0. 0% 3. 2% 2

. 9 % 8 6

. 4 % C0 3 b Sm al l C& I R e t r ofit C0 3 d C& I Go v t Sm al l D R e f r 0. 0% 0% 2

. 9 % 1 0 0 % C0 3 b Sm al l C& I R e t r ofit C0 3 d C& I Go v t Sm al l C M o Dr 0. 0% 0% 2

. 9 % 1 0 0 % C0 3 b Sm al l C& I R e t r ofit C0 3 d C& I Go v t Sm al l B HVA C 0. 0% 0% 2

. 9 % 1 0 0 % C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t unity C 04c C o o l Ch oic e D R e f r 3 5

. 9 % 17 .7 % 2

. 9 % 100 % C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t unity C 04c C o o l Ch oic e BH V A C 6 7

. 5 % 2

. 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C 02a C & I Los t O p p o r t unity C 04e Mot o r U p C MoD r 8

. 3 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 % C 03a L a r ge C & I Re tr o f it C 03c C & I G o vt L a r g e H EU B e 0 % 0 % 2. 9% 100 %



### N

o t e : Sh a d ed c e l l s i ndi cat e i m pact f

a ct ors t h at a r e nei t h er 10 0% n o r 0%

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 32

## The table b e low presents the im pact factors th at were used to calc ulated the evaluated savings for residential program s offe red by the C a pe Light C o m p act in 2005. Im pact factors show n below for most program s repr esent the comm on assum p tions developed by Massachusetts program a d m i nistrators, based on a review of best available inform ation

on m easures in statewide program s. The Com p act’s Res i den tia l Low Inc o m e im pact factors were not evaluated or updated in 2005.

Table A2.2 Residential Evaluation I m pact Factors

BCR A c t i v i ty M easu r e F r ee -Rid ersh ip Rat e S p illo v e r [ P a r ti c i p a n t ] R a te I n -S er vi c e R a te k W h Rea liz at ion Rate
A 02a Res i dential Los t O ppor tunity CFL 6 % 2 5 % 100% 100% A 02a Res i dential Los t O ppor tunity HE RS 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 02b Res i dential HV AC HV AC 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 A IRSE AL 2% 0 % 100% 95% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 B O I LRW A T E R 0 % 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 C FL 1% 0 % 100% 90% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 F IX T U REIN 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 F IX T U REO U T 0 % 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Residential Retro f it 1- 4 F URNACE 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 H O T W A T E R 5 % 0 % 100% 90% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 H V A C 0 % 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 I NDIRE CT DH 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 I NS ULAT IO N 2 % 0 % 100% 95% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 R E F RIG ( E S v a l u e ) 10% 36 % 100% 98% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 S W I T C H 0 % 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Residential Retro f it 1- 4 T ORCHIE R E 0 % 0 % 100% 100% A 03a Res i dential Retro f it 1- 4 T -ST A T 2 % 0 % 100% 95% A 04a Res i dential Lighting C FL 6% 25 % 84% 100% A 04a Res i dential Lighting F IX T U REIN 8% 4 % 95% 100% A 04a Res i dential Lighting F IX T U REO U T 12% 7 % 87% 100% A 04a Residential Lighting T ORCHIE R E 6 % 3 % 83% 100% A 04b Res i dential A p p l ianc e s CLO T HES W AS 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 04b Res i dential A p p l ianc e s DE HUMIDIF I 0 % 0 % 100% 100% A 04b Res i dential A p p l ianc e s DIS H W A S H ER 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 04b Res i dential A p p l ianc e s E C MHEA T 0 % 0 % 100% 100% A 04b Res i dential A p p l ianc e s RE F R IG 0% 0 % 100% 100% A 04b Res i dential A p p l ianc e s RO O M A C 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity A I RSE A L 0 % 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity CLO T HES W AS 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity DIS H W A S H ER 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity FIX T URE 0 % 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity HE AT S Y ST E M 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity HO T W AT E R 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity INS U LAT I O N 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity RE F R IG 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 03a Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it 1- 4 A IRSE AL 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 03a Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it 1- 4 C FL 0% 0 % 100% 83% B 03a Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it 1- 4 D E HUMIDIF I 0 % 0 % 100% 100% B 03a Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it 1- 4 H E A T S Y S T E M 0 % 0 % 100% 100% B 03a Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it 1- 4 H O T W A T E R 0 % 0 % 100% 67% B 03a Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it 1- 4 I NS ULAT IO N 0 % 0 % 100% 100% B 03a Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it 1- 4 R E F RIG 0 % 0 % 100% 97% B 03b Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it Mu l t if am i A I RSE A L 0 % 0 % 100% 100% B 03b Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it Mu l t if am i FIX T URE 0 % 0 % 100% 100% B 03b Low

- I nc o m e Retr of it Mu l t if am i HE AT S Y ST E M 0% 0 % 100% 100% B 02a Low

- I nc o m e Los t O ppor tunity CILA RG E 0 % 0 % 100% 100%



### N

o t e : Sh a d ed c e l l s i ndi cat e i m pact f

a ct ors t h at a r e nei t h er 10 0% n o r 0%

.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 33

### Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005 Page 34 BCR Net Benefits Be ne fi ts Co st s Low -I nc ome P r ogr a m s LI Singl e F a m i l y 2.04 1,193,202 2,341,858 1,148,655 LI Multi

- Fam i l y 3.34 1,217,519 1,737,440 519,921 LI New Constr uc ti on 2.26 629,128 1,129,081 499,953 T o tal Low

- I nc om e 2.40 3,039,850 5,208,380 2,168,530 Re s i de nti a l P r ogr a m s New Constr uc ti on 1.55 480,917 1,353,580 872,663 P&S - Li ghti n g 5 .86 4 ,955,979 5,974,973 1,018,994 P&S - Appl i anc es 4.85 8,088,520 10,189,471 2,100,951 P&S - HVAC 3.37 1,714,287 2,436,435 722,148 Mas s SAVE 1.80 4,123,814 9,297,937 5,174,123 T o tal Non Low

- I nc om e 2.96 19,363,517 29,252,396 9,888,879 T o tal Res i denti a l 2.86 22,403,367 34,460,775 12,057,409

C&I P r ogr ams Lar ge New Constr uc ti on 2.83 401,700 621,447 219,747 Lar ge Retr of i t 1.86 344,043 742,892 398,849 Sm al l Cus t om er s 2 .22 2 ,470,493 4,500,866 2,030,373 G o v e r n m ent - Lar ge 1.90 1,220,114 2,581,253 1,361,139 G o v e r n m ent - Sm all 2 .18 2 ,406,007 4,447,715 2,041,709 Pr oduc ts and Ser v ic es ****   ** **   T o tal Com m e r c i a l & Indus tr i a l 2.13 6,842,356 12,894,173 6,051,817

T o tal Co m p act 2.61 29,245,723 47,354,949 18,109,226 

## Appendi x 3. Det a iled Savings Calculations of BCR Activities

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

TRC T R C T o t a l T o t a l P A Benef i t / Net B enef it s C osts Cost s BC R A c tiv i t y C o st Ben e fits ($000) ( $ 000) ($000)

Re s i de ntia l A0 2a Res i dential Los t O p portunity 1.04 $18 $ 429 $411 $411 A0 2b Res i dential HVAC 2.93 $321 $488 $167 $167 A0 3a Res i dential Retrof it 1-4 1 .55 $ 716 $ 2,018 $1,302 $937 A0 4a Res i dential Lighting 5.10 $1,013 $1,260 $247 $247 A0 4b Res i dential Appli a n c es 7.35 $2,707 $3,133 $426 $426 Su b t o t al: R esid e n t ial 2 .87 $ 4,776 $ 7,328 $2,553 $ 2,188

Low -I nc ome B0 2a Low

- Inco m e Los t O p portuni ty 1.07 $16 $ 252 $235 $222 $ 519 $292 $285 $ 366 $260 $196 S ubtota l $ 1 , 1 3 6 $ 7 8 8 $ 7 0 3

Com/In d $258 $154 $125 $1,788 C03b Sm all C&I R e tr of i t 1.48 $524 $1,620 Su b t o t al: C & I 2 .03 $ 1,862 $ 3,666

G r an d T o tal 2 .36 $ 6,986 $12,131 B0 3a Low

- Inco m e Retrof it 1-4 1 .78 $ 227 B0 3b Low

- Inco m e Retrof it Multif am i l y 1 .41 $ 106 : Low -I nc ome 1

. 4 4 $ 3 4 9

C02a C&I Lost O pportuni ty 1.68 $104 C03a Lar ge C&I Retrof it 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 A3.2aCosts by BCR Activity and Program(Reported)SectorBCR ActivityProgramTotalTRCCosts($000)TotalPACosts($000)ProgramImplementation($000)Participant($000)Evaluation($000)A-Residential$2,553$2,188$2,098$365$90A02aResidential Lost Opportunity$411$411$385$0$26A02aEnergyStarHomes$411$411$385$0$26A02bResidentialHVAC$167$167$162$0$5A02b ResidentialHVAC$167$167$162$0$5A03aResidential Retrofit1-4$1,302$937$911$365$26A03a ResidentialConservation Service$1,302$937$911$365$26A04aResidentialLighting$247$247$233$0$14A04aEnergyStarLighting$247$247$233$0$14A04bResidentialAppliances$426$426$408$0$19A04bEnergyStarAppliance$426$426$408$0$19B - Low-Income$788$703$703$84$1B03aLow-IncomeRetrofit1-4$292$285$284$7$0B03a Low-IncomeSingle-FamilyProgram$292$285$284$7$0B03bLow-IncomeRetrofitMultifamily$260$196$196$64$0B03bLow-Income Multi-FamilyProgram$260$196$196$64$0B02aLow-IncomeLostOpportunity$235$222$222$13$0B02a Low-IncomeEnergyStarHomes$128$115$114$13$0B03cLow-IncomeSpecial ProjectsProgra$108$108$108$0$0C - Commercial &Industrial$1,805$1,422$1,397$383$25C02a C&I Lost Opportunity$154$125$123$29$2C02aC&INewConstruction$52$52$52$0$1C02bC&IGovtNewConstruction$21$21$20$0$0C04cCool Choice$71$42$41$29$1C04eMotorUp$10$10$10$0$0C03bSmall C&IRetrofit$1,096$932$916$164$17C03bC&ISmallRetrofit$648$485$476$164$9C03dC&IGovtSmall$448$448$440$0$8C03aLargeC&IRetrofit$555$365$358$190$6C03aC&ILargeRetrofit$197$118$116$79$2C03cC&IGovtLarge$357$246$242$111$4Grand Total$5,145$4,314$4,198$831$116ProgramImplementation costs include: PP&A, marketing and education, customer incentives,and sales,technical assistance andtraining.Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2005Page 35Table A3.2bCosts by BCR Activity and Program– Fromthe 2005 EEP (Planned)TotalTRCCosts($000)TotalPACosts($000)ProgramImplementation($000)Participant($000)Evaluation($000)SectorBCR activityProgramA-ResidentialA02a Residential Lost OpportunityA02aNewConstruction3262432188325A02b ResidentialHVACA02bP&S HVAC41213412327812A03aResidential Retrofit1-4A03aMassSAVE3,0688518152,21736A04a ResidentialLightingA04aP&S -Lighting30030027327A04b ResidentialAppliancesA04bP&S -Appliances38338335430A -Residential Total4,4891,9121,7832,578129B-LowIncomeB02a ResidentialLostOpportunityL IB02aLINewConstruction15015014802B02bLISpecialProjects11711711502B03a LowIncomeRetrofit 1-4B03aLISingle Family24324324003B03bLow-IncomeRetrofitMultifamilyB03bLIMulti-Family12412412202B-LowIncomeTotal63463462509C-Commercial& IndustrialC02a C&I LostOpportunityC02aLarge NewConstruction1204443771C03a Large C&IRetrofitC03aLarge Retrofit794443351C03eProductsand Services494935015C03b SmallC&I RetrofitC03bSmallCustomers88750347638328C03dGovernmentAgencies1,0401,040977063C-Commercial& IndustrialTotal2,1761,6801,574496107GrandTotal7,2994,2263,9823,073244Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2005Page 36Table A3.3aBenefits by BCR Activity (Reported)SummerWinterPeakOff PeakPeakOffPeakDataSectorBCRActivityTotalBenSumCapValWinCapValTransValDistValWinPkValWinOffValSumPkValSumOffValResValNonResValResidential$7,328,268$490,896$255,555$461,406$1,142,246$1,307,137$640,664$603,615$326,298$1,450,634$649,816A02a Residential LostOpportunity$429,299$55,743$21,845$49,480$122,492$77,112$34,205$36,433$16,790$15,199$0A02b Residential HVAC$487,874$79,416$49,108$69,212$171,340$35,184$26,154$35,562$21,899$0$0A03a Residential Retrofit1-4$2,017,535$120,474$71,027$116,093$287,397$723,221$272,389$259,783$119,665$49,051-$1,568A04a Residential Lighting$1,260,335$44,288$49,291$50,009$123,801$326,903$237,584$170,340$115,566$0$142,555A04b Residential Appliances$3,133,225$190,976$64,285$176,612$437,216$144,717$70,332$101,497$52,378$1,386,384$508,829Low-Income$1,136,467$38,528$15,573$35,619$88,178$145,685$67,882$82,305$41,198$72,191$549,308B03a Low-IncomeRetrofit1-4$518,599$21,275$9,237$19,238$47,624$68,722$34,152$43,144$26,943$56,217$192,048B03b Low-IncomeRetrofitMultifamily$366,213$338$2,749$294$728$48,400$13,496$1,012$666$0$298,530B02a Low-IncomeLostOpportunity$251,655$16,916$3,588$16,087$39,826$28,563$20,234$38,149$13,588$15,975$58,729Com/Ind$3,666,479$331,283$70,752$330,094$817,173$754,277$387,346$533,420$186,621$0$255,512C02aC&ILostOpportunity$258,382$32,649$6,459$29,313$72,565$31,278$22,563$46,278$15,661$0$1,616C03aLarge C&IRetrofit$1,788,464$165,104$30,472$176,443$436,797$427,543$141,665$298,944$84,368$0$27,129C03bSmall C&IRetrofit$1,619,633$133,531$33,822$124,339$307,810$295,456$223,118$188,198$86,592$0$226,767GrandTotal$12,131,214$860,708$341,881$827,119$2,047,597$2,207,100$1,095,892$1,219,340$554,117$1,522,825$1,454,636BCR ActivityTotal BenefitsTotalBenefitsCapacityGenerationTransMDCEnergyWinterSummerNon ElectricResourceNonResourceCape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2005Page 37SectorBCR ActivityAnnkWSumkWWinkWLifekWAnnMWhLifetMWhResidential5,2018901,97010,9566,79967,686A02aResidentialLostOpportunity332671251,1683293,791A02bResidentialHVAC189811891,6291382,761A03aResidentialRetrofit1-41,2882414792,7552,51231,742A04aResidentialLighting2,7841958161,2553,25220,949A04bResidentialAppliances6093063614,1505688,443Low-Income221611028395967,802B03aLow-IncomeRetrofit1-413030554532724,037B03bLow-IncomeRetrofitMultifamily4802371391,407B02aLow-IncomeLostOpportunity4431243791852,358Com/Ind1,1859206978,0284,87243,414C02aC&ILostOpportunity5743326881652,618C03aLarge C&IRetrofit7716554554,4163,31022,297C03bSmallC&IRetrofit3572212102,9241,39718,499GrandTotal6,6081,8712,76919,82312,267118,901BCRActivityLoadReductionMWhSavedAnnualSummerWinterLifetimeAnnualLifetimeCape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2005Page 38Table A3.3bBenefits by BCR Activity – Fromthe 2005 EEP (Planned)CapacityEnergyGenerationWinterSummerEnergy&TotalSummerWinterTransMDCPeakOffPeakPeakOffPeakCapacityEnergyLow-IncomeProgramsLI Single Family101,82566,66996,385238,607361,747146,067123,89375,1871,210,380706,894LI Multi-Family85,69336,53581,067200,688124,64579,700101,28260,798770,409366,425LI NewConstruction12,6046,94312,63331,27416,0619,8968,7595,088103,26039,805TotalLow-Income200,122110,148190,085470,570502,454235,664233,934141,0732,084,0491,113,125ResidentialProgramsNewConstruction88,35249,07482,493204,21882,34942,63342,90221,023613,044188,907P&S -Lighting631,681399,181687,3551,701,601787,904569,277410,821277,7505,465,5702,045,752P&S -Appliances957,43650,874906,9672,245,268293,456345,883480,529265,5825,545,9951,385,450P&S -HVAC470,41421,504421,5601,043,605180,94046,717193,31258,3832,436,435479,352MassSAVE529,081330,926487,5031,206,8521,097,202537,374504,516268,2134,961,6662,407,304TotalNon Low-Income2,676,964851,5592,585,8796,401,5442,441,8501,541,8831,632,080890,95119,022,7096,506,764TotalResidential2,877,086961,7062,775,9646,872,1142,944,3031,777,5471,866,0141,032,02521,106,7597,619,889C&I ProgramsLargeNewConstruction78,71715,62869,896173,03269,56753,824110,21037,658608,532271,260LargeRetrofit68,68016,31964,934160,748165,60295,574110,02641,841723,724413,044SmallCustomers369,549104,601335,029829,390893,506672,565569,577261,3484,035,5642,396,996Government -Large255,65747,185231,775573,778557,987181,147393,747109,1962,350,4711,242,076Government -Small338,54395,825306,920759,803818,540616,137521,789239,4213,696,9772,195,886Productsand Services** ****************************TotalCommercial& Industrial1,111,145279,5571,008,5532,496,7512,505,2011,619,2471,705,350689,46411,415,2696,519,262Total Compact3,988,2311,241,2643,784,5179,368,8665,449,5053,396,7943,571,3631,721,48932,522,02714,139,150Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2005Page 39LifetimeNaturalNaturalEnergyCapacityEnergyCapacityElectricityGasOilElectricityGasOil(MWH)(kW)(MWH)(kW)MMBtuMMBtuMMBtuMMBtuMMBtuMMBtuLow-IncomeProgramsLISingle Family373685,7547851,274-30650519,634-5,50010,596LIMulti-Family233572,985662794957710,1852,3781,924LINewConstruction3411319102116544151,08713,600379Total Low-Income80219010,3951,9902,73733359735,46610,47812,899ResidentialProgramsNewConstruction140541,5136814791,239355,16330,964864P&S -Lighting2,48883516,1305,4618,4880055,03600P&S -Appliances89368911,3427,3343,0481,70380138,70123,84011,217P&S -HVAC2482303,7273,4558480012,71500MassSAVE1,45130219,5354,0134,9525,9726,37066,653112,701120,380Total Non Low-Income5,2212,11052,24720,94417,8158,9147,206178,268167,505132,461Total Residential6,0232,30062,64222,93320,5529,2477,803213,734177,983145,360C&I ProgramsLarge NewConstruction136362,177575464007,42800Large Retrofit294463,2845251,0030011,20600Small Customers1,39819520,2702,8324,7700069,16200Government -Large6941359,7161,8922,3680033,15000Government -Small1,28117918,5702,5954,3700063,35900Productsand Services************Total Commercial & Industrial3,80359154,0178,41912,97500184,30500Total Compact9,8262,891116,65931,35233,5279,2477,803398,039177,983145,360AnnualAnnualLifetimeTable A3.4Outsourced and In-House Expenditures (Reported)SectorOutsourceRA001 ProgramPlanning andAdministrationA002 MarketingAdvertisingA003CustomerIncentiveA004 Sales,TechnicalAssistance,TrainingA005Evaluation &MarketResearchA006ParticipantCostTotalCompactPercentageOutsourcedPercentageCompetitivelyBidTotal$CompetitivelyBidA-ResidentialNo117,72415,218066,5518,9870208,480---------Yes117,72435,5091,146,503598,95680,884364,6951,979,576---------A-Residential Total235,44850,7271,146,503665,50789,871364,6952,188,05690%10%1,979,576B-LowIncomeNo48,0574,954014,11596067,222---------Yes48,05711,560448,766127,03186184,146636,275---------B-LowIncomeTotal96,11416,515448,766141,14595784,146703,49790%10%636,275C -Commercial & IndustrialNo78,37010,131015,3572,5260106,385---------Yes78,37023,6391,052,702138,21722,735382,5561,315,663---------C -Commercial & IndustrialTotal156,74133,7701,052,702153,57425,261382,5561,422,04893%7%1,315,663Grand Total488,303101,0122,647,971960,226116,089831,3974,313,60191%9%3,931,514Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2005Page 40Cape LightCompact – Annual Reporton EnergyEfficiencyActivities in 2005Page 41

## Appendix 4. Post Program Saving s Attributed to Selected 2005 Market T r ansformation Initiatives

The Com p a c t has not developed estim a tes of pos t program savings associated with

m a rket transfor m a tion initiatives. It is our understanding that this issue has not been considered a high priority for DOER or other P r ogram Adm i nistrators. To the extent that such savings exist, the actual savings and benefits of the 2005 activ ities will be greater than those reported here.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005

## Appendix 5. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive

The Cape Light Com p act does not require shareholder incentives to im plem ent its energy efficiency program s. Therefore, th is section is not relevant to the Com p act.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005

## Appendix 6. Summary of 2005 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Report s
The following studies w e re used in prepari ng the evalua ted re sults p r esen ted in th is Annual Report. The executive summ aries of th ese reports are attached below. The full copies of these reports are available f r om 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 Op erator Certification (BOC) Program, by RLW Analytics, prep ared for Northeas t Energy Efficiency Partnerships, June 2005.

• 

## Free-ridership and Spillover Study , by PA Consulting, prepared for the Cape Light Com p act in conjunction with National Gr id and United Illum i nating, June 2006.

• 

## Phase 1: Commercial Rooftop HVAC Unit Retr ofit Progr a m s , 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 Northeas t 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 Managem e nt Comm ittee, May 2006.

• 

## Analysis of Remaining Opportunitie s for the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR

Appliances Program , by NMR, RLW Analytics, Inc., Dorothy Conant and Shel Feldm a n Managem e nt Consulting, prepared for C a pe Light C o m p act, National Grid USA, NSTAR Electric Com p a ny, Unitil, and W e stern Massachus etts Electric Com p any, October 2005.

• 

## Evaluation of the MassS AVE Program: Market S u rvey Resu lts , by RLW Analytics, prepared for , Decem ber 2005.

• 

## Kingman Yacht Center, Energy Audit Report , by RLW Analytics, prepared for the Cape Light Com p act, January 2006.

• 

## Evaluation of the Cape Light Compac t Residential New Construction Green Building 2003 Demonstration Project , by Vermont Energy Investm e nt Corporation, prepared for the Cape L i ght Com p a c t, March 2006.

In addition, som e program evaluation studies are currently in developm ent. Final reports for the following studies are expected in summer 2006.

• 

## Market Progress and E v aluation Report (MPER) for the 2005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Residential Lighting Program , by Nexus Market Research,

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005

## prepared for Cape Light Com p act, Nati onal Grid USA, NSTA R Electric Com p any, Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric Co mpany, Summ er 2006.

• 

## Commercial HVAC Equi pment Market Characterization , by KEMA Consulting, prepared for the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Summer 2006.

Cape Ligh t Compac t – Annual Rep o r t on Energ y Efficiency Activ i ties in 2 005

# Measure Life Study executive summary 

# 1

1. ECUTIV E 

## S UMMA R Y



## 1.1 I NTRODUC TION

The Massach usetts electri c utilities ( M assachuset t s Electri c, NSTAR, West ern Massach usetts Electric and Unitil) and t h e Cape Light Com p act (c ollectively r e ferred to as “the sponsors” or MA utilities) contracted Energy and Resource Sol u tions, Inc. ( E RS) to conduct a Comm on Measure Life Study

. The pri m ary goals of th e Common Measure Life Study were as follows:

 

### Define measu re life and related ter m s, su ch as persiste nce

 

### Review the provided table of current m e asure lives

 

### Surve y ot her utilit y energy efficiency pr ograms

 

### Develop a table of technolo g ical m e asure lives

 

### Reco mmend co mm on mea s ure lives an d persistence assu m p tions to be used b y the sponsors.

Each of the sponsors offe rs a num ber of energ y eff i ciency m easures to their co mmercial and industrial (C&I) custo m er s through the C&I New Co nstruction, C&I Retrofit and Small Business Retrofit progra m s. Each p r ogram has prescriptive and custo m me asures. M a ny of the mea s ures offered to custo m ers are common am o ng the spons ors. However, m e thodolog ies to estimate the expected lifet i m e s a vings of an individual m e a s ure so m e ti mes va ry for a specific m e asure. The

mea s ure lives so m e ti mes d i ffer as do us e and/or m a g n itude of other factors suc h as persist e nce and realization.

The num ber of indivi dual m e asures across all progr am s is large. Thus, the spo n sors provide d a si m p lified table that groups individual measu re lives by end use within each program . The sponsors also provi ded a table of agreed upon m e asure lives with referenced sources.

Section 1 of this report, the Executiv e Summary

, provides an i n troductio n t o the pr oject and

su mmary of c o m p let e d tasks.

Section 2, Measure Life Definition, details the final definition for measure l i fe, persisten ce an d realization, a nd the supporting research.

Section 3, Measure Life R e view, presen ts the current table of m e a s ure lives, discussion of New Construction versus Retrofit m e asure s, S m all ve rsus Large m e as ures, resear c h results from the CALMAC d a tabase, a summary of results fro m survey ing national util ities and a table of technical m e a s ure lives.

Section 4, Reco mmended Measure Lives, presents our final recommendations, conclusions and justifications for each reco mmendation.

ma utilities measure life stu d y 1-1 energy & res ource solutions 

# er s

### section 1 executive summa ry



## 1.2 M EAS URE 

## L IFE 

## D EFI N ITION

As stated above, a prim ary goal of t h e Common Measure Life Study was t o define unif o r m measure life and related term s, such as persisten ce and realization. The sponsor s and ERS reached

consensus on a m e asure life definition v i a tele phone, em ail correspondence, con f erence calls and a draft repor t presentation and discussion. In prop osing a definition, we first resear ched the pertinent uses of m e asure life with the utility re presentatives. Measure life is used for the three purposes listed below:

1) Measure s c re ening tools
2) Program savings forecasting for Energy Efficiency Plans
3) Program r e porting Massac husetts Annual Reporting Spreadsheet ( M ARS) data base

In each cas e, we discuss ed the u se of me asure life, an d its relation to Persistence and Realizati o n with the sponsors. Originally , all parti es agreed to define m e asure life as technical life, and to incorporate all persistence factors as Persistenc e. H o wever, following a confe r ence call, an d in

asse mbly of the draft report, we concluded that sepa r ate te chnical lives and me asure per s iste nce factors wer e very difficult to ascertain accurately , and refinem e n t of these values in the future would be ext r em ely difficult. Thus, we have sli ghtl y altered the definition of m e asure life to include measure persisten ce, while defining Persistence as solely savings persistence. The resulting defi nitions are as follows:

Measure Lif e : The median num ber of y ears that a m e asure is installed and operational

. This definition implicitl y includes equip m en t life and mea s ure persisten ce, but not savings persistence (see definition below).

 

### Equipm ent life is the num b e r of y ears inst alled equipment will operate until failure.

 

### Measure per s istence takes into account business turnover, early re tirem ent of the installed equipm ent, and an y other r eason the m e asure would be rem oved or discontinue d.

In addition, t h is definition conforms in letter or in sp irit with the definition of measure life used by m o st national utilities.

Persist ence : Savings persistence is t h e percent cha nge in ex pected savings due to ch anged operating hours, changed process operati on and/or de gradation in equipm ent effic i ency relative to the baseline efficiency option. In cases where short-ter m s a vings have been m e as ured (Realization), savings persisten ce would be relative to this.

Realiz ation : The realization factor accounts for t h e short term measured savings of a pr oject relative to the original estimation of savi ngs projected during the s c reening process.

In researching these defin itions, we an aly zed the MARS database to understand how each of these factors is used. In addition, we reviewed how other organiz a tions use m e asure life. Fu rther details of this effort are presented in Section 2.



## 1.3 M EAS URE 

## L IFE 

## R EV IE W 

## & R ESE A R C H

ERS reviewed the tables of agreed upon and di spute d measure liv es provided by t h e sponsor ing utilities. As t asked in our proposal, we researche d several sources to use in support of selecting

ma utilities measure life stu d y 1-2 energy & res ource solutions 

# er s

### section 1 executive summa ry

indivi dual m e asure lives. We first thoroughl y r esear ched the CALMAC da tab ase. The CALMAC database pro v ides a public depository for all persis t e nce, technical degradation factor and other related studies perform ed i n the state of Califor nia. Next, we survey ed m a ny electric utilities and state utility c o mmissions t h roughout t h e nation, obta i ning other ut ilities’ tables of measur e lives. We obtained measur e life tables used in 8 states by at least 14 different utilities. Finally, we performed a literature search, refer e nced te chnical sources and consulted equipment manufacturer s to establish a table of te chnical liv es for each mea s ure. In conjunction with these efforts, we s p ecifically research ed the affect of N e w Construct i on versus Retrofit status on

mea s ure lives , as well as the affect of Small vers us L a rge businesses. Further details are provided in Section 3.



## 1.4 R EC OMME NDED 

## M EASURE 

## L IVES

Using the established definition of m e a s ure life a nd the resear ch results present e d in Section 3, we developed recommen d ations for mea s ure lif e for each mea s ure for each program . In our decision making process, we evaluated the MA u tilities m e asure li ves, the m e an national m e asure life, technical lives and in put from the sponsors. Through this process we found that so m e ti mes equipm ent life is the most i m portant factor in deter m ining meas ure life, whil e in other ca ses

mea s ure per s istence f actors such as the p r oper use of t h e equipment is m u ch m o r e i m portant t h an the equipm en t lifeti m e. E R S judged each of the m e asure life cases individuall y t o determ in e a

co mm on m easure life and docum ented each decision in Section 4.

Several broad conclusion s were reach ed concerni ng measure lives. ERS co ncluded that retrofit projects should have slightl y shorter m e asure lives than new construction projects. This conclusion was reached based on a discussion of qu alitative factors with the sponsors. ERS also concluded that sm all businesses s hould have the same measure l i ves as large businesses. Again, this conclusion was reached based on a discussi on of qualitative factors with the sponsors. Finally

, all measure lives were capped at 15 y ears to reflect uncertainty in measure per s ist e nce , with the exception of building shell measures. T h e 15-y ear cap was suggested by ERS in discussion with the sponsors, and received no objection.

Table 1-1 pre sents the fina l reco mmend ations for pre scriptive co mm on me asure lives. Table 1-2 presents the final recommendations f o r custo m co mm on m e asure lives. Furt her details are found in Section 4.

ma utilities measure life stu d y 1-3 energy & res ource solutions 

# er s

### section 1 executive summa ry



## Table 1-1 Prescrip t iv e Common Measure Life Recommendations

Sm a l l Bu s

. L a r g e C&I L a r g e C&I C a te g o r y M e as u r e R etro fit R etro fit N e w C o n s t. L i gh t i ng F l uo re s c en t 1 3 1 3 1 5 H a rdw i red C F L 1 3 1 3 1 5 LE D E x it S i gns 13 13 1 5 D o uble F a ce E x it S i gn s 1 3 N A N A HI D 1 3 1 3 1 5 L i gh t i ng C o n t r o l s O c c u pa nc y S e ns ors 9 9 1 0 Da y l i g h t Di m m i n g NA 9 1 0 HVA C P a cka ged A C / H P N A N A 1 5 C h ill ers N A N A 1 5 E n th al py E c o n o m iz er N A N A 15 H V A C C o n t r o ls P r og r a m m ab le T h e r m o s t at 13 N A N A EM S N A 1 3 1 5 Mo t o r s M o to r s 13 13 1 5 V FD s

o n H V A C F ans 13 13 1 5

on non

- H V A C F ans 13 13 1 5

on C T / C hi lle d W a ter D i s c ha rge P u m p 1 3 1 3 N A R e fr ig er a t io n F an C o nt r o l 1 2 N A N A D o or H e a t er C o n t ro l 1 2 N A N A C o oler S hut O f f 1 2 N A N A Ve n d i n g N A 1 0 N A V e nd in g (no n -re f r i g ) N A 1 0 N A C o m p r e sse d A i r 15 -7 5 H P E f f i c i e n t C o m p res s o r N A 1 3 1 5 Dr y e r N A N A 1 5 C o m m o n M e a s u re L i fe (Y ea rs)



### ma utilities measure life stu d y 1-4 energy & res ource solutions 

# er s

### section 1 executive summa ry



## Table 1-2

Custom Common Mea sure Life R ecommendations

S m al l B u s. C & I C & I C a teg o r y M easu r e R et r o f i t R et r o f i t N ew C o n s t. L i ght i n g C u s t om Lighting M eas ures 13 N A N A Lighting S y s t em s 1 3 N A 1 5 L i ght i ng C ont r o l s Lighting C o ntr ols N A 1 0 1 0 O ccupancy S ens ors N A N A 1 0 HV A C H V A C E q uipm ent of S y s t em s N A 1 3 1 5 HV A C C o n t r o l s EM S & HVA C Co n t r o l s N A 1 3 1 5 Mot o r s M o t o r s N A 13 15 V FD s D r iv es on H V A C S y s t em s N A 1 3 1 5 D r iv es on non- H V A C S y s t em s N A 1 3 1 5 R e fr ig e r a t io n Indus t rial R e f r igerat ion N A 1 3 1 5 P r oces s C o oling N A 1 3 1 5 Re fr i g e r a t i o n N A 1 2 1 2 C o m p r essed A i r C o m p r e s s ed A i r N A 1 3 1 5 Ot h e r C u s t om N o n-Lighting M eas ures 13 N A N A O & M P r ojects N A 5 N A P r oces s E q uipm ent or S y s t em s N A 7 7 B u ilding S h ell N A N A 2 0 Ot h e r N A N A 1 2 C o m p rehens i v e D e s i gn P r oject N A N A 1 5 C o m p r ehens i v e C h iller P r oject N A N A 1 5 C o m m o n M e asu r e L i fe ( Y ear s)



### ma utilities measure life stu d y 1-5 energy & res ource solutions 

# er s

### Building Op erator Ce rtificat ion (B O C ) is a nationally reco gni zed tra i ning prog ram desig ned to edu cate facilities p e rsonnel in the e nergy an d re source efficie n t operation a n d maintena nce of building system s. In 2005 NEEP served as proj ect admini s ter for an evaluation of the BOC program as delivered i n 2002-2003. The evaluatio n wa s com p le ted by RL W Analytics in July 2005 an d wa s sp on sored by: Efficiency Maine, Cap e Light Compa c t, Unitil, National Gri d , NSTAR, No rthea st Utilities, Unite d Illuminating, NY SERDA, Lon g Island Po we r Authority, and utilities in New Jersey re pre s ente d by South Je rsey Gas Comp an y and consultants to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. 1



## Stud y Objectives:

• Estimate ene rgy saving s a nd identify no n-en ergy ben efits of BOC cou r sework.

• Asse ss pe rsi s ten c e of savi ngs fro m pro g ram

- ind u ced saving s from 2000/20 01 p a rticip ants.

• Estimate co st s asso ciate d with O&M act i vities by enro llees.

• Examine pro c ess-relate d issue s , incl udi n g barriers an d marketing a ppro a che s

.

• Asse ss pe rce i ved value of BOC course among p a rti c i pants.

• Upd a te perfo rmance indi ca tors.



## Overall Energ y Savin g s Savings data is per enrollee per square foot (avg facil i ty = 616,045 sq ft/enrollee) 

## Electricity (kW H ) 

## Oil (M MBTU ) 

## Gas (M MBTU ) 

## Water (G allons ) 

## W ith Rebates 0

. 3 5 0

. 4 0 0

. 3 4 0

. 1 4 W ithout Re bates 0

. 1 8 0

. 4 0 0

. 3 1 0

. 1 4

School Facility Ener gy Savings Savings data is per enrollee per square foot (avg faci l i ty = 662,862 sq ft/enrollee) 

## Electricity (kW H ) 

## Oil (M MBTU ) 

## Gas (M MBTU ) 

## Water (G allons ) 

## W ith Rebates 0

. 2 6 0

. 7 7 0

. 4 1 0 W ithout Re bates 0

. 1 5 0

. 7 7 0

. 3 5 0

Non-School Facility Energy Savings Savings data is per enrollee per square foot (avg faci l i ty = 854,360 sq ft/enrollee) 

## Electricity (kW H ) 

## Oil (M MBTU ) 

## Gas (M MBTU ) 

## Water (G allons ) 

## W ith Rebates 0

. 4 0 0

. 1 4 0

. 2 9 0

. 2 4 W ithout Re bates 0

. 2 0 0

. 1 3 0

. 2 8 0

. 2 4

Persistence of Savings: The ev aluation indi cates that all o f the water sa vings, over 1 14% of the electri c ity sav i ngs, an d alm o st 109% of the ga s sa vin g s e s timated in the 2002 e v aluation of the BOC prog ram a r e contin uing to day due to the prog ram’ s i n fl uen ce. This sh ows that fundin g towa rds the BO C prog ram i s an investment towa rd s co ntinued e nergy saving s.

1 

### Ef fi ci ency Ve rm ont , Key s pa n E n er gy Del i v ery (M A )

, an d PSN H were i n vol ved i n t h e B O C P r o g ram d u ri ng t h e t i m e peri od eval uat e d but di d n o t p a rt i c i p at e i n t h e eval uat i on

.

# Non-Energy Benefits

100%



## Surve y of Program Value:

• 45% of non-p a rticip ants thi n k certificat io n is impo rtant or very important.

• 80% of enroll ees a nd forty percent of su pervisors re commen ded th e BOC to oth e rs.

• On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=n ot useful an d 5 = extrem ely useful), en roll e e s rate d Leve l 1 course s 3. 9 and Level 2 co urses 4.3 (schoo l enrolle es ) a nd 3.8 (no n -scho o l enrolle es).

• 22% of non-p a rticip ants re ported w illing ness to pay $ 1 ,400. Most enr oll e e s and supe rviso r s felt the

cou r se wa s worth $1,40 0. Many enrolle es did n o t pa y full price du e to spon so r sub s idi e s.



## Barriers to Participation:

• 47% of non-scho ol and fort y perce nt of scho ol enro lle es said time and staff avai lability were major

con s id eratio n s in de cisi on to partici pate. Similarl y, 51% of non-pa rticipa n ts menti oned time an d staff availability as a considerati on.

• Co st wa s gre a test ba rrie r for 18% of no n-pa rt ici pant s, 60% of enro llee su pervi so rs, and 47% of partici pant s.

• Finan cial resource s we re greate s t ba rri er to impleme n ting O&M im provem ents b y majority of enroll e e s and their sup e rvi s ors (70% an d 87%, respe c tively). 84% 85%

46%

9% 19% 17% 67% 67% 87%

13% En rol l e e s (n =93 ) Supe rvis o r

s (n=15 )
80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Save d Im pr ov e d Save d m o n e y In crea se d In crea se d Jo b tit l e

en er g y occupant on la bor chan g e resp onsib ilit ies comp ensati on comfort and mate ri a l s 

## | -- Job Benefits fro m C ourse --| |-- Facility Benefits from Course --|

# Cape Light Compact

2005 Commercial and Industrial Programs Free-ridership and Spillover Study Executive Summary June 14, 2006Cape 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

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

## 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” Sp illover Estimates 1-5 1.5 Nonparticipant Spillover Estimates 1-8

### 1. EXECUTIV E SU MM ARY

This Executive Su mmary report summarizes the draft finding s of the year 2005 Commercial and Industrial Free-rider ship and Spillover Study for Cape Light Compact (CLC). The emphasis of this study was to asse ss program free-ridership, participant spillover and nonparticipa nt spillover f o r the follow i ng programs offered by CLC:

• New Construction

• Products an d Services

• Retrofit

This study f o r CLC ran concurrent with the free-ridership an d spillover st udies condu cted for National Grid and United Illuminatin g.

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the year 2005 Commercial and Ind u strial Free- ridership an d Spillover Study was to assist CLC i n quantifying the net impacts of thei r commercial/industria l energy efficiency programs by estimating the extent of:

• Program fre e -ridership

• Participant “like” spillover

• Nonparticip ant “like” sp illover

1.2 STUDY METHODOL OGY

The methodology used for this year’s study follo ws the Standardized Methods developed in 2003 for a g r oup of Massachusett s energy efficiency program administrators 1



### . To accomplish the above objectives, telephone surveys were conducted with samples of 2005 program participants in each of the program s, with design professionals and e quipment vendors involved in these 2005 inst allations. Th e program participant sa mple consist ed of unique utility accounts , n o t unique cu stomers names. The same customer name, or business entity, can be have multiple account s in multiple locations, b u t program technical sup port and incentives a r e provided on behalf of an individual account. Th us for the pu rposes of this study, a customer or participant is de fined as a u n ique accou n t.

The majority of these telephone inter v iews were completed with program participants between Ma rch 30 and May 12, 200 6. All sampled participat ing custome r s were mailed a letter on CLC letterhead in advance of the teleph one call. Th is letter explained the pu rpose of the call, info rmed customers that someone woul d be callin g them in the next couple of weeks to ask them some questions about th eir experi ence with the programs, and thanked t hem for their cooper ation in advance. This a d vance letter and repeated call atte mpts resulte d in an

1 

### Rathbu n, Pamela, Ca rol Sabo, and Bry an Zent, “Sta ndardization Method s for Free -Ri d e r shi p and Spillover Evaluation—T a sk 5 Final Report (Revi s ed). ” Prepared for National Grid, NSTAR Electric, North e a s t Utilities, Unitil, and Ca pe Lig h t Compa c t, June 16, 20 03.



### 1-1

Cape Light Com p a c t 7 / 1 3 / 0 6

### 1.Executive Su mmary...

1-2

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

### 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 identif ied 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 v endors 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 im pact 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 Su mmary...

1-3

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

### 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 ut ility-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 resultsoverall 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 ca tegory 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 Su mmary...

1-4

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

### 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 ca tegory 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 Servic es 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 ca tegory 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 Su mmary...

1-5

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

### 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 inst alled. 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 w hether 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” spillove r 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 Su mmary...

1-6

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

### 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 a ttributions 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 ca tegory 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 ca tegory 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 Servic es category. Refrigeration was not part of the Products and Services sample in 2004.

### 1.Executive Su mmary...

1-7

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

### 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 ca tegory 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 Su mmary...

1-8

7/13/06 Cape Light Compact 

### 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 Nation al Grid’s Energy Initiative and Design 2000 plus 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 equipmen t. While they usually can report what type of equipment was install ed, 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 work ed 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 re commend/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 Su mmary...

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 2000 plus 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.ExecutiveSummary...1-107/13/06Cape Light CompactTable 9Combined National Grid and Cape Light Compact Nonparticipant Like Spillover Results for Program Year 2005ABCDEFGHISurveyCategoriesVendorPopulationkWhSavings2Number of FirmsSurveyed withkWh Savings/Number of Firmsin Program withkWh SavingsSurveyedkWhSavings3SurveyedSavingsCoverageRate(D/B)NonparticipantSpillover fromSurveyed Firms(kWh)4EstimatedSpilloverPercent(F/D)90%ErrorMarginNonparticipantSpilloverExtrapolated toPopulation (kWh)(B*2.9%)Motors422,9849/17315,02674.5%6440.2%±1.7%12,267HVAC12,965,58637/648,536,55665.8%23,3200.3%±1.0%376,002VSD5,530,61512/214,563,36782.5%8,1810.2%±1.4%160,388Lighting47,379,23799/15927,010,87157.0%273,3031.0%±1.1%1,373,998Transformers46,1652/310,81123.4%00%±0.0%1,339Compressed Air6,522,01014/205,665,01286.9%575,75610.2%±7.5%189,138Refrigeration2,809,9999/112,150,58676.5%00%±0.0%81,490Other59,904,50124/358,382,09184.6%777,7239.3%±5.5%287,231Total85,581,098161/26656,634,32066.2%1,658,9272.9%±1.4%2,481,852Lower Bound1.5%90% Confidence IntervalUpper Bound4.3%2The vendor population kWhs represents the total savings for all measures for the Design2000plusand Energy Initiative programs (including the CP program) for actual vendors. Spillover ismeasured for each vendor associated with the program. Becausethe same application (and associated kWh) can be the basis for more than one vendor, the vendor population kWh may be higherthan the customer population kWh.3The total surveyed kWhs represents the total savings for allsurveyed design professionals and surveyed vendors in the programtracking system database whose names suggested they wereactual vendors, not participants.4Net of “like” spillover for the customers associated with the surveyed design professionals/vendors, as identified from the participating customer survey.5Other is a residual category consisting ofmeasures remaining from “Custom” afterequipment was reassigned to existing categories such as “Motors,” “HVAC,” or “Lighting”.

## New Buildings Institute, Inc. P.O. Box 653 White Salm on, Washington 98672 Phone: (509) 493-4468 Fax: (509) 493-4078 E-m a il: info@newbuildings.org Website: www.newbuildings.org



## Phase 1: Commercial Rooftop HVAC Unit Retrofit Programs

March 28, 2006

Prepared by: Mark Cherniack, Howard Reichm uth 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

N EW 

### B UILDINGS 

### I NSTITUTE 

### , I NC



### . Dra ft 3/ 16/ 06

# T a ble of Content s

1. EX ECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

2. INTRODUCTION

.............................................................. ERROR! BOOKM ARK NOT DEFINED.

S IZE OF THE 

### M ARKET



### ........................................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . D ATA 

### S OURCES



### .................................................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . 3. ROOFTOP UNIT SERVICES PROGRAM EX PERIENCE

............ ERROR! BOOKM ARK NOT DEFINED.

P ROGRAM 

### B USINESS 

### M ODELS



### .............................................................. E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . Utility Contract or Model

........................................................................ E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Franchise Contra ctor Model

.................................................................. E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Specialty Contra ctor Model

.................................................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. P ROGRAM 

### D ESCRIPTIONS



### ..................................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . AirCare plus

........................................................................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Eugene Water and Elect ric Board ( E WEB)

............................................ E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. National Grid ( N

H, MA, NY, RI)

............................................................ E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)

........ E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. NSTAR ( E astern MA)

.............................................................................. E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Energy Trust of Oregon ( E TO)

............................................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Puget Sound Energy ( P SE) Premium Service......................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. California

............................................................................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Int e grat ed Desi gn of Smal l C o mmerci a l HVAC Syst ems, Summary of Probl ems Observed i n Fi el d Studies of Small HVAC Units, Architectur al Energy Corporation, October 2003.

.... E rror! B ookmark not defined. E QUIPMENT 

### S TOCK 

### C HARACTERISTICS



### ................................................ E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . Age of Units

............................................................................................ E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Refrigerant Charge

................................................................................. E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Measure Distribution

.............................................................................. E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. M EASURE 

### C OSTS



### ................................................................................. E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . RTU M EASURE 

### E NERGY 

### S AVINGS



### ....................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . 4. ELEMENTS OF A ROOFTOP UNIT PROGRAM DESIGN

........... ERROR! BOOKM ARK NOT DEFINED.

M EASURE 

### S ELECTION



### .......................................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . C OST 

### -E FFECTIVENESS 

### S CREENING



### ....................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . Measure Screening

................................................................................. E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Assembling a Program

........................................................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. P ROGRAM 

### M ARKETING



### ........................................................................ E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . P ROGRAM 

### I NTEGRATION



### ...................................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . Q UALITY 

### C ONTROL 

### /B EST 

### P RACTICES



### .................................................. E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . T RAINING 

### /C ERTIFICATION



### ................................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . E VALUATION



### ....................................................................................... E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . Collaborative Approaches

...................................................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Confidence and Useful ness of Results

.................................................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Preliminary discussion of an M& V approach to RTUs

.......................... E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. The Baseline Approach: Research Level Monitoring

............................. E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. Expedited Measurements

........................................................................ E rror! B ookmark not defi ned. N EW 

### T ECHNOLOGY



### .............................................................................. E RROR 

### ! B OOKM ARK NOT DE FI NE D



### . Fault Detection and Diagnostics

............................................................ E rror! B ookmark not defi ned.

5. CONCLUSION

................................................................... ERROR! BOOKM ARK NOT DEFINED.

N EW 

### B UILDINGS 

### I NSTITUTE 

### , I NC



### . Dra ft 3/ 16/ 06

### APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS

.................. ERROR! BOOKM ARK NOT DEFINED.

APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY

......................................... ERROR! BOOKM ARK NOT DEFINED.



## 1. Executive Summary

This report is sponsored by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP), to sum m a rize regional and national experience with retrofit im provem e nts to unitary HVAC equipm ent on com m e rcial building stock. This report supports the collaborative effo rt am ong stakeholders in the NEEP service area to achieve better understanding of issues relating to establishing and m a intaining energy efficient perform ance of rooftop package HVAC units. The repor t also assesses the elem ents that guide the design of utility program s aim e d at accelerating the realiza tion of energy and dem a nd savings from operation of this technology

. The energy and dem a nd savings available from rooftop HVAC sy stem s are second only to lighting savings in the com m e rcial buildings sector. Utility -sponsored rooftop unit service program s 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 com p rehensive rooftop unit service program s, but that overall dem a nd 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 ener gy resource, not a substantial dem a nd resource. The program s include a variety of unit service m easures aim e d at refrigeration charge, air flow, therm o stats/controls and econom izers in an assortm e nt of configurations. Most program s seek partnerships with the existing HVAC trade, em ph asizing enhanced diagnostics, training, and quality control m e thods. The scale of both the program and the approach is driven by the new resource requirem e nts of an individual utility and a region. This resource is broad enough and cost effective e nough to be the basis for utility dem a nd-side program developm ent. It is recom m e nded that im pact evalua tion efforts be undertaken on a m u lti-utility basis to underpin the savings estim ates for the principa l portions of the resource in the Northeast.

Also included herein are discussions of:

• The several rooftop unit program s reviewed

• The rooftop unit equipm ent stock

• Estim ated energy savings and cost-effectiveness

• Standard utility rooftop program service m easures

• Key factors that guide the nature and scale of a rooftop program

• Marketing and training/certification and evaluation issues

• Potential for new technologies to im pact the rooftop services m a rket.

It is hoped that this report will support the design and im plem entation of a practical plan for the bringing
energy and dem a nd savings potential in the rooftop HVAC unit m a rket to a level of certainty suitable for consideration as a resource for the region’s power sy stem and as a greenhouse gas m itigation strategy for the entire region.

N EW 

### B UILDINGS 

### I NSTITUTE 

### , I NC



### . Dra ft 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. Introducti on..................................................................................................1

2. Metrics ..........................................................................................................1

2.1 New Construction #1: Utility Cost I ndicator ( UCI) ..................................1

2.2 New Construction #2: Market S hare of Agreements to build ENERGY

STAR Homes in Massachus etts........................................................................1

3. Over the Years .............................................................................................2

3.1 Annual Signed H ousing Un its.................................................................3

3.2 Current Status of Signed Housing Units .................................................6

3.3 ENERGY STAR-C ertified Ho mes ...........................................................8

3.4 HERS Ratings ......................................................................................10 3.5 Cost per Comple ted Housi ng Unit ........................................................12

4. 2005 Program Ac tivity ...............................................................................14

4.1 2005 Housing Unit s Recrui ted..............................................................15 4.2 2005 Housing Projec ts Recrui ted .........................................................17 4.3 2005 Housing Units and Projects by Size Cat egory .............................18 4.4 2005 Signings and Completi ons ...........................................................19 4.5 Builder Mix—New and Repeat Partic ipants ..........................................20

4.6 Distribution across Utility Terri tories .....................................................22

5. Point Scor e 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 pe rformance information includes historical as well as current information to show the growth of the Program over time.



# Metrics

There were two residential new constructi on metrics for 2005. As shown below, the Program expects to achieve the exemplary le vel 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 EN ERGY STAR Homes in Massachusetts in 2005 compared to the annual average of the previous three years and achieve 1% improvement in 2005 compared to pr evious 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 compar ed 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 sign ed 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.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt 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 thos e units at the end of 2005, the average HERS ratings of homes comp leted 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 s how, 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.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 3



## 3.1 Annual Signed Housing Units

As Figure 3.1 shows, the proportion of new hous ing units recruited to participate in the Massachus etts Progr am and comm itted to be bu ilt to ENERGY STAR standards has been 12% or m o re of total statewide annual housing perm its issued since 2000, except for 2003. Following declines in 2002 and 2003, the num ber of hous ing units recruited rose sharply to 3,320 housing units in 2004 and to 4,761 housing units in 2005. The num b er 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 tota l perm its issued in Massachusetts reached 20% in 2005. Single-fam ily hom e s recruite d through the Program represent just over 12% of single-fam ily perm its issued in the state, which is 50% higher than in 2003 and 2004. Multi-fa m ily housing units recruited th rough the Program as a percen t of multifa m ily housing perm its issued doubled from 14% in 2003 to 28% in 2004 and grew to 30% in 2005.

Figure 3.1: Annual Signed Housing Units (Perce nt o f MA Sta t e w i d e 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 %



### 1 999 2000 2001 2002 200 3 2004 2005 946 2, 0 8 5 2, 715 2, 423

2, 063 3, 320



### S i ngl e - F a mi l y Mu lt i-F a mil y

4, 7 6 1



## Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3 and Figur e 3.4 on the following page s how year-to-date total, single-fam ily and m u lti-fa m ily perm its issued for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and the first three m onths of 2006. 1 

## Total p e rm its issued in 20 05 are 8 % h i gher, s i ngle

- f a m ily per m its 4% lower and m u lti-fam ily perm its 30% high er than in 2004. To tal perm its is sued through March 2006 are 16% higher, single-fam ily perm its 12% higher and m u lti-fam ily
perm its 22% higher than in 2005.

1 

### To tal p e rm i t s fo r each year are th e fin a l rev i sed an nual to tals wh ich are h i gh er th an th e p u b lish e d Decem ber year-to-date totals.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 4

Figure 3.2: Year-to-D ate Total P e rmits Issued 2002 - 2006

17, 465 20, 257 22 ,47 7 24, 171

5, 279

0 5, 000 10, 000 15, 000 20, 000 25, 000 30, 000

Jan Feb M ar A p ri l M ay J u ne Jul y A u g S ept O ct No v D ec



### 2002 2003 2004 2005 200 6 

## Total Permits Y ear-to-Date

Figure 3.3: Year-to-D ate Single-Fami l y Per m its Issued 2002 - 2006

13 , 6 3 6 13 , 0 3 7 14, 842 14, 223

2,9 9 2

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

Jan Feb M ar A p ri l M ay J u ne Jul y A u g S ept O ct No v D ec


### 2002 2003 200 4 2 005 2006 

## Single- Fa mily Pe rmit s Y ear-to -Date

Figure 3.4: Year-to-D ate Multi-Fa mily Permits Issued 2002 - 2006

3, 829 7, 220 7, 63 5 9,9 4 8

2, 2 8 7

0 2, 0 0 0 4, 0 0 0 6, 0 0 0 8, 0 0 0 10 ,00 0 12 ,00 0

Jan F e b M a r A p ril M ay June Jul y A u g S ept O ct Nov D ec


### 2002 2003 2004 2005 200 6 

## Mult i- Family Per m its Y ear-to -Date

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 5

Figure 3.5 shows the number and percen tage of housing un its recru ited in each year by housing category, based on rebate definition s

. Historically, the JMC classified hou sing units as s i ng le-fam ily or m u lti-fam ily, with a further breakdo wn into low incom e or non low incom e housing units. The criteria for clas sifying participating uni ts as single-fam ily

or m u lti-f a m ily were based on th e rebates p a id. Under this appro a ch, single

- f a m ily include s sin g le hom e projec ts and detached s i ngle-f a m ily hom e developm ents; multif

a m ily inclu d es all a tta ched sing le- f a m ily deve lopm ents and all m u lti- s tory p r oje c t s, where the b u ilde rrec e iv es the lower multi-f a m ily rebate per h ousing unit.

In orde r to present inf o rm ation usin g consis te nt def i nition s a c ross all yea r s, th e num bers of m u lti-family low inco m e housing un its recru i ted in Figure 3.5 include all housing units in low in co m e projects, whether o r not all the u n its in th e pr oject are lo w incom e units. In 2003 the Program bega n tracking the percentag e of units in each low incom e project that
are actu a l lo w incom e units: 72 % of units in m u lti-f am ily low incom e projec ts in 20 03, and 96% of units in m u lti-fam ily low inco m e projects in both 2004 and 2005 are actual low incom e units. 2



## Figure 3.5: Recruited Housing Units by Housing Categor y (Re b at e De fi nitions)

981 30% 667 32 % 43 3 18% 313 12 % 82 3 39% 74 2 16% 1, 771 53%

784 38% 1, 019 42% 1, 743 64% 57 6 28% 2, 998 63% 568 17% 1, 021 21%

68 6 33% 659 24 % 971 40% 612 30 %



### 0 1, 00 0 2, 00 0 3, 00 0 4, 00 0 5, 00 0



### 2 000 20 01 2002 20 03 2004 2 005 Year Signed


### Si ng le-F amil y M u l t i

- Fa mi ly No n Low I n com e Mu lti

- F a mily L o w In come 2,08 5 2,7 1 5 2,4 2 3
2,0 6 3 3,3 2 0 4,7 6 1

2 

### The n u m b er o f act ual l o w i n com e uni t s i s sho w n i n su bse que nt t a bl es t h at addre ss 2 0 0 3 t o 2 0 05 r ecr ui t e d ho usi n g u n i t s b y C e nsus B u re au ho usi n g cat ego r i e s.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 6



## 3.2 Current Status of Signed Housing Units

Since its inception, the Mass achusetts 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 hom e s recruited in each of the years 19 99 through 2005. Figure 3.6 shows the

num b er of hom es that have been completed, are currently active or have dropped out of the Program ; Figure 3.7 presents the sam e in form ation expressed as the percentage of hom e s. In both figures the blue areas repr esen t the propo r tio n of hom es recru ited in a given year that were certifie d by the end of 2005, the red areas repr esent the proportion of hom e s recruited in a given y ear th at have not yet been co mpleted, an d the go ld areas represent the proportion of hom e s r ecruited 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 th e Program , either because they did not

m eet ENERGY STAR standards o r because co n s truction 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 planne d to be built. The housing units s i gned up prior to 2005 that are still active generally reflect housing units in large projects with construction plans that c over several years.

Figure 3.6: Current S t atus of Signed Housing Units (199 9

- 2 0 0 5 S i gnings) g g

51 8 41 5 1,5 7 7 4, 383

550

1,2 2 3 1, 454 2, 263 1, 663 1, 3 8 8 890 342 52 0

206

26 0 17 6

0 1,0 0 0 2,0 0 0 3,0 0 0 4,0 0 0 5,0 0 0



### 19 99 200 0 2001 2002 2003 2 004 2 005

Ye ar Sig n e dNumberof Housing Units



## Com p l e ted Act i v e Dropped Out 946 2,0 8 5 2,7 1 5 2, 42 3 2, 063 3, 3 2 0 4, 761

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 7

Figure 3.7: Current S t atus of Signed Housing Units (Perce nta g e of Home s Completed, Activ e , Dropped Out)



### 70 % 83 %
69 % 67 %

37 %

7% 50 % 5% 

### 6%

26 % 11 % 10 % 13 % 16 % 11 %

94 % 39 %

48 % 20 % 21 %

4%



### 92 %

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



### 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 T o tal
Ye ar Sig n e d


### Co mp l e ted Ac t i ve D r o pped Ou t

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 8



## 3.3 ENERGY STAR-Certified Homes

Figure 3.8 shows the number of hom es recruite d in each year that have been com p leted and certified as ENERGY STAR hom e s through the Program, broken down by housing catego r y using the rebate definitions. The to ta ls for each year in F i gure 3.8 are the sam e as the blue areas in F i gure 3.6.

Figure 3.8: Complete d Housing Units by Housing Categor y (Re b at e De fi nitions)

452 264 296 355 360 1, 436

578

175 642 563

789

648

74 345 373 385

93 505



### 0 50 0 1, 00 0 1, 50 0 2, 00 0 2, 50 0



### 20 00 20 01 200 2 2003 2 004 2 005 Year SignedCertifiedHousingUnits



### Si ngl e- Fami l y Multi

- Fami ly N o n Low Inc o me Mu lt i-F a mi ly L o w I n co m e 1, 454 2, 263

1, 663

1, 388 1, 223 

### T o t a l 200 0- 20 05 C e rt ifi e d H o u s i n g U n i t s = 8 , 3 3 3

342

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 9

Figure 3.9 shows the number of housing units th at have been certified each year through the Program and the percentage they repr esent of estim a ted total annual completed housing units in Massachusetts. The housing uni ts certified in any year include housing units recruited in prev ious years. As shown, the num b er of housing units cer tified through the Prog ram has increas e d each year, both in n u m b er and in percen t of total com p l e ted housing units, reach ing 2 ,358 housin g units and 11.1% of the m a rket in 2005.

In 2003, the Program began tracking recruite d and com p leted hom es under the Census Bureau sin g le-fam ily and m u lti-fam ily housing catego r y definition s , which is how housing perm it data are reported, as well as the rebate definitions . Under the Census Bureau definitions, single-fam ily includes fu lly detached housing units, sem i detached (sem i attached, side-by-side ) housing units, row houses, and townhouses. In the case of attached units, each m u st be separated fr om the adjacen t u n it by a gro und-to-roof wall and m u st not share heating/air-c onditioning system s or interstr uctur a l pub lic utilities s u ch as water supply, power supply, or sewage dis posal lines. Because housing units certified as ENERGY STAR si nce 2003 are tracked us ing the Census Bureau definition s , it is possible to s e parately calculate th e percenta ge of multi-fam ily housing un its com p leted 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-fam ily housi ng units com p leted 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. 2% 9. 3%

6. 4%

3. 6% 3. 0% 9. 4%

6. 1% 6.5 % 6. 0 % 28. 6%

22 .5 %

19. 8%



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



### 1999 2 000 2001 2002 2003 200 4 2005 495 565 965 1, 435 1, 641 M u lt if ami l y

Si ngle Fami l y 1, 854 2, 358

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 10



## 3.4 HERS Ratings

The average HERS score for certified hom e s c ontinues to rise. As shown in Figure 3.10, the average HERS score of hom e s 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 hom es. 3 

## Figure 3.10 also shows that each year som e certified hom e s have achiev e d HERS scores that exceed the 86.00 score required for ENERGY STAR certification by more than five poi nts. In 2003 and 2004 at least one hom e received a HERS score of 94.00 or higher, wh ich represents energy savings of 40% over a hom e with a m i nimum ENERGY STAR qua lifying HERS score of 86.00. To encourage b u ilders to make their hom es as en ergy efficient as feasible, instead of just

m eeting the 86 HERS score requirem e nt, the Pr ogram offers higher incentives to hom e s with higher HERS scores.

Figure 3.10: 1999 – 2005 HERS Ratings (Comple t ed Housing Uni t s Each Year )

88. 18 88 .99

88. 06

87

. 2 1 87. 03 87. 16 86. 66

86. 75 86 .6 0 86. 60 87. 90 88. 10 88 .70 91 .5 0 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

Y e ar Co mp le te d / C e rt if ie dHERSRating



### A v e r age HE RS R a ting M e dia n HE RS R a ting M a x i m u m HE RS R a ting

3 

### B a sed o n fi ve perce n t i n c r eas e i n sa vi n g s pe r poi nt i n cre a s e i n HER S sco r e.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 11

Figure 3.11 shows the m a xi m u m and average HERS scores by housing type for hom e s certified in 2003, 2004 and 2005. As shown, t h e m a xi m u m HERS score for a singlefa m ily attached hom e in 2005 is m u ch lower than in previous years, while the m a ximu m HERS cores for m u lti-fam ily units are higher th an in prev io us years. Th e 2005 average HERS scores are virtually the sam e as in 2003 and 2004 for single-fam ily hom e s and

m easurably higher than in 2003 and 2004 for m u lti-fam ily housing units.

Figure 3.11: 2003 - 2005 Maximum and Average HERS Scores

88 .2 2 88. 0 6 87

. 8 3 88

. 5 3 89

. 2 6 89

. 6 6 89 .5 3

88 .1 3 88. 9 9 91

. 7 0 92

. 9 0 9 3 .0 0 9 3. 00

87 .9 2 87

. 8 0 87

. 5 5 87. 8 0 88. 3 9 94

. 1 0 94 .10

91 .8 0 94. 10

92 .10 91 .70 92 .1 0 93 .90

93

. 6 0 93 .6 0 9 3

. 6 0

85 .00 86 .00 87 .00 88 .00 89 .00 90 .00 91 .00 92 .00 93 .00 94 .00 95 .00

S i n g le -Fam il y Deta c h ed S i n g le

- F am il y A

t t a ch ed M u lt i- F a mi ly Non Low Inc o m e M u lt i- Fa mi ly Low Inc o m e Tot a l Multi

Fa m ily Tot a l S i ngl eFa m ily Al l H o m e sHERS Rating

A v erage 2003 A v e r age 2 004 A v erage 2005 M axi mum 200 3 M a x i m u m 2004 M axi mum 200 5

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 12



## 3.5 Cost per Completed Housing Unit

Table 3.1 shows that the yearly number of housing units signed has m o r e than doubled, from 2,085 in 2000 to 4,761 in 2005. Meanwhile the yearly num ber of housing units

com p leted and certified has quadrup led, from 565 in 2000 to 2,358 in 2005.

Table 3.1: Annual Program Spending, Signings and Completions

Year Spending $Thous ands Housing Units Signed Housing Units Com p let e d
2000 $ 3

, 1 6 0 2

, 0 8 5 5 6 5
2001 $ 3

, 4 3 4 2

, 7 1 5 9 6 5
2002 $ 4

, 0 7 8 2

, 4 2 3 1

, 4 3 5
2003 $ 4

, 1 6 0 2

, 0 6 3 1

, 6 3 0
2004 $ 4

, 9 2 5 3

, 3 2 0 1

, 8 5 4
2005 $ 5

, 1 5 3 * 4

, 7 6 1 2

, 3 5 8


## * Preliminary Estimate 

## Error! Not a valid bookmark s e lf-reference. shows annual spending by electric Program Sponsors has increas ed by 63%, from just over th ree m illion dollars in 2000 to over five m i llion dollars in 2005. 4 

## Error! Not a valid b ookmark self-reference. also shows that o n e and one-half m illion dollars, or 2 8 % of total 2005 spending, was for low incom e 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

2 000 20 01 200 2 2 00 3 2 004 20 05Millions



### Lo w In come N o n Lo w In c o m e $3. 4 $4 .1 $4 .2

$3 .2 $4 .9 $5. 2 

### T o tal Sp ending

4 

### The cost dat a are fr om annua l repo rt s fi l e d wi t h t h e Di vi si on of E n er gy R e sou r ces ( D OER ) by t h e el ect ri c

u tilities an d th e Cap e Li g h t Co m p act. Th e co st d a ta in clud e cu st o m er in cen ti v e s p l u s in-h ou se an d
cont ract ed out expe nses fo r p l anni n g a nd a d m i ni st rat i on, m a rket i n g , an d im pl em ent a t i o n. T h e co st dat a do
not i n cl ude e v al uat i o n ex p e nses, m a rket researc h expenses, performance incentives, othe r costs or p a rticip an t costs.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 13

Figure 3.13 shows the annual cost per signe d housing unit and per completed housing unit. The dram atic decrease in cost per com p leted housing unit from the early years of the Program is largely a reflection of the la g between the tim e housing units are signed up and the tim e they are certified.

Figure 3.13: Annual Cost per Housing Unit

$2 ,65 7 $2 ,18 5

$1 ,51 5 $ 1 , 265 $ 1 , 683 $2 ,0 16 $1 ,48 4 $1 ,08 2 $3 ,55 8 $5 ,5 92

$2 ,84 2 $2 ,55 2



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



## 2000 2001 2002 2003 2 004 2 005

Y ear Homes Sig n ed or Co mpleted Cost Per Com p l e ted H o usin g

Cost Per Signed Hou s i ng Unit

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 14



# 4. 2005 Program Activity

The Program strives to recruit a mix of project and housing type s 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.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 15



## 4.1 2005 Housing Units Recru i ted

The Program strives to recruit a m i x of hous ing types, including single-fa m ily detached, single-fam ily attached and m u lti-fam ily housi ng. As shown in Figu re 4.1, approxim a tely one-half of the housing units recruited in 2003 were single-fa m ily homes and one-half were in m u lti-fam ily buildings, with just ove r one-third of the m u lti-fam ily housing units qualifying as low income. In both 2004 and 2005, single-fam ily hom es ac counted for just over one-th i rd (36 %) an d m u lti-fam i ly housing u n its alm o st two-thirds (6 4%) of recru ited housing units. Just under one-fourth of the m u lti-fa m ily housing units in 2 004 (22%) and just under o n e-th ird (31 %) of the multi-fa m ily housing un its in 2005 are low incom e units.

As m e ntioned earlier, in som e low incom e projects the r e is a m i x of low incom e and non low incom e units. In 2003 the Program began tracking the n u m b er of actual low inc o m e units in low incom e projec ts. The num b ers of low incom e housing units shown in Figure 4.1 are the actual num b er s of low incom e units recrui ted. The total num b er of low incom e units sign ed in 2003 is 440 (359 m u lti- fam ily, 80 si ngle-fam ily attached and one single-fam ily detached). The total number of low incom e units signed in 2004 is 568 (461 multi-f a m ily, 83 sing le-f am ily attach ed and 24 single-f a m ily detached ). T h e total num ber of low incom e units signed in 2005 is 985 ( 929 m u lti-fam ily, 54 single-fa m ily attached and two single-fam ily detached).

Figure 4.1: 2003 - 2005 Signings b y Hou s ing Catego r y (Ce n sus Bur eau De finitio n s)



### 742 = 16% 6 67 = 32 % 9 57 = 29 % 941 = 20%
3 04 = 15 % 12 9 = 4 % 

### 2,095 = 44%

6 53 = 32 % 1,666 = 50% 929 = 20%

3 59 = 17 % 4 61 = 14 %

0 50 0 1,0 0 0 1,5 0 0 2,0 0 0 2,5 0 0 3,0 0 0 3,5 0 0 4,0 0 0 4,5 0 0 5,0 0 0

20 03 Housi n g Unit s 20 04 Housi n g Unit s 20 05 Housi n g Unit sNumberofHousing Units M u lt i- F a m ily L o w In c o me

M u lt i- F a m ily N o n Low I n co m e

Singl e-Fami l y A ttached L o w In c o me

Singl e-Fami l y A ttached Non Low In c o me

Singl e-Fami l y Det ached 

### 2 , 063 3,320 4 , 761

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt 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 com p leted in 2005. By housing category, the percentage of housing units both recruited and com p leted in 2005 ranges from a low of four percent of multi-fam ily non low incom e housing units to a high of 13% of single-fa m ily attached housing units

Figure 4.2: Status of 2005 Sign ed Housin g Units b y Housing Categor y (Ce n sus Bur eau De finitio n s)



### 84 5 = 91% 2,009 = 96%

866 = 87% 663 = 89% 65 = 7% 77 = 4%

12 6 = 13 %

74 = 1 0 %

0 50 0 1,0 0 0 1,5 0 0 2,0 0 0 2,5 0 0

Si ngle- F a mi ly Detached Single

- Fami l y A

tta ched M u l t i

- Fam i l y Non Low In c o me M u lt i- F a mi ly Low In c o m e 

### A c t i v e H o u s ing Uni t s C o mpl e t e d H ous ing Uni t s D e acti v at ed To ta l S i gne d Un i t s = 4, 7 6 1 Tota l U n its De ac tiv a ted = 36

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 17



## 4.2 2005 Housing Projects Recruited

Figure 4.3 shows the number of project s recruited in 2003, 2004 and 2005 by housing catego r y. Recruitm ent ef f

o rts f o cus on bu ilde r s with m u lti-hom e projects, but m a ny people building their own hom es or builders ce rtifying just one hom e at a tim e participate in the Program

. The number of single hom e projects was 186 in 2004 and 156 in 2005. These s i ngle

- hom e proje c ts a r e a sm all perc enta ge of total h ousing units comm itting to be built to EN ERGY STAR-standard s, but they ar e valuab le to the P r ogram because they bring m a ny local builders into the Pr ogram who m a y talk to other sm all builde r s, the r eby increasing awareness of the Program and its benefits.

Figure 4.3: Number of 2003 - 2005 Signe d Projects b y Housin g Category (Cen su s Bu re au Defin i tion s)



### 176 = 59% 1 61 = 80 % 2 34 = 70 % 41 = 14% 17 = 5% 

### 49 = 16% 54 = 1 6 %

16 = 8 % 29 = 10% 26 = 8%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

20 03 Projec ts 20 04 Projec ts 2 005 P r oje c tsNumber ofProjects M u lt i- F a mi ly L o w In c o me

M u lt i- F a mi ly N o n L o w In c o m e

Si n g l e -Fam il y A

t tached Low I n come

Si n g l e -Fam il y A

t tached No n Lo w Incom e

Si n g l e -Fam il y Det ached 

### 201 33 6

300

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 18



## 4.3 2005 Housing Units and Projects b y Size Category

Figure 4.4 shows the percentage of housing units and the per cent of projects signed in 2003, 2004 and 2005 falling into various size cat egories based on the number of housing units in the projec t. Not surpr i sing ly singl e-homes account f o r m o re than one-half of all projects sig n ed in each year, but a shrinking percent of housing units (seven percen t in 2003, five percent in 2004 and three percent in 2005). The m a jority of housing units signed in every year are in non low incom e 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 Project s and Hou s ing Units b y 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% 4% 3%

0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 10 0%

2003 2004 2005 20 03 200 4 2005 L a rg e O v er 2 5 U n i t sLow I n com e

L a rg e O v er 2 5 U n i t sNo n Low Incom e

M e d i u m 6-25 U n i t sLow I n com e

M e d i u m 6-25 U n i t sNo n Low Incom e

Smal l 1

- 5 Units

- Low Income

Smal l 1

- 5 Units

- Non Low I n com e
Single Homes

- Low Income

Single Homes

- Non Low I n com e



### Percent of Pro j e c ts P e r c e n t of H ous i n g U n i t s

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 19



## 4.4 2005 Signings and Completions

Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 below show the pe rcentage of 2005 signings and com p letions by housing catego r y, breaking the multi-fam ily hous ing un its in to tho s e in buildings less than four stories and those in buildings four stories and higher. Going forward, the Sponsors are working on com b ining efforts with their commercial and industrial energy ef

f i ciency p r ogram s to bette r se rve m u lti-f a m ily building f our stor ies and higher. As shown, housing units in multi-fam ily buildings four stories an d higher accounted for 32% of signings and 18% of com p letions in 2005.

Figure 4.5: 2005 Signings Sho w ing Mult i-Family Si gnings b y Stories



## 2005 Signings Muti-Fa m ily L ess Th an F our Stories 31% Single -Fa m ily A t t ache d

21% Single -Fa m ily

D e tach ed 16% Multi-Fa m ily Fo ur Sto r ies & Hi g h er

32 %



## Figure 4.6: 2005 Completions Show ing Multi-Famil y Completions b y Stories



## 2005 Completions M u ti -Fa m ily Less Than Four Stories 43 % Single-Famil y A t ta ched 16% Single-Famil y

De ta ched 23 % M u lti

- Fam i ly Fo ur Stori e s

& Highe r

18 %

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 20



## 4.5 Builder M i x—New and Repeat Participants

Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 show the percentages of projects a nd housing units recruited in 2005 com i ng from builders new to the Program (Figure 4.7) and builders who have previously participated in the Program (Figure 4.8).

Ef f

o rts to r e cruit new b u ilde r s into the Prog ram continue to be su ccessf ul: 57 % of the projects, representing 53% of the housing un its recruited in 2005, ar e with builders new to the Program . (The comparable percentage s for 2004 are 60% of projects and 59% of housing units, for 2003 are 63% of projects an d 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 Projec ts and Housing Units from New Builders

62%

29% 51% 67% 64%

55% 58%

52 % 57%

32 %

11% 50% 65%

41% 45% 53%

14 % 55 % 56 % 62%

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

Sing le Ho m e s Sm all 1- 5 Un it s

- No n

Lo w In c o me Sm a ll 1

- 5 Un its

- L o w

Inc o me M e diu m 6- 25 U n i t sNo n L o w In c o me M e di u m 6- 25 U n i t s

Lo w Inc o me La r g e O v er 25 U n i t sN on L o w In c o me La rg e Ov er 25 U n i t sLo w Inc o me A l l 20 05 No n-L o w In c o me S i gn i n gs A ll 20 05 Lo w Inc o me Si g n i ngs A l l 20 05 S i gn i n gs



## % P r o j ects % Housing Units

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 21

Figure 4.8 shows that at least one-th i rd of the projects recru i ted in 2005 in each project size category and the housing units recruite d 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 recrui ted in 2005. (The com p arable percentages for 2004 are 40% of the projects a nd 41% of the housing units recruited, for 2003 are 37% of the projects and 43% of the housing units re cruited and for 2002 are 24% of projects and 53% of housing units recruited.)

Figure 4.8: Percent of 2005 Signed Proj ects and Housing Units from Repeat Bu ilders

38% 71%

49%

33% 36% 45% 42% 48 %

43% 68 % 89%

50%

36% 59% 55%

47% 86 %

45 % 44 %
38%

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

Sing le Ho m e s Sm all 1- 5 Un it s

- No n

Lo w In c o me Sm a ll 1

- 5 Un its

- L o w

Inc o me M e diu m 6- 25 U n i t sNo n L o w In c o me M e di u m 6- 25 U n i t s

Lo w Inc o me La r g e O v er 25 U n i t sN on L o w In c o me La rg e Ov er 25 U n i t sLo w Inc o me A l l 20 05 No n-L o w In c o me S i gn i n gs A ll 20 05 Lo w Inc o me Si g n i ngs A l l 20 05 S i gn i n gs



## % P r o j ects % Housing Units

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 22



## 4.6 Distribution across Utility Territories

Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 on the following tw o 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 S ponsors’ service areas, and also municipal electric service areas, and Figure 4.10 addresse s 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 si gnings 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, theref ore, not part of the gas utilities’ service areas; 31% of all projects a nd ten percent of all housing uni ts 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 recrui ted in Massachusetts El ectric 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.

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 23

Figure 4.9: Electric Sponsor Signe d Projects and Housing Units

Per c ent of Total Pr ojects (300) MECo 36% WM EC o

27 %

C L

C

5

% BEC o 20%

C E

L

C

o 4 %

Unit il

1% CE C o 5%

M unis

2%



### Percent of Low I n come Proj ects (36) Muni s

3% CE Co 3% BECo 36 % WME C o

19 %

MEC o 39%



### Percent of Total Housing Units (4, 761) MEC o 39% BEC o 31 %

CECo 11% C

E

L

C

o

5

%

WMECo 9%

Munis 0. 2% Un i t i l 1% C

LC 4

%



### Percent of Low I n come Unit s ( 985) MEC o 47%

Mun i s 0.4% WMEC o

14%

CE C o 2% BE Co 37 %

Electric Utility Tota l Pro j ects Non L o w Income Pro j ects Lo w Income Pro j ects Tota l Units Non L o w Income

Units Lo w Income

Units

Mass Electric (MECo) 1 1 1 9 7 1 4 1

, 8 4 4 1

, 3 9 0 4 5 4 Western Mass Electric (WMECo) 8 0 7 3 7 4 4 1 3 0 2 1 3 9

Boston Edis on (BECo) 6 1 4 8 1 3 1

, 4 6 3 1

, 0 9 4 3 6 9 Cambridge Light (CELCo) 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0
Common w ealt h Electric (CECo) 1 4 1 3 1 5 2 9 5 1 0 1 9 Cap e Lig h t Co mpact (CLC) 1 6 1 6 0 2 0 8 2 0 8 0

Unitil 2 2 0 4 8 4 8 0

Munici pa ls (Mu nis) 5 4 1 8 4 4

T o t als: 3 0 0 2 6 4 3 6 4 , 7 6 1 3 , 7 7 6 9 8 5

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 24

Figure 4.10: Gas Sponsor Signed Pr ojects and Housing Units

Perce n t of Total Projects (300) No Gas

31 % KEYSPAN 28 %

F LLR VR 2%

U nitil 0. 3% BR K S H

6%

BAYST

20 % NS TAR 13 %



### Percent of Low Income Projects (36) BAY ST

17 %

No Gas 14 % BR KSH 6%

F LLR VR

3% KEYS PAN 41 %

NST A R 19 %



### P e rcen t of To t a l Housing Un its (4,76 1 ) BAYST

13 % NS TA R 24%

No Ga s

10 % KE YS PAN 46%

FL LR V R 3% Un i t il 0. 3% B RKSH

4%



### Perc ent of Low I n come Unit s ( 985 ) No Ga s

15 % B RKS H 4%

FL LR VR 1% K EYS PAN 68 %

NS T A R 9%

B A YST

6%

Gas Utility Tota l Pro j ects Non L o w Income Pro j ects Lo w Income Pro j ects Tota l Units Non L o w Income

Units Lo w Income

Units

Bay State (BA YST ) 5 9 5 3 6 6 1 1 5 5 2 5 9

Ke ySpa n Gas 8 3 6 8 1 5 2

, 2 2 2 1

, 5 5 1 6 7 1

Berkshir e Gas (BRKSH) 1 9 1 7 2 1 9 3 1 8 1 1 2
NST A R Gas 4 0 3 3 7 1

, 1 2 4 1

, 0 3 9 8 5
Fall River Gas (FLLRVR) 6 5 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1

Unitil 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 0

Blank 9 2 8 7 5 4 6 7 3 2 0 1 4 7

T o t als: 3 0 0 2 6 4 3 6 4 , 7 6 1 3 , 7 7 6 9 6 6

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 25



# 5. Point Score Dat a

Figure 5.1 shows the percentage of points earn ed from several m easures in each year from 2002 through 2005. ENERGY STAR h eating system s earn four points and installing ENERGY STAR windows earns four points. ENERGY STAR refrigerators,

room air condition e rs, d i shwashers, clothe s was h ers and c e n tra l air con d ition i ng (S EER 13+) e ach e a rn three po ints. Each E N ERGY STAR lighting f i xture ins t alled ea rns two points and each ENERGY STAR compact fl uorescent light (CFL) bulb earns one point. Installing photovoltaics earns one point. The large m a jority of points com e from lighting

m easures, with alm o st one-half of all point s coming from CFL bulbs. The percentage of points com i ng from lighting fixtures continues to decline w h ile the pe rc entage of po ints from CFLs continues to rise, although the increase in 2005 is m i ni m a l following two years of very large increases.

Several m easures that earn points, and account for less than one percent of points, are not included in Figure 5.1. The m easures not incl uded in Figure 5.1 and the percentage of total poin t s they accoun ted for in 2 005 are: ro om air cond ition e rs (0.3 %), 13+ SEER central air condition i ng (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%

Fi x t ur e s Bu l b s H e a t i ng Sy st ems Wi nd ow s D ishw asher s R ef r i ger a tor sPercentofPoints



## 2002 2003 2004 2005

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 26

Figure 5.2 shows the percen tage of housi ng units certified in each year from 2002 through 2005 that installed lighting and app liance m easures. The percentages of housing units installing lighting and applianc e m easures changed little in 2005.

Figure 5.2: Percent of Certified Hous ing Units Insta l ling ENERGY STAR Lighting and Appliance Measu res 2002 - 2005

60% 57 % 59% 59% 58 %

47% 70 % 68%

50 % 49% 72 %

62% 58%

6% 70%

45%



### 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 %



### F i xtures Bul b s D ish w ash e r s R efri geratorsPercentofHomes



## 2002 2003 2004 2005

## 2 005 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Homes P r ogress Rep o rt Page 27

Figure 5.3 shows the percent of ENERGY ST AR-certified housing units that installed ENERGY STAR heating system s and windows. As shown, the percentage of hom e s installing E N ERGY STAR heating system s has been relatively stable over the last four years while the percentage of hom e s inst alling E N ERGY STAR windows increased by more than one-third in 2005.

Figure 5.3: Percent of Certified Housin g Units Installing EN ERGY STAR Heating Systems an d Window s 2002 - 2005

66% 69%

53% 77 % 73%

37 % 77%

52 %

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



### Heating Sy s t e m s W indow sPercent ofHomes



## 2002 2003 2004 200522 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 Su mmary ..................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. Characteristics of the Survey Respondents.............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. Knowledge of and Experi ence with MassSAVE ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

4. Interest in MassSAVE Participat ion and Preference for Incentives Error! Bookmark not defi n

5. Willingness to Install Energy Efficiency Measures ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. Interest in MassSAVE Partic ipation 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 fam ily structure and either own their homes or pay for their own heat or electricity. The survey is designed to measure:

• Name recognition and where reside nts are hearing of the program

• Understanding and valuing of the program offerings

• Likelihood of installing energy efficiency m easures 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 qua lified homeowners for on-sites to assess the remaining technical and market potential in existing housing stock.

The survey was developed by Nexus Market Res earch, Inc. as part of a larger evaluation of the MassSAVE Program dir ected by RLW Analytics. Find ings 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 Au dit 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 Court h ouse 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 S t atistics

......................................................................... 2 3.2 Monthly Bil l i ng Histor y

.................................................................... 3 3.3 Detailed Energy Profile s

.................................................................. 4 Demand (kW)

................................................................................ 4 Power Fact or

................................................................................. 5 Voltage

......................................................................................... 6 3.4 Comp arison of Slip s 11 an d 12

........................................................ 7 4 Demand Response

................................................................................... 8 5 Conclusion and Recommendations

.......................................................... 10 Investigate Winter Ele c

trical Usage

................................................ 11 Audit or Sub-Meter KY C Bui l di

ngs

.................................................. 11 Document Dock Voltage Supply

..................................................... 11 Test Service Supply V o

ltage

.......................................................... 11 Inventory Remaining Electrical Load

.............................................. 11 Manage Pe ak D o

ck Lo ad

............................................................... 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 S lips 11 and 12

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

Listing of Figures

Figure 1: Overview of Kingman Yacht Center

.................................................. 2 Figure 2: 2003-2005 Mont hly Electricity Trend

................................................. 3 Figure 3: Average an d Peak Day Comparison

.................................................. 4 Figure 4: Average W eekend Demand by Dock

................................................. 5 Figure 5: Average Power Factor

..................................................................... 6 Figure 6: Comparison of Slips 11 and 12

......................................................... 8 Figure 7: Il l u stratio n of Loa d She d vs. L o ad S h ift

............................................. 9

i Janu ary 2006

## 1 I NTRODUCTIO N

Customer Name Kingman Ya cht Cen t er Account Number 427332300 Location Cataum et, MA Ind u st ry Marina/B oatyard S e rvi c es Date visited 7/22/05 Site contact Scott Zayn e Sponso r Contact Kevin Galli gan, Ener gy Effici en cy Progra m Manager, Cape Light Compact, (508) 375 -68 28

In 2005, RLW Analytics

, Inc. was a pproa ch ed by Cape Lig h t Compa c t to help King man Yacht C e nter understan d th eir ener gy consum p t ion, sugg es t conser vati on an d energy managem e n t op por t uniti es, an d inv e stigate sev e ra l overloaded circui ts. In late July of 2005, a n RL W en gineer visited the y a cht cent er to p e rform a broa d-s c op e energ y au dit.



## 2 F AC IL ITY 

## D ESCRIPTION

Kingman Ya cht C e nter is Cape Cod’s largest, full-servi c e m a rina, boatyard and crui sing center. T h e facility has 235 slips and 130 moorings available for daily or seasonal rental , an d capa city for vessels u p to 12 0' in length. All slips are s e rviced by fresh

w

a t

e r
, 1 1 0 V a n d

, a t s o m e slips, 220V el ectrici t y 1



### . Ma ny boat slips at Kingman Ya cht Cent er are available fo r “do c k o min i um” own e r s hip throu g h the center’s 99-year slip leasing program.

As a full-s e r v ice m a rina

, KYC also pr ovid es ov er night g u est services such as restr o o m s & showers

, la undry

, offi ce ser v ices, and wir eless Int e rn et. Kingman Ya cht Cen t er is also home to th e Chart Room Restaur a nt & Pian o Bar , one of the Ca pe's most p o pular dockside spots. Crews Ltd. serv es up br eak f as t and news papers in season a n d st ocks basic convenience items

, while Peri winkles Gi fts sells boating gifts, souvenirs, and m o re.

1 

### This i s acc o r

d ing to the Ki ngman Yacht Center web s ite. As we will explain

, this i s not accur a te.

1 Janu ary 2006

### Fig u re 1: O v erview of Kin g man Yacht Center



## 3 L OAD 

## C HARACTER IS TICS

This section examines the load characteristic s of th e site i n detail . A thorough l o ad analysis contributes to unders tanding how the facility uses el ectrici t y both in aggregate (e.g. total monthly kW h) an d dyna mically ( e .g . kW by hou r ) and can ultimatel y lead t o identi fica tio n of en erg y and d e man d redu cti o n o ppor t uniti es.



## 3.1 S UMMARY 

## S TATIST ICS

Table 1 pres ents a bro a d summary of t h e annu al en ergy s t atistics f o r K Y C f o r t h e y e ars 2003, 2004 and 2005 2



### . Energy and deman d has been notabl y stable ov er the past t h ree years, wi th a slight declin e in peak deman d and <1 % increas e in annual ener gy

consum ption.

2 

### December 2 005 data was not av ailable at the tim e of report prod uction, so the average of the prior two Dec e mbers was used as a pr oxy for estimating annual k W h and peak kW.

2 Janu ary 2006

### 2003 2004 2005 Ann u al kW h 562,883 566,604 572,065 Peak kW 199.0 1 99.0 196.0 Load Factor 32% 33% 33%

Table 1: 2 003-20 05 Annual Energy Statistics

Load factor i s a measure of th e average demand of a facility relative to its peak dem a nd. AA facility w i th a load factor of 100% woul d have a peak demand and average demand that w e re equal, and the hourl y load profile wo uld be a flat line. In thi s case, K Y C had a 2005 loa d factor of 33 % per c ent which is fair ly low and i n dica tes tha t average a nnual demand of 65.3 kW (5 72,065 kWh/8,760 hour s) is 33% o f the peak demand of 196.0 kW.



## 3.2 M ONTHLY 

## B ILLING 

## H ISTO RY

Kingman Yacht C e nter’s billing history for 2003

- 2005 is depicted gr aphi cally in Fi gur e 2. The m o nthl y usage pa tterns are rem a rkably si milar acr o ss th ese t h re e y e ars.

Kingma n Ya cht Ce nte r 2003- 2005 Mon t hly Energy Trend

0 10, 000 20, 000 30, 000 40, 000 50, 000 60, 000 70, 000 80, 000

J a n F eb M a r A p r May J un Jul A ug S e p O ct Nov D ec
Mo nt hEnergyConsumption (kWh)

200 3 2004 20 05


### Figure 2: 2003-20 05 Monthly Electricity Trend Higher usa g e in th e su mmer o f 20 05 is likely explaine d b y ambie n t t e mper atur e. In 2005, a v er age a n d p e ak temp er atures w e r e ap proxim ately 5 ° F a n d 10° F hi gher

, respectively, than 2004

. Inci dentally, ther e s eems to be a lot of w i nter electri c ity

consum ption for a sum m ertime faci lity. The correlation wit h the tw o coldest m o nt hs of

3 Janu ary 2006

### Januar y

an d Februar y

s u gges t s electric h e atin g loads, and fairly signifi c ant ones at that. If facility managem e nt cannot readil y explain thi s wintertim e usage, further investigation is warranted.



## 3.3 D ETAILED 

## E NERGY 

## P ROFILES

Four 4

- chan nel 3-phase true-RMS power recor d ers were installed to monitor dock power

consum ption fr om July 22 nd 

### thr o u g h Aug u st 16 th 

### of 2005. T h is power meter s a mpled volta g e, cur r ent

, a c tiv e pow e r, an d p o wer fa ctor at hig h fr equ e ncy and recor d ed integr ated fi fteen-mi nute interval da ta.



## D EM AND 

## (kW)

As seen in Figure 3

, th e hourly pea k deman d ran g ed from ab out 28 kW t o

nearly 90 kW on th e d o ck s. The black line in t h e figure bel o w repr esent s

the p e ak deman d day of Friday, August 5, 2005, and the dashed red line indicates outdoor tem p erature. Peaking at 98 °F jus t after noon, this was the hott est day of 2005 . Note the dramati c ris e in demand from noon to 6pm as temperatures rise and, presu m ably, boaters prepar ed for week end d e part ure. In compari s on, t h e a v erag e weekday/w e ekend profiles are considerably lower and more consistent.

Kingm an Yach t Center

A v erag e and P e a k Da y C o mp arison

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 2 0 21 2 2 23

Hour of D a yDemand (kW)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10

0Temperature (°F)

Pea k D a y Avg

. We ek da y A v g

. W eek end Te mp °F


### Figure 3: Average and Peak Day Comparison

4 Janu ary 2006

### Figur e 4 is inter e sting

, as it shows the rela tive con t ribu tion of ea ch dock to th e avera g e week end lo ad pr ofil e. The top cu mulative lin e f o llows th e blu e ‘Av g

. We ek end’ l i ne in Figur e 3 above. This s t acked ch art clearly in di cat e s th at t h e fr on t d o cks are th e most significan t l o ad a t the yach t cent er . The fr ont docks are also disting u ished b y a more pron oun c ed 8-9 am cr est in dem a n d , yi elding compara b le deman d in both th e morning and evening hours

, pr ob ably d u e to depar t ur es a n d arriv a ls.

Ki ngman Y a cht Center

Av erage Week end D e mand b y Dock

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Hour of DayAverage Weekend Demand(kW)

Front D o cks
S lip 64- 9 8
S lip 44- 6 3
S lip 33- 4 3
S lip 23- 3 2
S lip 9- 22

Front D o cks 24 .9 2 3 .7 22 .4 2 1 .7 20

. 8 19 .5 2 0 .1 20

. 9 24 .0 26

. 6 26 .3 2 4 .7 23

. 0 21 .6 21

. 4 24

. 2 2 5 .0 25

. 4 2 6 .8 2 6 .0 24

. 5 2 4 .0 22

. 5 2 0 .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 1 2. 7 1 2. 8 1 2

. 7 1 2. 1 1 1. 5 1 1. 5 1 2. 3 1 3

. 4 1 3. 8 1 4

. 4 1 4

. 5 1 2. 1 1 1

. 4 1 0. 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

S lip 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 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 2 3



### Figure 4: Average Week end Demand by Dock

We hav e includ ed a da ta table at the bott om of Figu re 4 to provide KYC with us eful hourly estim a tes of d e m a nd on each dock. W e do n o t hav e confid ent estimates of the number of boats contributing to these valu es
, b u t KYC coul d divid e t h ese valu es by the t o t

a l n u m b e r o f s l i p s t

o

a s c

e r t a i n t h e m e a n k W p e r s l i p i n e a c h d o c k a r e a

. A d d i t i o n a l

corr elati o n of this in form ation by average boat si ze or type m i ght als o pr ove insigh tful

.



## P OWER 

## F ACTOR


### Power fa ct or is defined as th e r a ti o of r e al power t o the appar e nt p o wer an d ma y b e thou ght of as the fra c t i on of elect r ical curr ent that perfor ms useful work. Resi stiv e linear loads such as incandescent light bulbs

, resistance h e ating, an d electric m o tors maintain sinusoidal w a veforms where the curr ent waveform is in-phase with the voltage waveform a n d th e pow e r fact or is one. Non-li near or i n du ctive loads s u ch as el ectronic ballasts, personal computer po wer s u pplies, and variable speed driv e s dist o r t t h e c u rre nt waveform a n d brin g th e curr ent and volta g e wa veforms out of phase, t hus lowerin g th e

5 Janu ary 2006

### power fa ctor. Figur e 5 displays th e pea k dem a nd and cor r espon d ing power fa ctor b y hour as monitored in Jul y and Augus t 2005.

Ki ngman Y a cht Center

Av erage Po wer Factor Profile

78

% 80

% 82 % 84

% 86

% 88

% 90

% 92 % 94

%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3

Hour of D a yPower Factor

W eek d a y W eek en d


### Figure 5: Average Power Factor

The hou r ly power factor at KYC averages betw een 83% an d 92%, whi c h is reason abl e by mos t st andards

. P o wer fa ct or

fluctuati o n s can be q u ite dynami c
, and ov er the monitoring study the 1 5 -minute integrated po w e r

f

a c t o r

r a n g e d f r o m 7 8 % t o

9 9 %

. A prop er p o w e r qualit y study inv o l v es much more rig o rous meterin g at ver y high frequency, while this cursory review is merely a screen for significan t disturban c es or out

- o f -ra n g e values

. We co nsider th ese p o w e r f a ct or fi nding s to be quit e acce ptabl e

.



## V OLTAGE


### Sub-m e tering was per f ormed in a vintage power house fed by 120/208 V WYE s e rvi c e, and v o lta g e was gen e rall y in ran g e a t KYC. How e ver
, t h er e are se veral obser v ati o ns o f note. First, facility personne l spoke of vol t age as 120/240 V, when i n fact the docks

were provisioned for 12 0/208V. RLW engineer s

are not highly knowledgeabl e of m a rine equipm ent, but much 2 40V equipm ent on-l and is rated for 208/240V. Nonethel ess, Kingman Ya cht C e nt er may want t

o

re view t h e el ectri c al requir emen t s

of t h eir v e ssels and displ a y the supply voltage cl earl y on the docks to mitigate potential li ability issues

.

Second

, the r e w e re sev e ral p e rio d s of extr emel y low vol t ag e. On Thu r sday, July 28 th


### from 1:00 -1 :30pm, v o lt age dr op ped as lo w as 32V on the circuit feeding Slips 44 through 98. Facility m a nagement had sugges ted that this circui t was probl e mati c for

6 Janu ary 2006

### them and t h at the br eaker servi n g Dock 7 p e riodicall y trips. The low voltage anomaly was not rel a ted to a period of high ampera ge. We recommend specialized diagnostic testing on t h is circuit t o

ch eck for a grou n d fault, vol t age leak , or corr od ed sp lice

con n e c tio n

.

The volta g e range meas ured thr o ughout th e stu dy ran g ed fr om a l o w of 107V to a high of 126V, which is very broad. Nominal voltage is 120V and a +5% feed of 126 V is typical at su bstation out p ut, b u t not at the e n d of a shor elin e road . Acceptable voltage levels ar e ±10%, so 10 8V is generally consi d ered the l o w vo ltage thresh old, and voltage at KYC reached or broke this level on several occasions. Further inves t igation should be performed by utility distribution experts, bu t these findings sugge s t constraint or overl o ad o f the deliv ery system f e e d i n g th e y a cht ce nter

.


## 3.4 C OMPARISON OF 

## S LIPS 

## 11 AND 

## 12

In additi on to all of t h e cir c uits feedin g the docks, a power l o gger was installed specifi c ally on tw o adjacent slips 11 and 12 for the pur p oses of contrasting power

consum ption of tw o si milar sized boats

. B e sides th e min o r differ en ce in l e ngt h

, the key differentiator was the air-conditi o ni ng pr acti c e of the ow n e rs. Th e o w ner of th e 38’ Sabreline rarely runs hi s air-conditioner, while the 42’ Ma xu m runs fairl y continu o usl y

.
Table 2 pres ents a summary of th e monitoring findings ov er a 26-day p e riod . This data suggests that air-conditioning oper ating costs are about $ 2 .50/da y for a boat of this size.

A v e r a g e A v e r a g e A v e r a g e S l i p B o a t kWh/da y $ / d a y k W 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 tw o boats in an air-conditi o ning experiment, setting one boat for a cabin tem p er ature of 70 °F and another for 80 °F. How e ver
, the boat owner s

forgot to maintain t h ese set t in gs, so the study rever t ed t o

a simple comparison of air-conditioni n g versus non

- air

- conditi o nin g for presu m ably other wis e similar boats

. Figur e 6 compar es th e aver ag e demand pro f iles o f the two bo ats.

7 Janu ary 2006

### Ki ngman Y a cht Center Slip 11 vs. S lip 1 2

0. 00 0. 50 1. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 50

0123 4 5 6 789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3

Hou r of DayDemand(kW)

Slip 11 S lip 12


### Figure 6: Comparison of Slips 11 and 12 As evidenced by the figure above, while on average th ese two l o adsh apes di ffer by just 0.77 kW, the ho u r ly pr ofiles differ significan tly. At r o u g hly a 2 kW peak impa ct

, fift y boats op erat ing similarly to Slip 12 w o uld con t rib u te a b ou t 1 00 kW t o

th e peak load on a 90+ °F day

. With th e s e ason al and variable compon ents of moder n demand charg e s, it i s

d i f f i c u l t t

o

e s t i m a t e t h e c o s t i m p a c t s

o f d e m a n d

. B u t i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e c o i n c i d e n t effect of m u ltiple boats operati n g AC co uld accumulate a hefty kW load on a hot summer day. This would translate to a hi gh demand charge an d potential reli ability probl e ms, a s the r e ar/si d e d o ck power distri but i on n e tw ork at KYC is fai r ly constrain e d.



## 4 D EMAND 

## R ESPONS E

D e m a n d r e s p o n s e i s a c o n c e r t e d e f f o r t t o

t e m p o r a r i l y r e d u c e e l e c t r i c a l c o n s u m p t i o n during specific times of nee d , in res p onse t o

hig h real-time wholesal e el ectri c ity prices or when the reliability of the region’s power grid i s stressed. Some us es of el ectricity are discretionary, or easily done without, while oth e rs are miss ion-criti c al. Some us es are somewh ere in between, depen d ing on th e ur gency of the need or th e magnitude of incentives that might be available.

Deman d res p onse ev ent s

are trigg e r e d by high l o ads or ca p a city sh ort f a lls or for e ca sted high wholes ale prices. These ho urs of peak d e mand typi ca lly occur in the middle o f the

we e k d u ring d a y t ime hou r s, a n d a r e o f t e n a ssoc i a t e d wit h a d v e rse we at he r co nd it io ns.

8 Janu ary 2006

### Customers can contri but e d e mand r e du ction in a vari ety of ways:

 Load sheddi ng, such as turning off non- essenti a l lights, office equipment, and processes or adjustin g HV AC se t p o int s

 Load shifti ng, for ex ample dela ying (u ntil off peak times) or redu cing manufa c turi ng levels

 Op eratin g o n -site ge ner a tors Figur e 7 presents a grap hic depicti o n of load sh edding an d load shifting

. The base load in blue is the profile i f no reduction ac tions were ta ken. For bot h meth ods, the reduction event i t self is s h ow n in th e dashed bla c k line.

L o ad S h ed v e r s u s L o ad S h i f t

0 50 100 150 200 250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4

Ho u r o f Da yDemand(kW)

Ba s e Lo a d S h e d Lo a d S h i f t



### Figure 7: Illustration of Load Shed vs. Load Shift

In a load s h ed

, electri c al consum ption is restored to ori g inal levels after the event. Load she d s impose no u s age conseq uen c es of si gnificance a f ter th e ev e n t is over. The dashed loa d shed ret u rn s to the bas e loa d in blu e af ter th e event

. A load shif t is a demand redu cti o n that necessitates del a ying electri c al consum ption until after the event. A manufa c tur i ng firm tha t shuts down a produ c ti on line for a few hours bu t m u st ‘make u p ’ that los t produ c ti on a t the end of the even t is ena c ting a l o a d shift. The d a shed -line l o ad shift r e s u lts in the d e ferr ed usa g e in red t o

comp ensat e for the durati on of th e even t.

Incid e nt ally, deman d re ducti o ns b y increasi n g space tem p eratur es on air con d itio ning equipm ent e x hibit chara c teristi c s of each me tho d

. The en er gy usa g e of co oling sys t ems will rebound after the demand reduction even t to restore s p ace temperatures , however the r e sultan t cooling ‘ba c klash’ is ty pically of a s h ort e r dura ti on tha t th e event itsel f

. We

9 Janu ary 2006

### categorize s u ch a r e du ction as a l o ad shed, although it tends to include a small l o ad shift.

If generation is used to provide load redu cti o n, the cus t om er does not necessarily use any less ele c trici t y. Ho wever
, th e custom er’s load pr ofile as seen by the el ectrica l gri d will look like the load shed illustrati on, with th e amount of s h ed equal to the amount of

ener gy provi d ed by the gen e rat o r w h en it is run n ing.

Incentiv e p a ymen ts ar e av ailable to comm er cial and indu strial el ectri c ity users i n New England thr o ugh ISO-New Engla n d’s Dema nd Respons e Programs , offer e d t o

all custom ers i n N e w Engl a n d. In centi v es v a ry wi t h th e level of reduction and the len g th of noti ce n e ed ed by th e customer to respon d. T h e vari ety of programs gives customers the fl exibility to choose the program that best fits their individual needs. Contact the Cape Light Compa c t person id entifi ed on p a ge 1 for mor e inform ation about a v ail a ble progr a ms an d incenti v es.

Customers who un der s tand th eir hourly en ergy profil e and ca n manage their

consum ption in response to whol esale pri c es or reliability events can becom e m o re attra c tiv e a n d valu ed cu stomers to competit ive electri c ity suppliers, which may translate into the cu stomer neg o tiatin g a l o wer retail electrici t y pr ice. Plus, the h o urly u s age information and software systems available to partici p ating customers can be used to help mana g e ener gy consumpti o n and dema nds ever y day of t h e year, h e lpi n g to improv e th e cust omer’s ener gy effi ci ency.

In addi tion to dir e ct custom er b e nefits, d e mand resp onse parti c ip ants provid e a n importa n t r e sour ce for New Engla n d. Th ey help ensure the power grid’s reliabi lity-- pot e ntially a v oidin g pow e r ou tag e s d u ring times of high dem a nd--r e du ce wholesal e p r ice volatility that drives up the cost of pow e r for everyone, and reduce air polluti on by enablin g ol d e r, l e ss effici ent pow e r pl ants t o

ru n l e ss often

.
Kingman Ya cht C e nt er d o es n o t ha v e en oug h di screti onar y kW t o

parti c ipate in r e gi onal load response program s . The minimum lo ad shed for the IS O-NE Load Response Programs is 100 kW, and it is hi ghly improb ably that K Y C could dr op tha t much load.



## 5 C ONCLUS ION AND 

## R ECOMMENDATIONS

Consider abl e ef for t wa s spent coll ecti ng an d analyzin g d e tailed el ect r ical da ta on the docks at Kingman Yach t Center. KYC is no w armed with excellent information on the kW load profiles of their docks

. This data sh ould pr ove useful f o r f u ture expan s ion purpos es an d also i n pr oject or cos t -sharing calculations

.
While this study was useful in characterizing t h e avera g e do ck pr ofiles, m o re im port a n t, however, are som e of the following findings an d recommen d ations

.

10 Janu ary 2006

## I NVESTIGAT E 

## W INTER 

## E LE CTRI CA L 

## U SAGE 

### A billing review shows consid erable el ectricity consumpt ion in the winter m o nths. Correlation with the two cold est months of Janua ry a n d Febru a r y

suggests fairly significan t electri c heati n g loads

. A n examin ati o n of wintertime loads may be in order. RLW woul d gladly r e vi sit the mari na t o

review any excessive loa d s or conserva tion opportunities.



## A UDIT OR 

## S UB 

## -M ETER 

## KYC B UIL D I N G S 

### This ‘stage one’ a u dit of KYC focus e d u p on d o ck pow e r a n d did no t ex amine t h e u s age of the o ffi ce buildin g, re staurant , or ot he r s u rrounding structur es. With approxim ately 100 kW of load unaccounted for, much of which appears in winter months , there i s additi onal l o ad th at ma y ben e fit fr om energy conservati on measures

.



## D OCUMENT 

## D OCK 

## V OLT A GE 

## S UPPLY


### The docks are provisioned for 120 /208V, n o t 120/240V. As we are not experts on marine pow e r, this may not be an area of concern, but we re com m end that facility managem e n t revi ew ves s

el pow e r r e quir emen ts and re ntal agre emen ts to e n sure t h er e is no misunderstanding or potent ial liability on this issue.



## T EST 

## S ERVI CE 

## S UPP L Y 

## V OLTAGE 

### The voltage range meas ured thr o ughout the st udy ranged fr om a l o w of 107V to a high of 126 V, w h ich is v e ry broa d and nearly out of t h e a c c

e pta b le ra n g e. K Y C s h ould request further study by local utility distributi on engineers

. The extent that KYC vol t age varies wi th l o ad sugg est s

a p o ssible constrai nt in the delivery system, transform e rs , or feeders s e rvicing the yacht center.



## I NVENTORY 

## R E M A I NI NG 

## E LE CTR I C A L 

## L OAD


### As an accou n t, Kingman Yach t Cent er pea k s at 199 kW. It is interestin g to not e , t h en
, that th e 89 kW of dock load (see S e ction 3

. 3) comprise less than hal f of th e d e man d o f the entire facility. At the fa cility manager’s direct ion, the audit focused mainly upon on dock power, but it turns ou t that the majori ty of the facility’s load remains yet uniden t ified. We specul ate th at th e bulk of the remaining el ectri c al load probably ex ists in the Cha r t Room Restaura nt (electric ovens/warmers) and also in maintenance buildings (ai r com p ressors/high-bay lighting). T h e o ffi ce a n d gift sh op spaces are li kel y insignificant with expected total el ec trical densit y bel o w 2

. 5 W/sqft

.



## M ANAGE 

## P EA K 

## D OC K 

## L OAD 

### Peak load, a t least on th e docks, cor r elates with two variabl e s: day-of-w eek a n d out d oor temperatu r e. D o cks ar e used mor e on Frid a y s a n d weekends, and boats draw m o re air conditioning pow e r on hot days.

• Ask boaters to cons erve pow e r on hot days by minimizin g air conditi o ning a n d oth e r dock power us age. A polite a ppeal and awar eness cam p aign wit h emphasis on electri c al cons ervation and reliability tends to be qui t e effective. For exam ple, ven t ilating a cabin nat u rally for 15 -minutes to exhaust th e built-up heat ca n dr a m atically reduce cabin t e mper atures and the res u ltant cooling load.

11 Janu ary 2006

## T EST 

## D OC K 

## 7 C IRCU IT 

### Facility managem e nt declared at our initia l meeting that the feeders for Dock 7 are undersi zed, particularly when a large vessel do cks at the end of the pie r

. As this was a troubl e ar ea for KYC

, o u r engin eer i s olate d th is circui t for a short-term metering study. The occurr ence of a vol t age an omal y on just thi s circui t on July 28 th 

### s u ggests a deeper probl e m.

• Perform rigorous diagnostic testin g on this cir c uit f o r loss es and/ or l e aks. A t minimum, r e pla c e t h e circuit br eak e r feeding t h e dock , as circuit br eak e rs tend to trip m o re readily with each su ccessive over- c urrent inc i dent.

• To t h e ext e nt pr actical

, try to sta g ger electri c a l usage on Dock 7 wh en a la rge vessel d o cks until a dditi onal el ectri c al cap a cit y ca n be ad ded

.



## E NERGY 

## C ON S E R V A T I O N 

## M EASURE S 

### The pr eced ing recom m enda tions should ta ke pri o rity ov er energy cons er vatio n

measures

. Surely there will be opportunities to retrofit lights, H V AC, motors

, etc. at Kingman Yacht C e nter. However, w e s t rongl y recommend addressing the afor emen tio n ed issu es bef o re ge tti ng inv o lv ed in a sig n ifi c ant conser vatio n pr oje c t, f o r ther e may be som e wor k warranted on the mari na’s cust om er-sid e dist ribution system.



## R EMA I N 

## V IGI L ANT


### Even th oug h the King man Ya cht Cent er does not hav e enou gh discretionary k W to partici p ate i n regi onal l o ad response prog rams, it is wise for facility managem e nt to

re ma in aware of lo a d re sp o n se an d de ma n d management initiati ves in th e r e gion

. There are o ppor t uniti es for cust ome r s, or ganiz a t i ons, or con s ortiums t o aggregat e

loads and p a rti c ip ate i n th ese programs. As de mand management beco mes more important with each passing summer, seasonal facilities may find themselves under more scrutiny. Kingman Ya cht C e nter should rem a in vigilant in the search fo r co nservation and load managem e n t oppor t uniti es.

12 Janu ary 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 Buildin g 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 hom es to inform its actions going forward. The evaluation team was asked to compare the De monstration 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 constructio n 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 we re performing as originally modeled. Overall Findings:

• All participants are very happy with their hom es 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-effec tive, 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 build ing professional training;

• Access to green building materials;

• Subcontractors and suppliers gaps in knowle dge 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 Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 2 

## • Leverage other resources that support green homebuilding objectives such as Federal tax credits, Massachusetts Technology Collaboarti ve (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 me thods and materials that are environmentally responsible and creates a building that is health y to occupy, cost effective to build, own and operate and durable. This practice has been arou nd 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 la sting 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 em erged. 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 stan dards. 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 p rograms, 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 bu ildings by establishing a common standard of measurement, promoting integrated, whole-build ing 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 Comp act 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 we ll as two building suppliers and all staff who worked on the project: CLC, Honeywell, CSG, VEIC, NEEP.)

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g 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 constru ction 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 demons tration homes and perform a life cycle cost

assessment.

7. Evaluate the input on the scorecards and su ggest 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 sa y 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. Sin ce the development team was comprised of volunteers without any sponsorship or affiliatio n, 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. Th e resulting VBG checklist is widely considered to be the greenest residential green building stan dard 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. Al l builders and homeowners found that the checklist helped them understand the design el ements and choices inherent in a green home as

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 4 

## well as evaluate how environmentally considera te 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 ar e 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 VB G 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 th e 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 practi ces 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 with out 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 wi th 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 Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 5 

## on because he understood the benefits of a well-m anaged forest. He further expressed that it is simply not practicable for him to offer both gr een 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 grow ing 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 build ing 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 constru ction, 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 resp onsive information resource. One participant suggested using the past participants as resourc es to future perspective green homeowners and builders. This approach could be a critical reso urce for future program success. This could be in
the form of case studies, home tours, volunteer time to answer question s, 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 pers on 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 l ess knowledgeable and skeptical homeowners and

builders.”

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g 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 p roposed design for sustainability. There was a suggestion to make sure air sealing and insulation ar e included in original constructio n documents to ensure their

inclusion in the base contract and av oid change order extras. One of the VBG requirements is to provide the new homeowner with a user’s manual describing the system s and appliances in their new home. It was identified as a helpful sugg estion that there should be a template for this manual to ensure that all the pertinent informatio n 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 Pe rformance Institute) certification). Homeowners and builders noted a gap in the kn owledgebase 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 o ffer 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 qu otes for a renewable energy system or to find

local cotton insulation. Part icipants suggested a comprehen sive training effort to bring subcontractors up to speed. A list of certif ied 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 Buildin g 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 app roaches they otherwise would not have committed to, for example renewable energy system s, 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 di fficult to gather accurate cost and savings data 2 years after project completion. It is recommend ed 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 increme ntal cost data from the Habitat homes, but their cost of construction is not a reasonable prox y 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 regardin g 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 infiltratio n and lighting and appliances in the four homes. We created two reference homes, one is a compo site home created from Cape Cod specific

homes in the MA residential new construction ba seline study. The other reference home was created using information from the ENERGY ST AR Homes program files to build a Cape Codspecific ENERGY STAR reference home.

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 8 

## The summary in table 1 below details the energy sa vings 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 TOT A 5686 718.1 247.5 1.1 0.4 28 593 -200.5 3,850.0 4,270.4

Aver a 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 100k Wh, E-Star CW 75 kWh, E-Star DW, 40 kWh; Gas Furnace with ECM Mo tor, 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 gree n 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 A nnual 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 TO T 5,686 512.5 254.8 1.3 0.4 24 539 90.8 0.0 654

Ave r 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 cos t ($165/sq ft X 1400 sq ft X 2% = ~ $4,600) and calculating the cash flow impacts to homeowner s, 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 Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 9 CLC green homes compared to MA res new con baselin e 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 baseli n 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 investme nts 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 ta ble 4, the analysis shows that the incremental costs to go above ENERGY STAR are no t 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 sa vings in the average home.) In this scenario outlined in table 5 below, when compared to the Ma ssachusetts baseline home, there is a negative cash flow in years 1-5, then the cash flows go posi tive, cumulative cash flow goes positive in year 11, and ultimately lead to a positive net presen t value and a benefit cost ratio > 1. Performing this calculation for the green home with s olar 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 $ 427 $ 437 $ 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 prog ram 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 Buildin g 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 heat ing (labeled program 1) The savings measures on their own pass the screen, and show positive ne t benefits of $646, however the benefits are not adequate to cover the program costs, (estimat ed 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 wate r 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 in formation in considering ou r findings. Societal cost effectiveness screening is beyond the scope of th is 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 savi ngs 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 washin g 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 us e. We then spread these savings over the 4 houses and came to an average annual water savings of 9213 ga llons/year, which we consider ed a conservative estimate.

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 11 

## • Homeowner awareness. Costs, and perceptions about costs, are typically on e 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 si te, 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 la sting materials with commensurate warranty, stainless fasteners, these equate to maintenance savings, occupant health;

• Occupant health and IAQ - non-toxic material s 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 redu ction, etc. These equate to the numerous

societal benefits associated with m inimizing overall impact of construction;

• Reduced emissions – reduced need for com bustion of fossil fuels and the resulting emissions into the atmosphere;

• Occupant education (Owners manual, pho to-journal of construction, properly functioning mechanicals.) This practice sav es 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 d eed. 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 li ving”. 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 Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 12 

## • Reduced litigation expense;

• Reduction in mold and mildew risks; aver ted health and building maintenance expenses;

• Productivity – level of education, increa sed 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 pa yback period, so we see it not as an expense but an investment. We just boug ht all our energy up front!”

VI. Residential green building standards going forward

The Cape Light Compact’s residential demonstrat ion project utilized the Vermont Built Green checklist as the standard for the four pilot ho mes. The Vermont Built Green (now Vermont Builds Greener) checklist has been updated and ed ited since CLC used the VBG checklist with the participants at the beginning of the pilot. In a ddition, a guidebook has also been developed which describes each approach in more detail, d efines the rationale behind each approach, and lists resources available to help individuals ac hieve 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 gu idebook’s contents over the past two years. While the VBG checklist was being used as a guid e 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 resi dential green building standard, LEED for Homes. The resulting LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Homes Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consen sus-based national standard for developing highperformance, sustainable residential buildings. When the USGBC took a new approach and requested local and regio nal organizations to provide technical, marketing and verification sup port 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 th e LEED for Homes standard was similar enough to

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g Demonstration Project Evaluation

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Page 13 

## the VBG standard that they could begin util izing the LEED for Homes ch ecklist and supporting documents to provide a dual certif ication for VBG and LEED for Homes. VEIC spent a great deal of time comparing th e various residential green building standards available to residents of Massachusetts through our work developing the Green Homes Northeast (GHNE) residential green building standard. Throu gh 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 foun dation 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, ener gy use, resource impacts, and homeowner awareness. In addition, an opportunity wa s 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 bet ween LEED for Homes and VBG. While both programs factored in house size and penalized larg er than average homes similarly, VBG awarded smaller than average homes more points than L EED for Homes. VBG also requires that homes not be built on prime agricult ural 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 opti onal 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 no n-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 Ho mes that are optional or not listed in VBG including leaving 40% of the lot undisturbed; install ing 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 regio nalize the LEED standard. There is a need for the USGBC to recognize regional concerns or issues that are not sufficientl y addressed in the LEED for Homes

standard. The VBG committee feels there is also a need to maintain an op tional more rigorous or stringent standard or requirement that en courages environmentally conscious builders or homeowners to strive for and be recognized for a higher standard of green building.

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g 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 Hom es standard here in Vermont.

As the Cape Light Compact moves forward with a gr een 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 build ing industry towards more sustainable practices. Currently, there
are over 19,000 LEED Accredited Professionals su pporting 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 p rojects, 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 impa ct 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 th at 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 understand s 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 nece ssary to meet the dem and for information about this burgeoning field.

### Cape Light Compact 2003 Green Buildin g 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 Buildin g 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