Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 1

ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL FOR 

VERMONT

Final Report

Prepared for:

VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE

April 2011

GDS Associates, Inc. 

1850 Parkway Place

Suite 800

Marietta, GA 30067

770.425.8100

770.426.0303 (Fax)

www.gdsassociates.com 

GDS Associates, Inc.

Engineers and Consultants
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Study Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Results Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 4

2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................................... 7

3 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................11

3.1 Introduction to Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 11

3.1.1 General Benefits of Energy Efficiency................................................................................................ 11

3.2 The Vermont Context ............................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.1 Continuing Customer Growth .......................................................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Energy Efficiency Activity................................................................................................................ 13

3.2.3 Recent Energy Efficiency Potential Studies........................................................................................ 13

3.3 Purpose of this Study................................................................................................................................. 14

3.4 Report Organization .................................................................................................................................. 14

4 CHARACTERIZATION OF TOTAL STATE, EVT AND BED SERVICE AREAS ..................................15

4.1 EVT and BED Member Service Territories.......................................................................................... 15

4.1.1 Vermont Geographic and Demographic Characteristics..................................................................... 15

4.1.2 Historical Electric Sales and Electric Customers in Vermont ........................................................... 17

4.2 Load Forecasts Excluding Sales and Peak Load of IBM..................................................................... 18

4.3 Forecast of Energy Sales & Peak Demand (2012-2031)...................................................................... 18

4.4 Current EEU DSM Offerings.................................................................................................................. 22

4.4.1 Current Efficiency Vermont Programs.............................................................................................. 22

4.4.2 Current Programs Offered by the Burlington Electric Department..................................................... 25

5 OVERALL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH................................................................... 28

5.1 Measure List Development....................................................................................................................... 28

5.2 Measure Characterization.......................................................................................................................... 28

5.3 Impacts of Early Replacement Programmatic Approach.................................................................... 30

5.4 Potential Savings Overview...................................................................................................................... 32

5.5 Technical Potential..................................................................................................................................... 33

5.5.1 Core Equation for the Residential Sector.......................................................................................... 33

5.5.2 Core Equation for the Commercial and Industrial Sector.................................................................. 35

5.6 Economic Potential.................................................................................................................................... 36

5.7 Maximum Achievable Potential ............................................................................................................... 36

5.8 Resource Plan Scenarios............................................................................................................................ 36

5.9 Determining Cost-Effectiveness.............................................................................................................. 37

5.9.1 The Total Resource Cost Test........................................................................................................... 38

5.9.2 The Participant Test ........................................................................................................................ 38

5.9.3 The Rate Impact Measure Test ........................................................................................................ 38

5.9.4 The Utility Cost Test....................................................................................................................... 39

5.9.5 The Vermont Societal Test............................................................................................................... 39

5.10 Avoided Costs............................................................................................................................................. 40

5.11 Treatment of Existing Efficient Equipment Stock and its Effect on the Potential Study ............. 40

5.12 Free-Ridership versus Free-Drivers ........................................................................................................ 41

6 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL ESTIMATES (2012 TO 2031)........................... 43
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page ii

6.1 Energy Efficiency Measures Examined.................................................................................................. 44

6.2 Residential Sector Savings Methodology Overview ............................................................................. 45

6.3 Technical and Economic Potential Savings........................................................................................... 48

6.4 Maximum Achievable Potential Savings................................................................................................. 50

6.4.1 Estimating Maximum Achievable Savings in the Residential Sector................................................. 50

6.4.2 Residential Maximum Achievable Savings Potential ........................................................................ 51

6.4.3 Impacts of Fuel Switching in the Maximum Achievable Potential Scenario....................................... 56

6.4.4 Maximum Achievable Potential Benefits & Costs ........................................................................... 56

7 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL ESTIMATES (2012 TO 2031)59

7.1 Energy Efficiency Measures Examined.................................................................................................. 60

7.2 Commercial and Industrial Sector Savings Methodology Overview ................................................. 61

7.3 Technical and Economic Potential Savings........................................................................................... 64

7.4 Maximum Achievable Potential Savings................................................................................................. 66

7.4.1 Estimating Achievable Savings in the Commercial & Industrial Sector............................................ 66

7.4.2 Commercial and Industrial Maximum Achievable Savings Potential................................................ 66

7.4.3 Maximum Achievable Potential Benefits & Costs ........................................................................... 70

8 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 73

8.1 Differences between the 2011 and 2006 Vermont Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Studies. 73

8.2 Concluding Thoughts................................................................................................................................ 74

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: GENERAL MODELING ASSUMPTIONS AND AVOIDED COSTS

APPENDIX 2: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR DATA 

APPENDIX 3: COMMERCIAL SECTOR DATA

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1: 2031 DSM POTENTIAL SAVINGS SUMMARY FOR STATE OF VERMONT.................................................................. 4

FIGURE 4-1: MAP OF VERMONT ..........................................................................................................................................................16

FIGURE 5-1: TYPES OF DSM POTENTIAL ..........................................................................................................................................32

FIGURE 5-2: CORE EQUATION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR TECHNICAL POTENTIAL......................................................33

FIGURE 5-3: GENERIC EXAMPLE OF A SUPPLY CURVE...................................................................................................................34

FIGURE 5-4: CORE EQUATION FOR COMMERCIAL SECTOR TECHNICAL POTENTIAL ..............................................................35

FIGURE 5-5: COMPONENTS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY BENEFIT/COST TESTS...........................................................................37

FIGURE 6-1: SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL AS A % OF 2031 FORECAST – VT STATEWIDE

........................................................................................................................................................................................................43

FIGURE 6-2: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR SAVINGS METHODOLOGY - BOTTOM UP APPROACH.....................................................46

FIGURE 6-3: RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY SUPPLY CURVE FOR VERMONT.................................................................49

FIGURE 6-4: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR END-USE SAVINGS AS A % OF 2019 MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL.................52

FIGURE 6-5: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR END-USE SAVINGS AS A % OF 2031 MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL.................52

FIGURE 7-1: 2031 SUMMARY OF C&I ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL...................................................................................59

FIGURE 7-2: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR METHODOLOGY – TOP-DOWN APPROACH............................................61

FIGURE 7-3: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY SUPPLY CURVE ...................................................................65

FIGURE 7-4: SECTOR END-USE SAVINGS AS A % OF TOTAL ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL – 2031 .............................................68
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page iii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1: DSM POTENTIAL SAVINGS DETAIL (BY REGION AND CUSTOMER CLASS) ............................................................. 5

TABLE 1-2: VT SOCIETAL TEST BENEFITS & COSTS (ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL - ALL SECTORS COMBINED)...................... 6

TABLE 3-1: RESULTS OF RECENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL STUDIES IN NEW ENGLAND ......................................13

TABLE 4-1: HISTORICAL VERMONT MWH SALES TO ULTIMATE CUSTOMERS BY CUSTOMER CLASS (MWH) – 2001 TO 

2009 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................17

TABLE 4-2: HISTORICAL NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS BY CUSTOMER CLASS - 2001 TO 2009 .......................................................17

TABLE 4-3: VELCO MWH SALES FORECAST FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT (WITHOUT FUTURE DSM IMPACTS)...........19

TABLE 4-4: VELCO PEAK LOAD FORECAST FOR STATE OF VERMONT (WITHOUT FUTURE DSM IMPACTS) ....................19

TABLE 4-5: 2012-2031 FORECAST MWH SALES FOR THE EVT SERVICE AREA (WITHOUT FUTURE DSM IMPACTS) ........20

TABLE 4-6: 2012-2031 FORECAST PEAK LOAD (MW) FOR THE EVT SERVICE AREA (WITHOUT FUTURE DSM IMPACTS)

........................................................................................................................................................................................................20

TABLE 4-7: 2012-2031 FORECAST MWH SALES FOR THE BED SERVICE TERRITORY (WITHOUT FUTURE DSM IMPACTS)

........................................................................................................................................................................................................21

TABLE 4-8: 2012-2031 FORECAST PEAK LOAD (MW) FOR THE BED SERVICE AREA (WITHOUT FUTURE DSM IMPACTS)

........................................................................................................................................................................................................21

TABLE 6-1: 2031 SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL ENERGY AND DEMAND SAVINGS POTENTIAL ...............................................44

TABLE 6-2: MEASURES AND PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR ANALYSIS..............................................44

TABLE 6-3: TECHNICAL ENERGY AND DEMAND POTENTIAL AND % SHARE OF RESIDENTIAL ENERGY FORECAST SALES 

AND SUMMER/WINTER PEAK DEMAND IN 2031 .................................................................................................................48

TABLE 6-4: MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE ENERGY AND DEMAND POTENTIAL AND % SHARE OF RESIDENTIAL FORECAST 

ENERGY SALES AND SUMMER/WINTER PEAK DEMAND IN 2031.....................................................................................51

TABLE 6-5: CUMULATIVE ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL ENERGY (MWH) SAVINGS POTENTIAL BY END USE FOR VT

(STATEWIDE), EVT TERRITORY, AND BED TERRITORY....................................................................................................53

TABLE 6-6: NPV ($2012) BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL ELECTRIC 

SAVINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR .................................................................................................................................57

TABLE 6-7: INCENTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE 

POTENTIAL (VT STATEWIDE)...................................................................................................................................................58

TABLE 6-8: INCENTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE 

POTENTIAL (EVT TERRITORY)................................................................................................................................................58

TABLE 6-9: INCENTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE 

POTENTIAL (BED TERRITORY)................................................................................................................................................58

TABLE 7-1: 2031 SUMMARY OF C&I ENERGY AND DEMAND SAVINGS POTENTIAL ................................................................60

TABLE 7-2: MEASURES AND PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR ANALYSIS ....................60

TABLE 7-3: 2031 SALES BY INDUSTRY TYPE......................................................................................................................................62

TABLE 7-4: 2031 SALES BY END-USE .................................................................................................................................................62

TABLE 7-5: TECHNICAL ENERGY AND DEMAND POTENTIAL AND PERCENTAGE SHARE OF C&I FORECAST ENERGY 

SALES AND PEAK DEMAND SAVINGS IN 2031.......................................................................................................................64

TABLE 7-6: ECONOMIC ENERGY AND DEMAND POTENTIAL AND PERCENTAGE SHARE OF C&I FORECAST ENERGY 

SALES AND PEAK DEMAND IN 2031........................................................................................................................................66

TABLE 7-7: MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE ENERGY AND DEMAND POTENTIAL AND PERCENTAGE SHARE OF COMMERCIAL 

AND INDUSTRIAL FORECAST ENERGY SALES AND PEAK DEMAND IN 2031 ..................................................................67

TABLE 7-8: CUMULATIVE ANNUAL C&I (MWH) SAVINGS POTENTIAL FOR VT (STATEWIDE), EVT TERRITORY, AND 

BED TERRITORY.........................................................................................................................................................................69

TABLE 7-9: CUMULATIVE ANNUAL C&I WINTER PEAK DEMAND (MW) SAVINGS POTENTIAL FOR VT (STATEWIDE),

EVT TERRITORY, AND BED TERRITORY ..............................................................................................................................69

TABLE 7-10: CUMULATIVE ANNUAL C&I SUMMER PEAK DEMAND (MW) SAVINGS POTENTIAL FOR VT (STATEWIDE),

EVT TERRITORY, AND BED TERRITORY ..............................................................................................................................69

TABLE 7-11: OVERALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SECTOR COST EFFECTIVENESS SCREENING RESULTS ...............70

TABLE 7-12: INCENTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL......................................................................................................................................72

TABLE 8-1: MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL SUMMARY.........................................................................................................73

TABLE 8-2: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2011 AND 2006 VT ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL STUDIES.............73
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In October 2010, the Vermont Department of Public Service (“VDPS”) commissioned GDS Associates, 

Inc. to conduct a study of the potential for electric energy efficiency to reduce electric consumption and 

peak demand throughout the State of Vermont. The most recent electric load forecast available from 

the Vermont Electric Company (VELCO) predicts total electricity sales and summer peak demand in the 

state to increase at average annual growth rates of 0.64% and 1.04% respectively for the period from 

2012 through 2031.1 Improving energy efficiency and lowering electric demand in homes, businesses, 

and industries can be a cost effective way to address the challenges of increasing energy costs and the 

increasing demand for energy in the state. Consequently, energy efficiency potential studies are 

important and helpful tools for identifying those energy efficiency measures that are the most cost 

effective and that have the most significant electricity savings potential.2 This energy efficiency potential 

study provides reliable estimates of how much of Vermont’s future electric service needs could be met 

through energy efficiency. The authors of this report emphasize that only energy efficiency measures that 

cost less than new power supply resources are considered to be cost effective.

This detailed report presents results from the evaluation of opportunities for energy efficiency programs 

in the service areas of Vermont’s two energy efficiency utilities (EEU).3 The Vermont Public Service 

Board (Board) has appointed the Burlington Electric Department (BED) as the EEU for the City of 

Burlington, and the Board has appointed the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation as the EEU for 

the remainder of the State, under the name “Efficiency Vermont” (EVT). For purposes of this report, 

“BED” will be used to refer to the area served by the Burlington Electric Department, and “EVT” will 

be used to refer to the area served by VEIC.

Estimates of technical potential, economic potential, and maximum achievable potential from 2012-2031 

(a 20-year period) are provided for the residential and commercial/industrial (C&I) sectors. Results from 

three (3) resource portfolios scenarios are under development to estimate the portion of the achievable 

potential that might be achieved given a specific funding level and program design. The results for these 

three resource portfolios will be made available in a subsequent report prepared by the GDS 

Associates/Cadmus Group team.

All results were developed using customized residential and commercial/industrial (C&I) sector-level 

potential assessment computer models and Vermont-specific cost effectiveness criteria including the 

most recent Vermont avoided cost projections for electricity and other fuels. To help inform these 

models, up-to-date measure saturation data were primarily obtained from the following recent studies:

1. Vermont Department of Public Service, “Analysis of On-Site Audits of Existing Homes in 

Vermont”, June 2009

 1 The most recent electric load forecast for the State of Vermont was prepared for the Vermont Electric Company 

(VELCO) by Itron, and provided to Efficiency Vermont and the VDPS through the auspices of the Vermont System 

Planning Committee (VSPC). GDS received this load forecast from Walter Poor of the VDPS via email on January 4, 

2011. The growth rates presented here reflect a load forecast that does not include the impacts of energy efficiency 

efforts undertaken by Efficiency Vermont during the forecast period. More detailed information on the electric load 

forecast for Vermont and sub-regions are provided in Section 4 of this report. 2 The avoided electric supply costs used in this study include avoided electric generation capacity and energy costs as well 

as avoided electric transmission and distribution costs.

3 The December 20, 2010 Vermont Public Service Board Order of Appointment states on page 2 that “The Board shall 

appoint one or more EEUs to undertake demand-side efficiency resource acquisition initiatives in place of utility-specific 

programs developed pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 218c.” .
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 2

2. Vermont Department of Public Service “Overall Report, Vermont Residential New 

Construction Study, Final Report”, July 2009

3. Vermont Department of Public Service, “Business Sector Market Assessment and Baseline 

Study – Existing Commercial Buildings”, July 2009

4. Vermont Department of Public Service, “Business Sector Market Assessment and Baseline 

Study – Commercial New Construction”, October 2009

5. Vermont Department of Public Service, “Business Sector Market Assessment and Baseline 

Study – Existing Industrial Facilities”, September 2009

6. Burlington Electric Department, 2005 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey

These market assessment reports provided valuable insight regarding the current saturation of electrical 

equipment and baseline levels of energy efficiency throughout the state of Vermont.

The results of this study provide detailed information on energy efficiency measures that are most cost 

effective and have the greatest potential kWh and kW savings. The data used for this report were the 

best available at the time this analysis was developed. As building and appliance codes and energy 

efficiency standards change, and as energy prices fluctuate, additional opportunities for energy efficiency 

may occur while current practices may become out-dated. 

1.1 STUDY SCOPE

The study examines the potential to reduce electric consumption and peak demand through the 

implementation of energy efficiency technologies and practices in residential, commercial, and industrial 

facilities. The study assessed energy efficiency potential throughout the EVT and BED service areas

over twenty years, from 2012 through 2031.

The study had the following main objectives:

 Evaluate the electric energy efficiency technical potential savings in the overall State of Vermont, 

as well as in the EVT and BED service areas;

 Calculate the Vermont Societal Test (“VT SCT”) benefit-cost ratio for the achievable potential 

for electric energy efficiency measures and programs and determine the electric energy efficiency 

economic potential savings for Vermont homes and businesses;

 Evaluate the potential for maximum achievable savings through electric efficiency programs over 

a twenty-year horizon (2012-2031);

 Estimate resource plan scenario savings over a twenty-year period from the delivery of a 

portfolio of example energy efficiency programs based on specific funding levels or savings 

targets. 

The scope of this study distinguishes among four types of energy efficiency potential; (1) technical, (2) 

economic, (3) maximum achievable, and (4) resource plan scenarios. The definitions used in this study 

for energy efficiency potential estimates are as follows:

 Technical Potential is the theoretical maximum amount of energy use that could be displaced 

by efficiency, disregarding all non-engineering constraints such as cost-effectiveness and the 

willingness of end-users to adopt the efficiency measures. It is often estimated as a “snapshot” in 

time assuming immediate implementation of all technologically feasible energy saving measures, 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 3

with additional efficiency opportunities assumed as they arise from activities such as new

construction.4

• Economic potential refers to the subset of the technical potential that is economically costeffective as compared to conventional supply-side energy resources. Both technical and 

economic potential are theoretical numbers that assume immediate implementation of efficiency 

measures, with no regard for the gradual “ramping up” process of real-life programs. In addition, 

they ignore market barriers to ensuring actual implementation of efficiency. Finally, they only 

consider the costs of efficiency measures themselves, ignoring any programmatic costs (e.g., 

marketing, analysis, administration) that would be necessary to capture them.5

 Achievable potential is the amount of energy use that efficiency can realistically be expected to 

displace assuming the most aggressive program scenario possible (e.g., providing end-users with 

payments for the entire incremental cost of more efficiency equipment). This is often referred to 

as maximum achievable potential. Achievable potential takes into account real-world barriers to 

convincing end-users to adopt efficiency measures, the non-measure costs of delivering 

programs (for administration, marketing, tracking systems, monitoring and evaluation, etc.), and 

the capability of programs and administrators to ramp up program activity over time.6

 Resource Plan Scenarios - Results from three (3) resource portfolios scenarios are under 

development to estimate the portion of the achievable potential that might be achieved given 

specific funding levels and program designs. The results of these resource plan scenarios will be 

presented in a supplemental report.

Limitations to the scope of study: As with any assessment of energy efficiency potential, this study necessarily 

builds on a large number of assumptions, including the following:

 Energy efficiency measure lives, measure savings and measure costs 

 The discount rate for determining the net present value of future savings

 Projected penetration rates for energy efficiency measures

 Projections of electric generation avoided costs for electric capacity and energy

 Projections of avoided costs for externalities (e.g. carbon)

 Projections of avoided costs for other fuels (heating oil, natural gas, propane)

 Electric transmission and distribution avoided costs

While the authors have sought to use the best available data, there are many assumptions where there 

may be reasonable alternative assumptions that would yield somewhat different results. Furthermore, 

while the lists of measures examined in this study represent most commercially available measures, these 

measure lists are not exhaustive. Finally there was no attempt to place a dollar value on some difficult to 

quantify benefits arising from installation of some measures, such as increased comfort or increased 

safety, which may in turn support some personal choices to implement particular measures that may 

otherwise not be cost-effective or only marginally so.

 4 National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, “Guide for Conducting Energy Efficiency Potential Studies”, page 2-4. 5 Id.

6 Id.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 4

1.2 RESULTS OVERVIEW

Figure 1-1, presented below, shows that cost effective electric energy efficiency resources can play a 

significantly expanded role in the Vermont energy resource mix over the next 20 years. For the total 

State of Vermont, the technical potential for energy efficiency is 31.7% of forecasted kWh sales in 2031, 

twenty years from now.7 The energy efficiency economic and achievable potential in 2031 are 29.2% and 

25.4% of forecasted kWh sales in 2031. The technical, economic and achievable electric demand savings 

for the state as a whole are 28.6%, 27.6% and 23.4% (respectively) of forecasted winter peak demand in 

2031. The technical, economic and achievable electric demand savings for the state as a whole are 24.3%, 

23.4% and 19.9% (respectively) of forecasted summer peak demand in 2031.

Figure 1-1: 2031 DSM Potential Savings Summary for State of Vermont

(DSM Potential as a Percent of Forecasted Vermont kWh Sales in 2031)

This study examined over 400 energy efficiency measure permutations in the residential, commercial and 

industrial sectors combined. 

Table 1-1 below presents detailed information on the technical, economic and achievable energy 

efficiency savings potential for all sectors combined for the BED service area, for the EVT service area, 

and for the BED and EVT service areas combined. Further information on the energy efficiency 

potential by sector is provided in Sections 6 and 7 of this report. 

 7 All energy and demand savings presented in this report are at the end-consumer (meter) level unless specifically noted 

otherwise in this report. See Section 5.10 of this report for information on the assumptions used in this study for freeridership and spillover.

31.7%

29.2%

25.4%

28.6% 27.6%

22.9%

24.3% 23.4%

19.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Technical 

Potential

Economic 

Potential

Max. Achievable

Potential

Energy Winter MW Summer MW
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 5

Table 1-1: DSM Potential Savings Detail (by Region and Customer Class)

State-wide

Technical Potential 1,791,525 31.7% 278.5 28.6% 264.2 24.3%

Economic Potential 1,651,605 29.2% 268.6 27.6% 255.0 23.4%

Achievable Potential 1,435,673 25.4% 223.1 22.9% 216.3 19.9%

EVT Territory 0

Technical Potential 1,670,541 31.8% 262.7 28.7% 246.7 24.4%

Economic Potential 1,540,843 29.3% 253.5 27.7% 238.5 23.6%

Achievable Potential 1,338,255 25.5% 210.3 23.0% 202.0 20.0%

BED Territory

Technical Potential 120,985 30.0% 15.8 27.6% 17.5 22.6%

Economic Potential 110,762 27.5% 15.1 26.3% 16.4 21.2%

Achievable Potential 97,418 24.1% 12.8 22.4% 14.3 18.4%

State-wide

Technical Potential 1,011,825 42.4% 215.6 46.0% 159.2 36.8%

Economic Potential 966,837 40.6% 211.9 45.2% 158.5 36.7%

Achievable Potential 819,382 34.4% 172.2 36.7% 129.5 30.0%

EVT Territory

Technical Potential 965,853 42.2% 205.6 45.5% 151.6 36.5%

Economic Potential 921,663 40.2% 202.0 44.7% 151.2 36.4%

Achievable Potential 780,993 34.1% 164.0 36.3% 123.3 29.7%

BED Territory

Technical Potential 45,972 49.1% 10.0 57.4% 7.6 46.1%

Economic Potential 45,174 48.3% 9.9 56.7% 7.4 44.6%

Achievable Potential 38,389 41.0% 8.2 46.7% 6.1 37.1%

State-wide

Technical Potential 779,700 23.8% 62.9 12.5% 105.1 16.0%

Economic Potential 684,768 20.9% 56.6 11.2% 96.4 14.7%

Achievable Potential 616,291 18.8% 51.0 10.1% 86.8 13.2%

EVT Territory

Technical Potential 704,688 23.8% 57.1 12.3% 95.2 16.0%

Economic Potential 619,180 20.9% 51.4 11.1% 87.4 14.7%

Achievable Potential 557,262 18.8% 46.3 10.0% 78.6 13.2%

BED Territory

Technical Potential 75,013 24.2% 5.8 14.6% 9.9 16.3%

Economic Potential 65,588 21.2% 5.2 13.0% 9.1 14.8%

Achievable Potential 59,029 19.0% 4.7 11.7% 8.2 13.4%

Energy 

(MWh)

% of 2031 

Sales

Winter 

MW

% of 2031 

Winter Peak

Summer 

MW

% of 2031 

Summer Peak

Energy Demand

ALL SECTORS COMBINED

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 6

Table 1-2 below presents the results of the Vermont Societal Test calculations for the achievable

potential for three areas: the BED service area, the EVT service area, and the combined service areas of 

EVT and BED. It is clear that the level of kWh and kW savings represented by the achievable potential 

is very cost effective, with a Societal Test ratio for the overall state of 2.6 to 1. This means that for every 

dollar spent by Vermont ratepayers on energy efficiency programs, $2.60 of benefits are returned to 

ratepayers.

Table 1-2: VT Societal Test Benefits & Costs (Achievable Potential - All Sectors Combined)

 Electric Non-Electric Non-Energy Total Benefits Measure Admin Total Costs

State-wide

NPV $2012 $2,051.1 $307.6 $45.3 $2,404.0 $637.8 $304.6 $942.4 2.6

EVT Territory

NPV $2012 $1,909.7 $295.6 $42.5 $2,247.8 $601.4 $283.7 $885.1 2.5

BED Territory

NPV $2012 $141.3 $12.1 $2.8 $156.2 $36.4 $20.9 $57.4 2.7

Costs

B/C 

(in millions) in millions Ratio

Benefits
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 7

2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS8

The following list defines many of the key energy efficiency terms used throughout this study. 

Achievable potential: the amount of energy use that efficiency can realistically be expected to displace 

assuming the most aggressive program scenario possible (e.g., providing end-users with payments for the 

entire incremental cost of more efficient equipment). This is often referred to as maximum achievable 

potential. Achievable potential takes into account real-world barriers to convincing end-users to adopt 

efficiency measures, the non-measure costs of delivering programs (for administration, marketing, 

tracking systems, monitoring and evaluation, etc.), and the capability of programs and administrators to 

ramp up program activity over time.

Applicability factor: the fraction of the applicable dwelling units or businesses that is technically 

feasible for conversion to the efficient technology from an engineering perspective (e.g., it may not be 

possible to install CFLs in all light sockets in a home because the CFLs may not fit in every socket in a 

home).

Base Case Equipment End-Use Intensity: the electricity used per customer per year by each basecase technology in each market segment. This is the consumption of the electric energy using equipment 

that the efficient technology replaces or affects. For example, if the efficient measure is a high efficiency 

light bulb (CFL), the base end-use intensity would be the annual kWh use per bulb per household 

associated with an incandescent light bulb that provides equivalent lumens to the CFL. 

Base Case Factor: the fraction of the market that is applicable for the efficient technology in a given 

market segment. For example, for residential lighting, this would be the fraction of all residential electric 

customers that have electric lighting in their household.

Coincidence factor: the fraction of connected load expected to be “on” and using electricity coincident 

with the system peak period.

Cost-effectiveness: a measure of the relevant economic effects resulting from the implementation of 

an energy efficiency measure. If the benefits are greater than the costs, the measure is said to be costeffective.

Cumulative annual: refers to the overall annual savings occurring in a given year from both new 

participants and annual savings continuing to result from past participation with measures that are still in 

place. Cumulative annual does not always equal the sum of all prior year incremental values as some 

measures have relatively short lives and, as a result, their savings drop off over time.

Early replacement: refers to an efficiency measure or efficiency program that seeks to encourage the 

replacement of functional equipment before the end of its operating life with higher-efficiency units

Economic potential: refers to the subset of the technical potential that is economically cost-effective as 

compared to conventional supply-side energy resources. Both technical and economic potential are 

theoretical numbers that assume immediate implementation of efficiency measures, with no regard for 

the gradual “ramping up” process of real-life programs. In addition, they ignore market barriers to 

ensuring actual implementation of efficiency. Finally, they only consider the costs of efficiency measures 

 8 Potential definitions taken from “National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2007). Guide for Conducting Energy 

Efficiency Potential Studies. Prepared by Philip Mosenthal and Jeffrey Loiter, Optimal Energy, Inc. 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 8

themselves, ignoring any programmatic costs (e.g., marketing, analysis, administration) that would be 

necessary to capture them. 

End-use: a category of equipment or service that consumes energy (e.g., lighting, refrigeration, heating, 

process heat, cooling). 

Energy efficiency: using less energy to provide the same or an improved level of service to the energy 

consumer in an economically efficient way. Sometimes “conservation” is used as a synonym, but that 

term is usually taken to mean using less of a resource even if this results in a lower service level (e.g., 

setting a thermostat lower or reducing lighting levels). 

Free Driver: individuals or businesses that adopt an energy efficient product or service because of an 

energy efficiency program, but are difficult to identify either because they do not receive an incentive or 

are not aware of the program. Nonparticipant spillover is defined as savings from efficiency projects 

implemented by those who did not directly participate in a program, but which nonetheless occurred due 

to the influence of the program. Participant spillover is defined as additional energy efficiency actions 

taken by program participants as a result of program influence, but actions that go beyond those directly 

subsidized or required by the program.9

Free Rider: participants in an energy efficiency program who would have adopted an energy efficiency 

technology or improvement in the absence of a program or financial incentive.

Gross Savings: Gross energy (or demand) savings are the change in energy consumption or demand 

that results directly from program-promoted actions (e.g., installing energy-efficient lighting) taken by 

program participants regardless of the extent or nature of program influence on their actions. 

Incremental: savings or costs in a given year associated only with new installations happening in that 

specific year.

Lost-opportunity: refers to an energy efficiency measure or energy efficiency program that seeks to 

encourage the selection of higher-efficiency equipment or building practices than would typically be 

chosen at the time of a purchase or design decision.10

Measure: any action taken to increase energy efficiency, whether through changes in equipment,

changes to a building shell, implementation of control strategies, or changes in consumer behavior. 

Examples are higher-efficiency central air conditioners, occupancy sensor control of lighting, and retrocommissioning. In some cases, bundles of technologies or practices may be modeled as single measures. 

For example, an ENERGY STAR® TM home package may be treated as a single measure. 

MW: a unit of electrical output, equal to one million watts or one thousand kilowatts. It is typically used 

to refer to the output of a power plant. 

MWh: one thousand kilowatt-hours, or one million watt-hours. One MWh is equal to the use of 

1,000,000 watts of power in one hour.

 9 The definitions of participant and nonparticipant spillover were obtained from the National Action Plan for Energy 

Efficiency Report titled “Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide”, November 2007, page ES-4. 10 In Vermont, it is common practice to refer to this as “market opportunity”.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 9

Net-to-gross ratio: a factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that is 

applied to gross program impacts to convert them into net program load impacts

Net Savings: Net energy or demand savings refer to the portion of gross savings that is attributable to 

the program. This involves separating out the impacts that are a result of other influences, such as 

consumer self-motivation. Given the range of influences on consumers’ energy consumption, attributing 

changes to one cause (i.e., a particular program) or another can be quite complex. 

Portfolio: Either a collection of similar programs addressing the same market, technology, or 

mechanisms; or the set of all programs conducted by one energy efficiency organization or utility.

Program: a mechanism for encouraging energy efficiency that may be funded by a variety of sources and 

pursued by a wide range of approaches (typically includes multiple measures).

Remaining factor: the fraction of applicable units that have not yet been converted to the electric 

energy efficiency measure; that is, one minus the fraction of units that already have the energy efficiency 

measure installed.

Replace-on-burnout: a DSM measure is not implemented until the existing technology it is replacing 

fails. An example would be an energy efficient water heater being purchased after the failure of the 

existing water heater.

Retrofit: refers to an efficiency measure or efficiency program that seeks to encourage the replacement 

of functional equipment before the end of its operating life with higher-efficiency units (also called “early 

retirement”) or the installation of additional controls, equipment, or materials in existing facilities for 

purposes of reducing energy consumption (e.g., increased insulation, low flow devices, lighting 

occupancy controls, economizer ventilation systems). 

Savings factor: the percentage reduction in electricity consumption resulting from application of the 

efficient technology used in the formulas for technical potential screens.

Technical potential: the theoretical maximum amount of energy use that could be displaced by 

efficiency, disregarding all non-engineering constraints such as cost-effectiveness and the willingness of 

end-users to adopt the efficiency measures. It is often estimated as a “snapshot” in time assuming 

immediate implementation of all technologically feasible energy saving measures, with additional 

efficiency opportunities assumed as they arise from activities such as new construction. 

Total Resource Cost Test: The TRC measures the net benefits of the energy efficiency program for a

region or service area as a whole. Costs included in the TRC are costs to purchase and install the energy 

efficiency measure and overhead costs of running the energy efficiency program. The benefits included 

are the avoided costs of energy and capacity. 

Vermont Societal Test (“VT SCT”) Test: includes all of the costs and benefits of the TRC test, but it 

also includes environmental and other non-energy benefits that are not currently valued by the market. 

The SCT may also include non-energy costs, such as reduced customer comfort levels.11 See Section 5.9 

for a full discussion of the costs and benefits included in the calculation of the Vermont Societal Test.

 11 In this study, non-energy costs for reduced custom comfort levels have not been reflected in any of the calculations of 

the Vermont Societal Test.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 10

Useful Life: The number of years (or hours) that the new energy efficient equipment is expected to 

function. Useful life is also commonly referred to as “measure life.”
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 11

3 INTRODUCTION

This report assesses the potential for energy efficiency programs to assist Vermont in meeting future 

energy service needs. This section of the report provides the following information:

 defines the term “energy efficiency”, 

 describes the general benefits of energy efficiency programs 

 provides results of similar energy efficiency potential studies conducted in other New 

England states

 presents the organization of this report

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Efficient energy use, often referred to as energy efficiency, is using less energy to provide the same level 

of energy service. An example would be insulating a home or business to use less heating and cooling 

energy to achieve the same inside temperature. Another example would be installing fluorescent lighting 

in place of incandescent lights to attain the same level of illumination. Energy efficiency can be achieved 

through more efficient technologies and/or processes as well as through changes in individual behavior.

3.1.1 GENERAL BENEFITS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

There are a number of benefits that accrue to the State of Vermont due to energy efficiency programs. 

These benefits include avoided energy and capacity cost savings, non-electric benefits such as water and 

fossil fuel savings, environmental benefits, economic stimulus, job creation, risk reduction, and energy 

security.

Avoided electric energy and capacity costs are based upon the costs an electric utility would incur to 

construct and operate new electric power plants or to purchase power from another source. These

avoided costs of electricity include both fixed and variable costs that can be directly avoided through a 

reduction in electricity usage. The energy component includes the costs associated with the production 

of electricity, while the capacity component includes costs associated with the capability to deliver 

electric energy during peak periods. Capacity costs consist primarily of the costs associated with building 

peaking generation facilities. The electric and other fuel avoided costs used in this study are ones 

developed for the region and adopted by the Vermont Public Service Board.12

At the consumer level, energy efficient products often cost more than their standard efficiency 

counterparts, but this additional cost is balanced by lower energy consumption and lower energy bills. 

Over time, the money saved from energy efficient products will pay consumers back for their initial 

investment as well as save them money. Although some energy efficient technologies are complex and 

expensive, such as installing new high efficiency windows or a high efficiency boiler, many are simple 

and inexpensive. Installing compact fluorescent lighting or low-flow water devices can be done by most 

individuals.

Although the reduction in energy and capacity costs is the primary benefit to be gained from investments 

in energy efficiency, the utility, its consumers, and society as a whole can also benefit in other ways. 

Many electric efficiency measures also deliver non-energy benefits. For example, low-flow water devices 

 12 Avoided Energy Supply Component Study Group, report titled “Avoided Energy Supply Costs in New England: 2009 

Report”, dated October 23, 2009.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 12

and efficient clothes washers also reduce water consumption.13 Similarly, weatherization measures that 

improve the building shell not only save on air conditioning costs in the summer, but also can save the 

customer money on space heating fuels, such as natural gas or propane. Reducing electricity 

consumption also reduces harmful emissions, such as SOX, NOX, CO2 and particulates into the 

environment.14 The Burlington Electric Department’s 2009 Annual Energy Efficiency Report states that 

the environmental impacts avoided by decreasing the need for electricity are of increasing importance to 

the ratepayers of Burlington. The energy savings (5,470 MWh) generated by BED’s energy efficiency 

programs in 2009 alone will have avoided the release of about 45,872 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2); the 

equivalent of removing about 1,265 cars from U.S. highways each year for the next 12 years.15

Energy efficiency programs create both direct and indirect jobs. The manufacture and installation of 

energy efficiency products involves the manufacturing sector as well as research and development, 

service, and installation jobs. These are skilled positions that are not easily outsourced to other states and 

countries. The indirect jobs are more difficult to quantify, but result from households and businesses 

experiencing increased discretionary income from reduced energy bills. These savings produce multiplier 

effects, such as increased investment in other goods and services driving job creation in other markets.

Energy efficiency reduces risks associated with fuel price volatility, unanticipated capital cost increases, 

environmental regulations, supply shortages, and energy security. Aggressive energy efficiency programs 

can help eliminate or postpone the risk associated with committing to large investments for generation 

facilities a decade or more before they are needed.16 Energy efficiency is also not subject to the same 

supply and transportation constraints that impact fossil fuels. Finally, energy efficiency reduces 

competition between states and utilities for fuels, and dependence on fuels imported from other states or

countries to support electricity production. Energy efficiency can help meet future demand increases and 

reduce dependence on out-of-state or overseas resources. The Vermont Societal Test includes an 

environmental adder of $.0070 per kWh saved (in $2000) and a 10% reduction to costs to account for 

the risk diversification benefits of energy efficiency measures and programs 

3.2 THE VERMONT CONTEXT

3.2.1 CONTINUING CUSTOMER GROWTH

The annual kWh sales and electric peak loads for the areas served by BED and EVT are growing. From 

2000 to 2009, the number of Vermont electric utility customers grew at a rate of approximately 1% 

annually. The latest available Vermont Electric Company (VELCO) load forecast for the State of 

Vermont projects that the number of electric consumers in Vermont will continue to increase at an 

average annual growth rate of approximately 1% from 2012 through 2031 (the timeframe for this study) 

 13 The ENERGY STAR web site (www.energystar.gov) states that “ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers use 

about 37% less energy and use over 50% less water than regular washers”. 14 The 2009 ENERGY STAR Annual Report states that “2009 was another banner year for EPA’s climate protection 

partnerships. More than 19,500 organizations across the country have partnered with EPA and achieved outstanding 

results: (1) Preventing 83 million metric tons (in MMTCE2) of GHGs—equivalent to the emissions from 56 million 

vehicles (see Figure 4, p. 6)—and net savings to consumers and businesses of about $18 billion in 2009 alone. (2)

Preventing more than 1,200 MMTCE of GHGs cumulatively and providing net savings to consumers and businesses 

of more than $250 billion over the lifetime of their investments.” See page 2 of this Annual Report.

15 Burlington Electric Department, 2009 Annual Energy Efficiency Report, page 3. 16 According to the Final Order in Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 5270, the Societal Test calculation in 

Vermont includes a 10% reduction to costs to account for the risk diversification benefits of energy efficiency measures 

and programs.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 13

creating further growth in system electricity sales and demand. This report assesses the potential for

energy efficiency programs to assist Vermont in meeting future energy service needs.

3.2.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITY 

Making homes and buildings more energy efficient is seen as a key strategy for addressing energy 

security, reducing reliance on fossil fuels from other countries, assisting consumers to lower energy bills, 

and addressing concerns about climate change. Faced with rapidly increasing energy prices, constraints in 

energy supply and demand, and energy reliability concerns, states are turning to energy efficiency as the 

most reliable, cost-effective, and quickest resource to deploy.17 The State of Vermont has been a pioneer 

in developing and implementing effective energy efficiency programs. Vermont was the first state in the 

US to have an energy efficiency utility (EEU).

3.2.3 RECENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL STUDIES

In January 2007, the Vermont Department of Public Service released a study on the achievable potential 

for electricity savings in Vermont.18 Overall, the study found that substantial potential savings remain: 

the achievable energy efficiency savings potential was estimated at 19% of total Vermont electric 

consumption by 2015. Table 3-1, below, provides the results from a GDS review of recent energy 

efficiency potential studies conducted throughout New England. 

Table 3-1: Results of Recent Energy Efficiency Potential Studies in New England

A 2010 report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) offers information 

regarding the current savings and spending related to energy efficiency by state.19

 17 The December 2008 National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE) “Vision for 2025: A Framework for 

Change” states that “the long-term aspirational goal for the Action Plan is to achieve all cost-effective energy efficiency 

by the year 2025. Based on studies, the efficiency resource available may be able to meet 50 percent or more of the 

expected load growth over this time frame, similar to meeting 20 percent of electricity consumption and 10 percent of 

natural gas consumption. The benefits from achieving this magnitude of energy efficiency nationally can be estimated to 

be more than $100 billion in lower energy bills in 2025 than would otherwise occur, over $500 billion in net savings, and 

substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

 Based on self-reported 

data, the top states spend more than 2% of electric sales revenue on energy efficiency programs. Five of 

the six New England states (including Vermont) rank in the top ten states on the ACEEE scorecard. In 

addition, the top states are currently achieving annual energy efficiency savings of roughly 1% of total 

electric sales. 

18 Vermont Department of Public Service, “Vermont Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Study, Final Report”, 

prepared for the Department by GDS Associates, Inc., January 2007.

19 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “The 2010 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard”, Report #E107, 

October 2010.

State Study Year Author Study Period # of Years

Achievable 

Potential

Connecticut 2009 KEMA 2009-2018 10 20.3%

New Hampshire 2009 GDS 2009-2018 10 20.5%

Rhode Island 2008 KEMA 2009-2018 10 9.0%

Vermont 2007 GDS 2006-2015 10 19.4%
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 14

Vermont ranks #1 of the 50 states in terms of annual kWh savings as a percent of total retail kWh sales 

in a state. In the ACEEE scorecard report, Vermont is reported as spending 4.4% of revenue in 2009 on 

energy efficiency programs, and saving 2.6% of kWh sales (in 2008) from energy efficiency programs.

Vermont ranked #1 on spending on energy efficiency of the 50 states (annual energy efficiency spending 

as a percent of annual electric revenues). 

3.3 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

 

This study provides an analysis of the technical, economic and achievable potential for electric energy 

efficiency resources in Vermont. This study has examined a full array of energy efficiency technologies

and building practices that may be deemed technically achievable, including measures that aren’t available 

currently but are expected to be on the market within the study timeline, such as measures enabled by 

advanced metering infrastructure, that address both annual energy and peak demand. 

3.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The remainder of this report is organized in the following seven sections as follows:

Section 4: Characterization of EVT and BED Service Areas provides an overview of the EVT and 

BED service areas and a brief discussion of the historical and forecasted electric energy sales as well as 

peak demand.

Section 5: Overall Project Implementation Approach details the development of technical, 

economic, and achievable potential for energy efficiency savings

Section 6: Residential Energy Efficiency Potential Estimates (2012-2031) provides a breakdown of 

the technical, economic, and maximum achievable potential in the residential sector

Section 7: Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential Estimates (2012-2031) provides 

a breakdown of the technical, economic, and achievable potential in the C&I sectors

Section 8: Conclusions presents the final discussion regarding potential for energy efficiency savings 

through 2031.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 15

4 CHARACTERIZATION OF TOTAL STATE, EVT AND BED SERVICE AREAS

Energy efficiency potential studies and other market assessment studies are valuable sources of 

information for planning energy efficiency programs. In order to develop estimates of electricity savings 

potential, it is important to understand the extent to which electricity is used by households and 

businesses in Vermont, as well as in the EVT and BED service areas.20 This section provides a brief 

overview of the economic/demographic characteristics of the State of Vermont and the EVT and BED 

service areas. Data are also presented for the historical and forecasted electric energy sales and system 

peak demand, and the on-going energy efficiency efforts of EVT and BED.

4.1 EVT AND BED MEMBER SERVICE TERRITORIES

This section provides information on economic, demographic, geographic and appliance saturation 

characteristics of the State of Vermont. In order to develop estimates of electricity savings potential, it is 

important to understand how electricity is used by households and businesses in Vermont. Vermont is a 

rural state with a population of approximately 625,741 persons in 2010, and 314,246 housing units.21 The 

State’s population only grew 2.8% between 2000 and 2010, whereas the population in the entire US grew 

9.1%. That rate of growth was Vermont's slowest since the Great Depression era, when the state's 

population fell 0.1 percent. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 14.5% of the population in Vermont

was 65 or older in 2009. 

4.1.1 VERMONT GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Vermont is the second largest state (in terms of surface area) in New England after Maine. Dominating 

the state's geography are the Green Mountains, one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world. The 

nation's sixth largest lake, Lake Champlain, runs along the state's western border. 

In comparison with the other forty-nine states, Vermont is small in total area (9,609 square miles). 

Delivering energy efficiency services in a small state like Vermont presents different challenges than in 

larger states like Alaska, California and Texas. The State is bordered by Canada, New York, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. It is 157.4 miles in length, 90.3 miles wide at the Canadian border, 

and 41.6 miles along the Massachusetts border. The Connecticut River forms the eastern boundary, 

while the western boundary runs down the middle of Lake Champlain for more than half of its length. 

Burlington is the largest of Vermont’s 255 communities, and it had an estimated population of 38,64722

in 2009 according to the US Census Bureau.

As of the census of 2000, the population density for Burlington was 3,682 people per square mile 

(1,421.9/km2). There were 16,395 housing units in Burlington at an average density of 1,552.3 units per 

square mile (599.4/km2). As of 2000, there were 15,885 households in Burlington out of which 21.3% 

had children under the age of 18 living with them, 31.4% were married couples living together, 10.0% 

had a female householder with no husband present, and 55.6% were non-families. 35.6% of all 

households were made up of individuals and 8.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or 

older. The average household size was 2.19 and the average family size was 2.86.

 20 The Vermont Public Service Board has appointed the Burlington Electric Department (BED) as the EEU for the City 

of Burlington, and the Board has appointed the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation as the EEU for the remainder 

of the State, under the name “Efficiency Vermont” (EVT). For purposes of this report, “BED” will be used to refer to 

the area served by the Burlington Electric Department, and “EVT” will be used to refer to the area served by VEIC. 21 The Vermont population data for 2010 was obtained from US Census Bureau. 22 US Census Bureau, 2009 population estimate for Burlington, Vermont.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 16

In Burlington the population was spread out with 16.3% under the age of 18, 25.4% from 18 to 24, 

31.0% from 25 to 44, 16.8% from 45 to 64, and 10.5% who were 65 years of age or older. The median 

age was 29 years. For every 100 females there were 93.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, 

there were 90.7 males.

The demographic data for the remainder of the state show the more rural nature of this area. There are 

3,683 persons per square mile in the City of Burlington, whereas there are only 63 persons per square 

mile in the remainder of the state (the region outside of Burlington. Thus the region served by EVT has 

significantly fewer persons per square mile than the region served by BED. It is also interesting that 

Vermont has a greater percentage of the population age 65 and older (13.8%) than the US as a whole 

(12.6%). 

The economic/demographic data for a state or service area are important to understand when 

developing estimates of energy efficiency potential. For example, one needs to know how many housing 

units there are in a service area in order to estimate the number of appliances that are plugged into the 

electric grid in an area. In addition, the composition (age breakdowns, etc.) of the population is 

important for the development of marketing strategies for different types of energy efficiency programs.

.

Figure 4-1: Map of Vermont
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 17

4.1.2 HISTORICAL ELECTRIC S ALES AND ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS IN VERMONT

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show historical Vermont data for annual kWh sales and electric customers by class of 

service. From 2000 to 2009, MWh sales to ultimate electric customers in Vermont decreased at a rate of -

0.19 percent per year. From 2000 to 2009, the number of ultimate electric customers increased at a rate 

of 1 percent per year.

According to 2009 historical sales data, the residential sector accounts for approximately 86% of total 

customers and nearly 38% of total energy sales while the commercial and industrial sectors account for 

36% and 25%, respectively. Although the residential sector constitutes the greatest portion of total kWh 

sales, the industrial sector consumes the most energy on a per customer basis. The average industrial 

facility consumes roughly 5.9 million kWh annually. Comparatively, the average commercial consumer 

uses approximately 40,500 kWh per year, while the residential consumers use 6,905 kWh per year on 

average.

Table 4-1: Historical Vermont MWh Sales to Ultimate Customers by Customer Class (MWh) – 2001 to 2009

Table 4-2: Historical Number of Customers by Customer Class - 2001 to 2009

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Total

2001 2,009,279 1,920,847 1,611,750 5,541,876

2002 2,046,101 1,943,752 1,592,436 5,582,290

2003 2,128,702 1,911,512 1,561,371 5,601,585

2004 2,141,488 1,926,616 1,638,954 5,707,058

2005 2,190,529 2,037,152 1,619,651 5,847,333

2006 2,140,470 2,015,444 1,598,664 5,754,577

2007 2,168,978 2,080,318 1,567,484 5,816,780

2008 2,133,399 2,049,198 1,526,493 5,709,090

2009 2,120,949 1,969,121 1,368,903 5,458,973

Compound Annual 

Average Rate of Growth 0.68% 0.31% -2.02% -0.19%

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Total

2001 285,735 42,303 413 328,451

2002 288,966 43,066 455 332,487

2003 292,031 43,783 468 336,282

2004 295,505 44,743 554 340,802

2005 298,480 45,822 314 344,616

2006 302,809 46,733 324 349,866

2007 305,070 47,601 232 352,903

2008 306,494 48,051 326 354,871

2009 307,127 48,636 231 355,994

Compound Annual 

Average Rate of Growth 0.91% 1.76% -7.01% 1.01%
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 18

4.2 LOAD FORECASTS EXCLUDING SALES AND PEAK LOAD OF IBM

For purposes of this study, the future sales and peak load associated with IBM have been excluded from 

the sales and peak load forecasts. IBM, which represents approximately 7% of the state’s annual kWh

sales and 5% of system peak load, no longer pays the energy efficiency charge, nor participates in EVT 

programs. Thus, their sales and contribution to system peak load have been excluded from the sales 

forecast for the EVT service area and from the load forecast for the State as a whole. 

4.3 FORECAST OF ENERGY S ALES & PEAK DEMAND (2012-2031)

The new VELCO load forecast for Vermont projects that total kWh sales in the State will grow slowly 

over the next two decades, at a compound average annual growth rate of 0.64% a year (sales at the 

customer meter level of the utility grid).23 The residential sector is projected to grow at 0.70% a year, the 

commercial sector at 0.74% per year, and the industrial sector at 0.28% per year. Summer peak load is 

expected to grow 1.04% per year, and winter peak load is expected to grown 0.57% per year. Table 4-3 

presents the MWH sales forecast for the State of Vermont, and Table 4-4 presents the summer and 

winter peak load forecasts for the State of Vermont. The numbers shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 exclude 

the impacts of Efficiency Vermont programs in 2012-2031. Tables 4-5 through 4-8 provide the energy 

and demand forecasts for the EVT and BED service territories.

 23 The annual energy sales and peak demand forecasts have been adjusted to account for the impacts of DSM related 

activities for the 2010 and 2011 program years but do include any future year DSM impact.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 19

Table 4-3: VELCO MWh Sales Forecast for the State of Vermont (Without Future DSM Impacts)

Table 4-4: VELCO Peak Load Forecast for State of Vermont (Without Future DSM Impacts)

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Other Total @ Generation

2012 2,088,223 1,966,785 923,456 37,753 5,016,217 5,495,061

2013 2,075,006 1,996,753 928,986 38,001 5,038,746 5,519,675

2014 2,081,217 2,018,714 932,508 38,125 5,070,565 5,554,471

2015 2,092,597 2,035,186 935,180 38,188 5,101,150 5,587,930

2016 2,111,873 2,048,429 937,517 38,220 5,136,039 5,626,062

2017 2,119,315 2,061,591 939,873 38,236 5,159,015 5,651,194

2018 2,134,056 2,075,034 942,190 38,244 5,189,523 5,684,571

2019 2,149,011 2,088,186 944,498 38,248 5,219,941 5,717,842

2020 2,171,165 2,101,157 946,869 38,250 5,257,441 5,758,806

2021 2,178,760 2,114,352 949,321 38,251 5,280,683 5,784,260

2026 2,275,764 2,188,817 961,795 38,252 5,464,626 5,985,680

2031 2,384,227 2,260,788 974,692 38,252 5,657,959 6,197,527

Compound 

Annual Average 

Rate of Growth

0.70% 0.74% 0.28% 0.07% 0.64% 0.64%

MWh Sales

Year Residential Comm. Ind. Other Total Residential Comm. Ind. Other Total

2012 329 410 157 0 896 429 290 147 8 874

2013 332 417 159 0 908 422 295 148 8 872

2014 338 421 160 0 919 421 299 148 8 876

2015 344 425 161 0 929 422 302 148 8 880

2016 350 428 161 0 939 425 305 148 8 886

2017 355 432 161 0 948 426 307 148 8 889

2018 361 436 161 0 958 429 310 148 8 894

2019 367 441 161 0 968 431 313 147 8 898

2020 373 445 161 0 978 433 316 147 7 904

2021 377 449 161 0 987 434 319 147 7 907

2026 408 472 161 0 1,040 451 335 145 7 939

2031 432 493 164 0 1,089 469 349 147 7 972

Compound Annual 

Average Rate of 

Growth

1.45% 0.98% 0.24% 0.00% 1.04% 0.47% 0.97% 0.03% 0.00% 0.57%

Summer Peak Load Winter Peak Load 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 20

Table 4-5: 2012-2031 Forecast MWh Sales for the EVT Service Area (Without Future DSM Impacts)

Table 4-6: 2012-2031 Forecast Peak Load (MW) for the EVT Service Area (Without Future DSM Impacts)

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Other Total @ Generation

2012 2,003,547 1,774,607 853,745 33,899 4,665,799 5,132,379

2013 1,989,659 1,803,175 858,757 34,147 4,685,738 5,154,312

2014 1,995,274 1,823,269 861,588 34,272 4,714,404 5,185,844

2015 2,006,107 1,838,067 863,639 34,334 4,742,147 5,216,362

2016 2,024,399 1,849,267 865,220 34,366 4,773,252 5,250,577

2017 2,031,607 1,861,009 867,050 34,382 4,794,047 5,273,452

2018 2,045,904 1,872,735 868,730 34,390 4,821,759 5,303,935

2019 2,060,227 1,884,229 870,425 34,394 4,849,275 5,334,202

2020 2,081,301 1,894,778 871,899 34,396 4,882,374 5,370,611

2021 2,088,996 1,906,637 873,856 34,397 4,903,887 5,394,275

2026 2,183,971 1,972,289 883,066 34,398 5,073,724 5,581,096

2031 2,290,682 2,036,345 893,031 34,398 5,254,457 5,779,902

Compound 

Annual Average 

Rate of Growth

0.71% 0.73% 0.24% 0.08% 0.63% 0.63%

MWh Sales

Year Residential Comm. Ind. Other Total Residential Comm. Ind. Other Total

2012 315 369 145 0 828 414 264 139 7 824

2013 318 375 146 0 840 406 269 140 7 822

2014 324 380 147 0 851 406 272 140 7 825

2015 329 383 148 0 860 407 275 140 7 829

2016 336 386 147 0 869 410 278 140 7 835

2017 340 390 147 0 877 410 280 140 7 837

2018 346 393 147 0 887 413 283 140 7 842

2019 352 397 147 0 897 415 285 139 7 846

2020 357 401 147 0 906 417 288 139 7 851

2021 362 405 147 0 914 418 291 139 6 854

2026 392 426 146 0 965 434 306 137 6 884

2031 416 446 150 0 1,012 451 319 139 6 915

Compound Annual 

Average Rate of 

Growth

1.47% 1.01% 0.20% 0.00% 1.06% 0.46% 1.00% -0.02% 0.00% 0.55%

Summer Peak Load Winter Peak Load 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 21

Table 4-7: 2012-2031 Forecast MWh Sales for the BED Service Territory (Without Future DSM Impacts)

Table 4-8: 2012-2031 Forecast Peak Load (MW) for the BED Service Area (Without Future DSM Impacts)

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Other Total @ Generation

2012 84,676 192,178 69,710 3,854 350,418 362,682

2013 85,347 193,578 70,229 3,854 353,008 365,363

2014 85,943 195,445 70,920 3,854 356,161 368,627

2015 86,490 197,119 71,540 3,854 359,003 371,568

2016 87,474 199,161 72,297 3,854 362,787 375,484

2017 87,708 200,583 72,823 3,854 364,968 377,742

2018 88,152 202,300 73,459 3,854 367,764 380,636

2019 88,783 203,957 74,073 3,854 370,667 383,640

2020 89,864 206,379 74,970 3,854 375,068 388,195

2021 89,764 207,714 75,465 3,854 376,796 389,984

2026 91,792 216,528 78,729 3,854 390,903 404,584

2031 93,545 224,443 81,660 3,854 403,502 417,625

Compound 

Annual Average 

Rate of Growth

0.53% 0.82% 0.84% 0.00% 0.75% 0.75%

MWh Sales

Year Residential Comm. Ind. Other Total Residential Comm. Ind. Other Total

2012 14 41 13 0 67 15 26 7 1 50

2013 14 41 13 0 68 15 27 8 1 50

2014 14 42 13 0 69 15 27 8 1 51

2015 14 42 13 0 69 16 27 8 1 51

2016 14 43 13 0 70 16 27 8 1 51

2017 15 43 13 0 71 16 28 8 1 52

2018 15 43 13 0 71 16 28 8 1 52

2019 15 43 13 0 71 16 28 8 1 53

2020 15 43 13 0 72 16 28 8 1 53

2021 15 44 14 0 73 16 28 8 1 54

2026 16 46 14 0 75 17 29 8 1 56

2031 16 47 14 0 78 17 30 9 1 57

Compound Annual 

Average Rate of 

Growth

0.90% 0.68% 0.68% 0.00% 0.73% 0.78% 0.75% 0.77% 0.00% 0.75%

Summer Peak Load Winter Peak Load 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 22

4.4 CURRENT EEU DSM OFFERINGS

The two Vermont Energy Efficiency Utilities (EEU) offer several energy efficiency programs for homes 

and businesses in the State. For the City of Burlington, these programs are delivered by the Burlington 

Electric Department (BED). For the remainder of the state, these programs are delivered by Efficiency 

Vermont (EVT).

4.4.1 CURRENT EFFICIENCY VERMONT PROGRAMS

Efficiency Vermont offers several energy efficiency programs for homes and businesses.

Residential Programs

Efficiency Vermont offers programs to help residential consumers save energy in their homes. These 

programs cover efficiency improvements for space heating, space cooling, water heating, lighting and 

other uses of energy. 

Energy Efficient Lighting 

EVT offers programs to provide information to consumers about the benefits of energy efficient CFL 

and LED light bulbs. CFLs are now available in many different shapes and styles for every socket, 

indoors and outdoors. CFLs use up to 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and can last 6 to 10 

times longer. The types and sizes of LED bulbs have expanded dramatically over the past three years. 

EVT uses several marketing and delivery strategies to make these bulbs available in Vermont at 

discounted prices.

Energy Audits and Home Improvements

EVT supports a network of Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® contractors certified to 

perform energy audits; diagnose building problems such as moisture, mold, and ice dams; and install 

recommended energy efficiency improvements that can reduce household energy consumption by up to 

30%. Using a certified contractor provides assurance that the project will lead to real energy savings and 

be done safely. EVT also provides web-based information to help consumers find a certified contractor 

as well as information on financial incentives to help pay for qualified energy efficiency improvements.

Energy Efficient Appliances 

ENERGY STAR appliances use 10% to 50% less energy and water than standard efficiency models or 

older appliances. Older appliances can consume so much energy that in some circumstances it may make 

sense to retire them early, even if they still work. EVT offers rebates on select ENERGY STAR 

appliances (clothes washers, refrigerators, freezers) and seasonal rebates on room A/Cs and 

dehumidifiers. Efficiency Vermont also offers incentives for early retirement of older refrigerators. 

Home Electronics

Home electronics, like TVs, DVD players, computer monitors, and laptops, can account for more than 

15% of household electricity use. Some electronics use energy even when they're turned off, to power 

features like clock displays and remote controls. When buying home electronics, EVT recommends that 

consumers look for ENERGY STAR® labeled products, which use much less energy than standard 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 23

electronics. Using the EVT web site, EVT provides information to consumers on the energy savings of 

ENERGY STAR® labeled home electronics, and information on the energy savings that can be 

achieved using advanced power strips. An Advanced Power Strip uses smart technology to cut the power 

to certain electronics when they're not in use, saving you energy and money automatically. This study 

does examine the energy efficiency potential from such advanced power strips and ENERGY STAR® 

labeled home electronics.

DIY - Do It Yourself

EVT recommends using a certified Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® contractor to make 

major energy efficiency improvements. If a consumer wishes to make some improvements on his/her 

own, Efficiency Vermont has created a Home Heating Help section on the EVT website. This resource 

provides information on home energy topics including; sealing air leaks, attic insulation, heating 

equipment and energy-efficient appliances. 

Meter Loan Program

A good way to understand the connection between a home's energy use and energy costs is to know how 

much electricity home electronics and appliances are using. A consumer can measure electricity usage of 

an appliance with a “Watts Up” Electric Meter. Efficiency Vermont offers this meter to electric 

customers in Vermont free of charge for a period of three weeks. Once the consumer identifies where 

electricity is used the most, a consumer can make changes to energy usage that will have the greatest 

impact on the electric bill. 

Education on the ENERGY STAR® Logo

EVT provides information to consumers about the ENERGY STAR® Logo. ENERGY STAR is a 

national program that helps consumers save money and protect the environment through energy 

efficient products and practices. There are national ENERGY STAR programs for residential 

construction on new and existing homes. The ENERGY STAR label can be found on more than 60 

types of products including lighting, appliances, home electronics and heating and cooling equipment. 

Consumers will also see a yellow EnergyGuide label on most new appliances. This label estimates how 

much energy the appliance uses compared to similar products, and shows the consumer approximately 

how much it will cost to use each year to help the consumer compare different models when shopping 

for a new appliance. 

EVT Programs for the Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Listed below are short descriptions of the energy efficiency programs that are currently offered by EVT 

for commercial and industrial facilities.

Energy Efficient Lighting 

newLIGHT is a program promoting the replacement of T12 and HID High-Bay lighting in commercial 

and industrial facilities with more efficient technology. EVT is offering businesses significantly enhanced 

rebates for upgrading their old T12 fluorescent and HID high-bay lighting systems to more efficient 

equipment - from 50 to 90% of the equipment cost. To qualify for enhanced rebates offered through the 

newLIGHT program, commercial and industrial organizations must work with a contractor, distributor, 

or other lighting professional who will evaluate their facilities and submit a "Project Pre-Approval Form" 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 24

to Efficiency Vermont on their behalf. Projects eligible for the newLIGHTEnhanced Rebate Program 

include: 





T12 Upgrades and Controls 



HID High-Bay Upgrades and Controls 

Exit Sign Upgrades

High Efficiency HVAC Equipment 

EVT provides rebates for the purchase of high efficiency HVAC equipment. Energy-efficient HVAC 

equipment lowers a business’ overhead costs by decreasing energy costs while increasing reliability of the 

equipment. EVT also provides information about HVAC systems typically found in Vermont, about 

actions one can take to lower energy costs, and about available financial incentives for energy-efficient 

equipment that will improve the bottom line.

In order to be eligible for a financial incentive, efficient HVAC equipment must be new and meet certain

minimum efficiencies as well as other requirements. Pre-approval is required from Burlington Electric 

Department for all new construction projects in their territory, regardless of size. Split AC systems 

(including evaporator and condensing coils) must be AHRI tested and rated matched or paired systems.

Ductless mini-split AC systems do not qualify for rebates. Dual enthalpy economizer controls are eligible 

for rebates only when installed with new, qualifying equipment. Rebates exceeding $2,500 require preapproval by Efficiency Vermont prior to purchase.

Building Performance Program 

Building Performance incentives are available from EVT to assist small business and rental property 

owners in improving the insulation and comfort of their buildings, and boosting bottom lines. The 

available incentives can reduce the cost of audits and insulation upgrades. Building Performance 

incentives are available to help Vermont's small business and rental property owners improve the energy 

efficiency of their buildings. EVT offers up to $7,500 in incentives per building to help pay for energy 

efficiency improvements completed by a participating BPI certified contractor. These independent 

contractors are certified by the Building Performance Institute to perform energy audits, diagnose 

building problems such as moisture, mold, and ice dams, and install the recommended energy efficiency 

improvements. Efficiency Vermont provides contractor training, quality assurance, and customer 

incentives. 

EVT also provides for energy audits. An energy audit typically includes the following:

 A comprehensive evaluation of your building's air tightness and insulation effectiveness and 

windows; 

 Identification of energy efficiency opportunities with mechanical systems, lighting, and 

appliances;

 Installation of energy-saving products such as efficient light bulbs and water conservation 

products; 

 An audit report and scope of work for recommended energy efficiency improvements.

There is a fee for this service.

 

 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 25

Other Rebates 

EVT also offers a wide range of other rebates for high efficiency equipment, such as the following:

 commercial lighting equipment

 motors

 refrigeration equipment

 compressed air equipment

 vending machines

 agricultural equipment

4.4.2 CURRENT PROGRAMS OFFERED BY THE BURLINGTON ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT

Listed below are descriptions of the energy efficiency programs offered by the Burlington Electric 

Department.

Residential New Construction 

This BED program aims to improve the efficiency of all new homes, and buildings undergoing

substantial renovation. This includes single-family homes, multi-family homes and low income multifamily projects. This program addresses all major end uses: space heating, water heating, central cooling 

(if applicable), ventilation, major appliances and lighting for high use areas. Residential New 

Construction (RNC) encourages builders and consumers to build to the Vermont Energy Star Home 

standard. This standard specifies that homes meet the Energy Star performance standard (representing 

nearly 20% savings in heating, cooling and hot water consumption relative to the Vermont Residential 

Building Energy Standard (RBES). The standard also requires that at least four lighting fixtures in high 

use areas be energy efficient, three major appliances and efficient automatically controlled mechanical 

ventilation be installed. The Vermont Energy Star Homes (VESH) standard is promoted to developers,

architects, builders, building supply centers, equipment suppliers and consumers through a combination 

of marketing, technical assistance to builders, provision of energy ratings, and a package of incentives for 

efficient lighting fixtures, major appliances and ventilation equipment.

Residential Existing Homes 

This BED program aims to improve the efficiency of all existing residential buildings including lowincome single family, market-rate single-family and all multi-family projects (market-rate and lowincome). BED offers the same existing homes service as Efficiency Vermont (EVT) and also works 

closely with Vermont Gas Systems (VGS) and the Champlain Valley Weatherization Service (CVWS) on 

many of its projects. Low-income buildings are addressed by a partnership with the state’s Low-income

Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). This partnership provides electric efficiency measures 

(including fuel switching of electric hot water and electric space heating) to Burlington’s low-income 

electricity consumers. Electrical efficiency measures are delivered to income-eligible electric customers at 

the time they receive thermal shell, space heating and water heating improvements from CVWS. This 

service also works closely with high usage households for energy efficiency improvements that can 

significantly reduce their energy bills. On-site energy audits, customer education, appliance meter loans, 

technical assistance, project management and cash incentives are all part of this service. In some cases, 

the high usage is driven by electric domestic hot water and\or electric resistance space heating. The 

opportunity to convert to natural gas is available to the owners of some of these housing units, providing 

significant energy and cost savings.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 26

Over the past few years, BED and EVT have been trying to work more successfully in the private 

(market-rate) rental housing market (customers not eligible for low-income energy services) to increase 

both participation and the depth of savings per participant. Traditionally, renters have not been strong 

participants and the same holds true for property-owners where the tenants pay the energy bills directly.

The “Rental Properties Owners” service offers free tank wraps (electric tanks only), pipe insulation, 

water saving devices, enhanced rebates for the early retirement of eligible refrigerators, incentives for 

improving mechanical ventilation along with up to fifteen free screw-in CFL’s per apartment. This 

service provides savings directly to the tenant but also water savings, and potentially maintenance savings 

to the property owner. This service allows us the opportunity to develop long-lasting relationships with 

property-owners to help identify further savings from refrigeration replacements, common area lighting 

and laundry equipment improvements, weatherization and ventilation. BED has also been working 

successfully with JUMP (Joint Urban Ministry Program) over the past few years by providing free CFL’s 

and efficiency education and program information to families and individuals in need. The idea is for 

JUMP staff to inform participants (mostly all renters) about energy usage and bills and encourage them 

to participate in energy efficiency programs. JUMP staff makes direct referrals to CVWS for low-income 

weatherization services or to BED for assistance. JUMP also provides language translators to help with 

the African community within Burlington. This is particularly helpful when there are billing issues that 

can present a barrier to participation. The translators can also help with communications with rental 

property owners.

BED continues to offer a robust energy education service for customers that includes onsite energy 

audits, lending of appliance meters and custom billing history analysis. BED also continues to provide 

energy efficiency information in a variety of forums. BED staff has also visited several classrooms in the 

Burlington School District to discuss energy efficiency with faculty and schoolchildren. Also, starting in 

2009, BED contracted with VGS to install CFL’s and collect potential electrical energy efficiency savings 

information while performing normal VGS energy audits.

Retail Products 

BED’s Efficient Products Program (EP) aims to increase sales of DOE\EPA ENERGY STAR® 

qualified lighting products, Compact Fluorescent (CFL) screw-in bulbs, CFL hardwired fixtures, and 

ENERGY STAR® appliances such as clothes washers, refrigerators, freezers, and ceiling fans with 

lights, room air conditioners and dehumidifiers. This is accomplished primarily through retail stores with 

on-site and mail-in consumer rebates, but also by arranging retailer buy-downs and manufacturer markdowns for CFL products. The program pursues this objective with extensive outreach to retailers, such 

as efforts to encourage Vermont lighting showrooms to increase the number and variety of energy

efficient fixtures stocked and displayed. Field representatives personally visit every participating retail 

store at least three times per year; larger stores are visited more frequently. The program provides 

consumer rebates for ENERGY STAR® -qualified bulbs, fixtures, refrigerators, ceiling fans with lights, 

window AC units, clothes washers, dehumidifiers and freezers. These incentives are intended to entice 

consumers by lowering the cost of efficient products. The program uses a variety of marketing and 

promotion efforts in addition to its prominently displayed in-store rebate coupons including a catalog, 

and an on-line purchase web site in order to build consumer awareness and participation in the program.

 

Business New Construction

This program helps commercial and industrial builders and developers incorporate the most energy 

efficient products and systems possible when building or renovating. It is designed to help customers 

exceed the City of Burlington's required Guidelines for Energy Efficient Construction (which adopted 

the statewide CBES energy code as of January 1, 2007). By working directly and early in the process with 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 27

designers and owners, BED assists in the choice of energy efficient systems and construction techniques 

that meet business and energy needs. The program offers prescriptive and custom tracks for Act 250 and 

non-Act 250 projects, providing financial incentives for the installation of cost effective efficiency 

measures. This includes a minimum package of efficiency criteria including lighting, motors and HVAC 

systems that all customers must include to be eligible to participate. Eligible participants gain technical 

assistance, verification services and financial incentives to help with efficient equipment costs. BED's 

Business New Construction service addresses all energy (especially electricity) consuming equipment, 

components or practices, including motors, lighting, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC). 

Business Existing Facilities 

This program targets naturally occurring equipment changeovers in the business sector to secure energy 

savings in the equipment replacement market. Targeted equipment includes lighting, heating, ventilation, 

cooling, water heating, refrigeration, motors and drives, controls and industrial process applications. This 

program offers prescriptive and custom tracks, with technical assistance and financial incentives that 

encourage the adoption of cost effective, high efficiency alternatives to standard efficiency equipment. 

BED offers prescriptive incentives (fixed incentives for specific eligible measures) for building lighting, 

refrigeration economizers and controls, motors, unitary HVAC equipment and dual enthalpy 

economizers for unitary HVAC units. BED also participates in the Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnership to further the market transformation of motors, lighting and HVAC equipment. Incentives 

for above average energy efficient equipment are supplied to wholesalers, contractors, and customers at 

the time of equipment replacement. Non-prescriptive cost-effective measures or combinations of 

measures are eligible for custom incentives. Custom incentives are designed to capture as many potential 

lost opportunity resources as possible, while maximizing program delivery resources. BED staff and 

trade allies serving Burlington (including equipment vendors, manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, 

architects and engineers) market the program to potential participants.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 28

5 OVERALL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH

This section describes the overall methodology used to conduct this study and explains the general steps 

and methods used at each stage of the analytical process necessary to produce the various estimates of 

energy efficiency potential. Specific changes in methodology from one sector to another have been 

noted throughout the report. Information has been provided to EVT and BED throughout the 

development of this report for feedback and comment. 

Energy efficiency potential studies involve carrying out a number of analytical steps to produce estimates 

of each type of energy efficiency potential. This study utilizes the GDS Benefit/Cost Screening Tool, an 

Excel-based model that integrates technology-specific impacts and costs, customer characteristics, utility 

load forecasts, utility avoided cost forecasts and more. Excel was used as the modeling platform to 

provide transparency to the estimation process and allow for simple customization based on Vermont’s

unique characteristics and the availability of specific model input data. 

5.1 MEASURE LIST DEVELOPMENT

Energy efficiency measure lists were based on the Vermont Technical Reference Manual24 savings as well 

as the analysis team’s existing knowledge and current databases of electric end-use technologies and 

energy efficiency measures, and were supplemented as necessary to include other technology areas of 

interest to the VDPS staff, VEIC and BED. The study scope included measures and practices that are 

currently commercially available as well as emerging technologies. The commercially available measures 

should be of most immediate interest to energy efficiency program planners. 

In addition, this study includes measures that could be relatively easily substituted for or applied to 

existing technologies on a retrofit or replace-on-burnout basis. Replace-on-burnout applies to equipment 

replacements that are made normally in the market when a piece of equipment is at the end of its useful 

life. A retrofit measure is eligible to be replaced at any time in the life of the equipment or building. 

Replace-on-burnout measures are generally characterized by incremental measure costs and savings (e.g.

the costs and savings of a high-efficiency versus standard efficiency air conditioner); whereas retrofit 

measures are generally characterized by full costs and savings (e.g. the full costs and savings associated 

with retrofitting ceiling insulation into an existing attic) until that point when the equipment would have 

failed anyway.

5.2 MEASURE CHARACTERIZATION

A significant amount of data is needed to estimate the savings potential for individual energy efficiency 

measures or programs across the entire existing residential, commercial and industrial sectors. To this 

extent, considerable effort was expended to identify, review, and document all available data sources.25

This review allowed development of reasonable assumptions regarding measure lives; installed 

incremental and full costs (where appropriate); and electric energy and demand savings for each measure 

included in the final lists of measures in this study. 

 24 Vermont Technical Reference User Manual (TRM) Measure Savings Algorithms and Cost Assumptions, June 14, 

2010.

25 The appendices to this report provide the data sources used by the GDS Team to obtain up-to-date data on measure 

costs, savings and useful lives.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 29

Savings: Estimates of annual measure savings as a percentage of base equipment usage was taken 

foremost from the Vermont TRM and, when not available there, were developed from a variety of 

sources, including:26

 Building energy modeling software and engineering analyses

 Secondary sources such as the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (“ACEEE”), 

Department of Energy (“DOE”), Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), Energy Star®

and other technical potential studies

 Program evaluations conducted by other utilities and program administrators

 Customer meter data

Measure Costs: Measure costs represent either incremental or full cost, and typically include the cost of 

installation. For purposes of this study, nominal measures costs were held constant over time. This 

general assumption was made due to the fact that historically many measure costs (for example, CFL 

bulbs) have declined over time, while some measure costs have increased over time (fiberglass 

insulation). Cost estimates were taken foremost from the Vermont TRM and when not available derived 

from the following sources:

 Secondary sources such as ACEEE, Energy Star®, and other technical potential studies

 Retail store pricing and industry experts

 Evaluation reports

Measure Life: Represents the number of years (or hours) that energy-using equipment is expected to 

operate. Useful life estimates were taken foremost from the Vermont TRM and when not available

derived from: 

 Manufacturer data

 Savings calculators and Life-cycle cost analyses

 Secondary sources such as ACEEE, Energy Star®, and other technical potential studies

 The California Database for Energy Efficient Resources (“DEER”) database

 Evaluation reports

Baseline and Efficient Technology Saturations: In order to assess the amount of energy efficiency savings still 

available, estimates of the current saturation of baseline equipment and energy efficiency measures are 

necessary. Up-to-date measure saturation data were primarily obtained from the following recent studies:

 Vermont Department of Public Service, “Analysis of On-Site Audits of Existing Homes in 

Vermont”, June 2009

 Vermont Department of Public Service “Overall Report, Vermont Residential New 

Construction Study, Final Report”, July 2009

 Vermont Department of Public Service, “Business Sector Market Assessment and Baseline 

Study – Existing Commercial Buildings”, July 2009

 Vermont Department of Public Service, “Business Sector Market Assessment and Baseline 

Study – Commercial New Construction”, October 2009

 26 On a going forward basis, the energy and demand savings over baseline are assumed to remain consistent – as the 

baselines increase due to code and appliance standards, so does the high efficiency version.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 30

 Vermont Department of Public Service, “Business Sector Market Assessment and Baseline 

Study – Existing Industrial Facilities”, September 2009

 Burlington Electric Department, 2005 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey

Emerging technologies were selected based on existing research and discussions with DPS staff.

Existing research sources included ACEEE, Bonneville Power Administration, and general knowledge of 

emerging technology trends. Technologies not applicable to Vermont’s climate were rejected, while 

those included had savings estimates calculated for Vermont’s climate and/or specific markets. For solar 

water heating, RETScreen was used to model the performance of a typical single family residential 

system in Vermont, with a performance and sizing extrapolated made to address multi-family systems.

Energy conservation programs that produce energy savings through behavioral based changed in 

consumption habits were also included in this analysis and defined as emerging technologies due to their 

relatively unknown period of savings persistence. 

The overall cost to purchase and install certain emerging technologies was reduced annually to reflect the 

likelihood of various factors (i.e. increased market competition, reduced production costs, or technology 

maturation) leading to a decrease in market prices over the period of study. For example, the install cost 

of residential solar water heating was reduced by 2% annually to account for any future reduction in 

purchase or installation costs and to gauge the impact of these reduced costs on the overall cost 

effectiveness of the measure.

Further detail regarding the development of measure assumptions for energy efficiency in the residential 

and commercial/industrial sectors can be found later in this report. Additionally, refer to the individual 

sector appendices for a comprehensive listing of all energy efficiency measure assumptions and sources 

assessed in this report. 

5.3 IMPACTS OF EARLY REPLACEMENT PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH 

This section explains the impacts of the early replacement programmatic approach. The GDS Team 

utilized the early replacement approach for fifty percent of the eligible measures during the twenty-year 

time period of this analysis (2012 to 2031). Energy efficiency potential in the existing stock of buildings 

can be captured over time through two principal processes: 

1. as equipment replacements are made normally in the market when a piece of equipment is at the 

end of its useful life (we refer to this as the “market-driven” or “replace-on-burnout” case); and,

2. at any time in the life of the equipment or building (which we refer to as the “retrofit” case). 

Market-driven measures are generally characterized by incremental measure costs and savings (e.g., the 

incremental costs and savings of a high-efficiency versus a standard efficiency air conditioner); whereas 

retrofit measures are generally characterized by full costs and savings (e.g., the full costs and savings 

associated with retrofitting ceiling insulation into an existing attic). For the market driven measures, the 

study team assumed that existing equipment will be replaced with high efficiency equipment at the time a 

consumer is shopping for a new appliance or other energy using equipment, or if the consumer is in the 

process of building or remodeling. Using this assumption, equipment that needs to be replaced 

(replaced on burnout) in a given year is eligible to be upgraded to high efficiency equipment. A 

specialized retrofit case is often referred to as “early replacement” or “early retirement”. This refers to a 

piece of equipment whose replacement is accelerated by several years, as compared to the market-driven 

assumption, for the purpose of capturing energy savings earlier than they would otherwise occur. 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 31

For this study, GDS utilized the “replace on burnout” programmatic approach for 50% of eligible 

measures, and utilized the "early replacement" approach for the remaining 50% of eligible measures. 

Thus these two approaches were utilized equally in this study. For replace-on-burnout and early 

replacement measures in the maximum achievable potential analysis, GDS assumed that the Program 

Administrator would pay an incentive equivalent to 100% of the incremental cost or full cost of energy 

efficiency measures.27 In general, GDS finds that the early replacement approach can accelerate kWh and 

kW savings to earlier time periods, and can provide greater net present value savings. In the long run 

(more than 10 years), however, the early retirement and replace-on-burnout approaches often provide 

identical cumulative annual kWh and kW savings. The early replacement approach causes program 

budgets to be substantially higher than would occur with a replace-on-burnout approach, because costs 

are based on the full cost of purchasing a new appliance or piece of energy efficient equipment, not the 

incremental cost. However, these higher program costs can be mitigated by the net present value of the 

benefits achieved by the savings occurring sooner in time. These benefits can be significant in avoiding 

other, more costly, utility system expenditures such as transmission and distribution upgrades. Based on 

an a special analysis conducted for this study, GDS finds that both programmatic approaches pass the 

Vermont Societal test and are cost effective. GDS found that while the replace on burnout approach has 

a greater Vermont Societal Test benefit/cost ratio, the net present value savings for the early 

replacement approach are higher than with the replace on burnout approach.

For early retirement energy efficiency measures, the study team assumed that the measure would be 

replaced early, at most five years prior to reaching the end of its expected lifetime.28 Therefore, for the 

first five years of the newly installed measure, the energy savings associated with the efficiency measure 

reflect the large savings that result from replacing an old, relatively inefficient measure with a new 

energy-efficient model (the energy savings are calculated as the difference between the old unit that is 

replaced and the new high efficiency unit that is installed). For the remaining life of the measure beyond 

year five, the energy savings associated with the measure reflects the incremental savings associated with 

installing an energy-efficient model rather than a new standard-efficiency model. While there are more 

substantial energy savings available in the first five years, continued savings at a lower level are captured 

for the remainder of the measure lifetime. 

There is one more cost that needs to be considered in the Vermont Societal Cost Test for the early 

replacement programmatic approach. It is necessary to capture the additional costs to program 

participants of roughly five years of additional capital costs of equipment due to advancing the 

refrigerator replacement cycle by five years. Because the early replacement programmatic approach 

permanently advances the cycle of when the refrigerator will be replaced in the future, it is necessary to 

add this cost impact to the economic analysis.29 The point is that by advancing a capital expense five 

years, you advance an entire stream of capital expenses over many years, and this has to be accounted for 

in the cost effectiveness screening analysis. It is also necessary to reflect reduced energy savings, 

beginning at the same time that the deferred cost credit is recognized. GDS has included this additional 

cost when considering the cost effectiveness of the early retirement programmatic approach.

 27 Even with payment of an incentive equal to 100% of the measure incremental or full cost, GDS has assumed that only 

90 percent of the available market will participate in programs. This is to acknowledge that some households and 

businesses will not participate in programs even when the EEU pays 100% of the incremental or full cost of measures. 

28 For purposes of this study, the study team used 5 years as the maximum remaining life at time of early replacement, 

with half the measure life as the remaining life for measures with EULs under 10 years.

29 This cost is discussed on page 2 of a paper titled “Retrofit Economics 201: Correcting Common Errors in DemandSide Management Cost-Benefit Analysis”, by Rachel Brailove, John Plunkett, and Jonathan Wallach, Resource Insight, 

Inc. William Steinhurst of the Vermont Department of Public Service assisted in the derivation of this deferred 

replacement concept.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 32

The authors of this report acknowledge that the early replacement programmatic approach also has other 

benefits that should be considered. There is a societal value due to the five years advancement in CO2 

(and other emissions) reductions. There is a value to the five year advancement in employment effects, as 

energy efficiency programs create new jobs in Vermont. Furthermore, if accelerating energy efficiency 

measure installation delays or avoids utility system costs (particularly in capital costs that may represent a 

20, 30 or even 50 year commitment), the ‘societal’ benefits will be strongly positive. 

5.4 POTENTIAL S AVINGS OVERVIEW

Potential studies often distinguish between three to four different types of efficiency potential: technical, 

economic, achievable, and program. However, because there are often important definitional issues 

between studies, it is important to understand the definition and scope of each potential estimate as it 

applies to this analysis.

Figure 5-1: Types of DSM Potential30

The first two types of potential, technical and economic, provide a theoretical upper bound for energy 

savings. Still, even the best designed portfolio of programs is unlikely to capture 100 percent of the 

technical or economic potential. Therefore, achievable potential and program potential attempt to 

estimate what may realistically be achieved, when it can be captured, and how much it would cost to do 

so. Figure 5.1 illustrates the four most common types of efficiency potential. In this report, achievable 

potential is referred to as maximum achievable potential as it assumes aggressive savings targets over the 

20-year study time-frame. Estimates of program potential are not included as part of the current report. 

Rather, three resource plan scenarios will be examined as a supplement to this study that will analyze the 

potential for energy and demand savings given specific budget and other program parameters.

 30 Reproduced from “Guide to Resource Planning with Energy Efficiency” November 2007. ES EPA. Figure 2-1.

Not 

Technically 

Feasable

Not 

Technically 

Feasable

Not Cost 

Effective

Not 

Technically 

Feasable

Not Cost 

Effective

Market & 

Adoption 

Barriers

Not 

Technically 

Feasable

Not Cost 

Effective

Market & 

Adoption 

Barriers

Program Design, 

Budget, Staffing, & 

Time Constraints

Technical Potential

Economic Potential

Achievable Potential

Program Potential
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 33

5.5 TECHNICAL POTENTIAL

Technical potential is the theoretical maximum amount of energy use that could be displaced by 

efficiency, disregarding all non-engineering constraints such as cost-effectiveness and the willingness of 

end-users to adopt the efficiency measures. It is often estimated as a “snapshot” in time assuming 

immediate implementation of all technologically feasible energy saving measures, with additional 

efficiency opportunities assumed as they arise from activities such as new construction.31

In general, this study used a “bottom-up” approach in the residential sector to calculate the potential of 

an energy efficiency measure or set of measures. A bottom-up approach first starts with the savings and 

costs associated with replacing one piece of equipment with its efficient counterpart, and then multiplies 

these values by the number of measures available to be installed throughout the life of the program. The 

bottom-up approach is often preferred in the residential sector because of better data availability and 

greater homogeneity of the building and equipment stock to which measures are applied. However, this 

methodology was not able to be used in the C&I sector. The savings estimates per base unit were

determined by comparing the high efficiency equipment to current installed equipment for existing 

construction retrofits or to current equipment code standards for replace-on-burnout and new 

construction scenarios. 

5.5.1 CORE EQUATION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

The core equation used in the residential sector technical potential analysis for each individual efficiency 

measure is shown below in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2: Core Equation for the Residential Sector Technical Potential

Where:

 

 Base Case Equipment End Use Intensity = the electricity used per customer per year by each 

base-case technology in each market segment. This is the consumption of the electric energy 

using equipment that the efficient technology replaces or affects. 

 Base Case Factor = the fraction of the end use electric energy that is applicable for the efficient 

technology in a given market segment. For example, for residential lighting, this would be the 

fraction of all residential electric customers that have electric lighting in their household,

 Remaining Factor = the fraction of applicable dwelling units that have not yet been converted to 

the electric energy efficiency measure; that is, one minus the fraction of households that already 

have the energy-efficiency measure installed.

 Applicability Factor = the fraction of the applicable units that is technically feasible for 

conversion to the efficient technology from an engineering perspective (e.g., it may not be 

possible to install CFLs in all light sockets in a home because the CFLs may not fit in every 

socket.)

 31 National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, “Guide for Conducting Energy Efficiency Potential Studies”, page 2-4

Technical 

Potential of 

Efficient Measure

=

Total Number 

of Households 

or Buildings

X

Base Case 

Equipment End 

Use Intensity 

[kWh/unit]

X Base Case 

Factor

X Remaining 

Factor

X Applicability 

Factor

X Savings 

Factor
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 34

 Savings Factor = the percentage reduction in electricity consumption resulting from application 

of the efficient technology.

Technical energy efficiency potential in the residential sector was calculated in two steps. In the first step, 

all measures were treated independently; that is, the savings of each measure were not reduced or otherwise 

adjusted for overlap between competing or interacting measures. By analyzing measures independently, 

no assumptions were made about the combinations or order in which they might be installed in 

customer buildings. However, the cumulative technical potential cannot be estimated by adding the 

savings from the individual savings estimates because some savings would be double-counted. For 

example, the savings from a measure that reduces heat loss from a building, such as insulation, are 

partially dependent on other measures that affect the efficiency of the system being used to heat the 

building, such as a high-efficiency furnace; the more efficient the furnace, the less energy saved from the 

installation of the insulation.

In the second step, cumulative technical potential was estimated using an energy efficiency supply curve 

approach. This method eliminates the double-counting problem mentioned above. A generic example of 

a supply curve is shown in Figure 5-3. As shown in the figure, a supply curve typically consists of two 

axes; one that captures the cost per unit of saving a resource (e.g., dollars per kWh saved) and another 

that shows the amount of savings that could be achieved at each level of cost. The curve is typically built 

up across individual measures that are applied to specific base-case practices or technologies by market 

segment. Savings measures were sorted on a least-cost basis and total savings are calculated incrementally 

with respect to measures that precede them. Supply curves typically, but not always, end up reflecting 

diminishing returns, i.e., costs increase rapidly and savings decrease significantly at the end of the curve.

Figure 5-3: Generic Example of a Supply Curve

As noted above, the cost portion of this energy-efficiency supply curve is represented in dollars per unit 

of energy savings. Cost are annualized (often referred to as levelized) in supply curves. For example, 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 35

energy-efficiency supply curves usually present levelized costs per kWh saved by multiplying the initial 

investment in an efficient technology or program by the capital recovery rate (CRR):

Therefore,

Levelized Cost per kWh Saved = Initial Cost x CRR/Annual kWh Savings

5.5.2 CORE EQUATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

The core equation used in the commercial sector technical potential analysis for each individual 

efficiency measure is shown below in Figure 5-4.

Figure 5-4: Core Equation for Commercial Sector Technical Potential

Technical 

Potential of 

Efficient 

Measure

=

Total End Use 

kWh Sales by 

Industry Type

X Base Case

Factor X RemainingFactor X Convertible Factor X Savings Factor

Where: 

 Total end use kWh sales (by segment) = the forecasted level of electric sales for a given end-use 

(e.g., space heating) in a commercial or industrial market segment (e.g., office buildings).

 Base Case factor = the fraction of the end use electric energy that is applicable for the efficient 

technology in a given market segment. For example, for fluorescent lighting, this would be the 

fraction of all lighting kWh in a given market segment that is associated with fluorescent 

fixtures.

 Remaining factor = the fraction of applicable kWh sales that are associated with equipment 

that has not yet been converted to the electric energy efficiency measure; that is, one minus the 

fraction of the market segment that already have the energy-efficiency measure installed.

 Convertible factor = the fraction of the equipment or practice that is technically feasible for 

conversion to the efficient technology from an engineering perspective (e.g., it may not be 

possible to install VFDs on all motors in a given market segment).

 Savings factor = the percentage reduction in electricity consumption resulting from application 

of the efficient technology.

Similar to the residential sector, technical electric energy efficiency savings potential in the C&I sector 

was calculated in two steps. In the first step, all measures are treated independently; that is, the savings of 

each measure are not reduced or otherwise adjusted for overlap between competing or synergistic 

measures. By treating measures independently, their relative economics were analyzed without making 

assumptions about the order or combinations in which they might be implemented in customer 

buildings. However, the total technical potential across measures cannot be estimated by summing the 

individual measure potentials directly because some savings would be double-counted. For example, the 

savings from a weatherization measure, such as low-e ENERGY STAR® windows, are partially 

dependent on other measures that affect the efficiency of the system being used to cool or heat the 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 36

building, such as high-efficiency space heating equipment or high efficiency air conditioning systems; the 

more efficient the space heating equipment or electric air conditioner, the less energy saved from the 

installation of low-e ENERGY STAR windows.

For the residential and commercial sectors, the GDS Team addressed the new construction market as a 

separate market segment, with a program targeted specifically at the new construction market. In the 

residential new construction market segment, for example, detailed energy savings estimates for the 

ENERGY STAR Homes program were used as a basis for determining electricity savings for this market 

segment in Vermont. 

5.6 ECONOMIC POTENTIAL

Economic potential refers to the subset of the technical potential that is economically cost-effective as 

compared to conventional supply-side energy resources. Both technical and economic potential are 

theoretical numbers that assume immediate implementation of efficiency measures, with no regard for 

the gradual “ramping up” process of real-life programs. In addition, they ignore market barriers to 

ensuring actual implementation of efficiency. Finally, they only consider the costs of efficiency measures 

themselves, ignoring any programmatic costs (e.g., marketing, analysis, administration) that would be 

necessary to capture them. The study team used the Vermont Societal test to determine whether 

measures were cost effective.

In practice, most technical and economic potential estimates produce similar results. The study team 

calculated the Vermont Societal test for each measure over a ten-year implementation period (2012 to 

2021) to determine if each measure was cost effective. The cost effectiveness testing was done in this 

manner to ensure that all measures that were cost effective on average over the ten-year period were 

included in the estimates of economic and achievable potential. This procedure ensured that measures 

that were not cost effective in early years but became cost effective in later years were included in the 

estimates of economic and achievable potential. All measures that were not found to be cost-effective

were excluded from future analysis.

5.7 MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL

Maximum Achievable Potential describes the economic potential that could be achieved over a given 

time period under the most aggressive program scenario.

Achievable potential is the amount of energy use that can realistically be expected to save assuming the 

most aggressive market penetration and funding scenarios. Achievable potential takes into account 

barriers that hinder consumer adoption of energy efficiency measures such as financial, political and 

regulatory barriers, the administrative and marketing costs associated with efficiency programs, and the 

capability of programs and administrators to ramp up activity over time. For purposes on this study, the 

GDS team assumed that the EEU would pay incentives equal to 100 percent of measure costs. It was 

assumed that the combination of this level of incentives along with well-designed programs with 

effective education and outreach would generally result in an overall measure penetration rate of 90 

percent.

5.8 RESOURCE PLAN SCENARIOS

The next phase of this study will also examine projected budgets and kWh and kW savings for three 

resource plan scenarios:
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 37

1. Acquiring all reasonably available cost effective efficiency potential over 20 years, through a 

reasonably flat budget

2. Acquiring 2% savings relative to annual energy consumption, ramping up to 3% in five years, 

then holding constant 

3. The current budget adjusted for inflation

The results of these resource plan scenarios will be presented in a supplement of this study.

5.9 DETERMINING COST-EFFECTIVENESS

A standard methodology for energy efficiency program cost effectiveness analysis was published in 

California in 1983 by the California Public Utilities Commission and updated in December 1987, 2001

and 2002.32 It was based on experience with evaluating conservation and load management programs in 

the late 1970's and early 1980's. This methodology examines five perspectives:

 the Total Resource Cost Test 

 the Participant Test

 the Utility Cost Test (or Program Administrator Test)

 the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) Test

 the Societal Cost Test

Figure 5-5 below summarizes the major components of these five benefit/cost tests. Vermont uses the 

Societal Cost Test as described below.

Figure 5-5: Components of Energy Efficiency Benefit/Cost Tests

 32California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission, Standard Practice Manual, Economic 

Analysis of Demand-Side Programs and Projects, 2002.

Reduction in Customer's Utility Bill X

Incentive Paid by Utility X

Any Tax Credit Received X X

Avoided Supply Costs X X X X

Avoided Participant Costs X X X

Participant Payment to Utility (if any) X X

External Benefits X

Utility Costs X X X X

Participant Costs X X X

External Costs X

Lost Revenues X

Benefits

Costs

Participant Test Rate Impact Test

Total Resource Cost 

Test Utility Cost Test Societal Test
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 38

5.9.1 THE TOTAL RESOURCE COST TEST

The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test measures the net costs of a demand-side management or energy 

efficiency program as a resource option based on the total costs of the program, including both the 

participants' and the utility's costs.33

Benefits and Costs: The TRC test represents the combination of the effects of a program on both the 

customers participating and those not participating in a program. In a sense, it is the summation of the 

benefit and cost terms in the Participant and the Ratepayer Impact Measure tests, where the revenue 

(bill) change and the incentive terms intuitively cancel (except for the differences in net and gross 

savings).

The benefits calculated in the Total Resource Cost Test include the avoided electric supply costs for the 

periods when there is an electric load reduction, as well as savings of other resources such as fossil fuels 

and water. The avoided supply costs are calculated using net program savings, which are the savings net 

of changes in energy use that would have happened in the absence of the program. 

The costs in this test are the program costs paid by the utility and the participants plus any increase in 

supply costs for periods in which load is increased. Thus all equipment costs, installation, operation and 

maintenance, cost of removal (less salvage value), and administration costs, no matter who pays for 

them, are included in this test. Any tax credits are considered a reduction to costs in this test.

5.9.2 THE P ARTICIPANT TEST

The Participant Test is the measure of the quantifiable benefits and costs to program participants due to 

participation in a program. Since many customers do not base their decision to participate in a program 

entirely on quantifiable variables, this test cannot be a complete measure of the benefits and costs of a 

program to a customer.34 This test is designed to give an indication as to whether the program or 

measure is economically attractive to the customer. Benefits include the participant’s retail bill savings 

over time, and costs include only the participant’s costs.

5.9.3 THE RATE IMPACT MEASURE TEST

The Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) Test measures what happens to customer bills or rates due to 

changes in utility revenues and operating costs caused by a program. Rates will go down if the change in 

revenues from the program is greater than the change in utility costs. Conversely, rates or bills will go up 

if revenues collected after the program is implemented are less than the total costs incurred by the utility 

in implementing the program. This test indicates the direction and magnitude of the expected change in 

customer rate levels.35 Thus, this test evaluates an energy efficiency program from the point of view of 

rate levels. The RIM test is a test of fairness or equity; it is not a measure of economic efficiency. 

 33California Public Utilities Commission, California Standard Practice Manual, Economic Analysis of Demand-Side 

Management Programs and Projects, October 2001, page 18.

34Ibid., page 9. 35Ibid., page 17.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 39

5.9.4 THE UTILITY COST TEST

The Utility Cost Test measures the net costs of a demand-side management program as a resource 

option based on the costs incurred by the utility (including incentive costs) and excluding any net costs 

incurred by the participant. The benefits are similar to the Total Resource Cost Test benefits. Costs are 

defined more narrowly, and only include the utility’s costs.36 This test compares the utility's costs for an 

energy efficiency program to the utility's avoided costs for electricity and/or gas. This means that a 

measure could pass the Utility Cost Test but not be cost effective from a more comprehensive 

perspective that included participant costs.

5.9.5 THE VERMONT SOCIETAL TEST

The December 20, 2010 Vermont Public Service Board Order of Appointment states that “When 

assessing the cost-effectiveness of efficiency measures, an EEU shall utilize the Societal Test as described 

by the Board in its April 16, 1990 Order in Docket No. 5270, or other tests as may be approved by the 

Board”.37 All of the cost effectiveness screening and results for this study were determined using the 

Vermont Societal Test.

The Societal Cost Test is structurally similar to the Total Resource Cost Test.38 It goes beyond the TRC 

test in that it attempts to quantify the change in total resource costs to society as a whole rather than to

only the service territory (the energy efficiency utility service area). In taking society's perspective, the 

Societal Cost Test utilizes essentially the same input variables as the TRC test, but they are defined with a 

broader societal point of view.39 An example of societal benefits is reduced emissions of carbon, nitrous 

and sulfur dioxide and particulates from electric utility power plants.40 When calculating the Societal Cost 

Test benefit/cost ratio, future streams of benefits and costs are discounted to the present using a 

discount rate. The avoided costs of electricity, natural gas, propane, #2 fuel oil, kerosene and water used 

in this study are provided in Appendix 1 of this report.

According to the Final Order in Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 5270, the Societal Test 

calculation in Vermont includes a 10% reduction to costs to account for the risk diversification benefits 

of energy efficiency measures and programs. The Board subsequently adopted an environmental adder 

of $.0070 per kWh saved (in $2000). This adder replaces the original 5% adder for environmental 

externalities. In this report, GDS has used the definition of the Societal Test calculation as specified by 

the Vermont Public Service Board in its final order in Docket No. 5270, and has used the $.0070 adder 

for environmental benefits, adjusted to current year dollars. GDS has also applied the 10% reduction to 

energy efficiency measure costs for all calculations of the Vermont Societal Test. 

 36Ibid., page 33. 37 Vermont Public Service Board Order of Appointment dated December 20, 2010, page 28. 

38 According to the November 2008 National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Guide titled “Understanding Cost 

Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs”, the Societal Cost Test (SCT) includes all of the costs and benefits of the 

TRC test, but it also includes environmental and other non-energy benefits that are not currently valued by the market. 

The SCT may also include non-energy costs, such as reduced customer comfort levels. See page 6-7. 39 California Public Utilities Commission, California Standard Practice Manual, Economic Analysis of Demand-Side 

Management Programs and Projects, October 2001, page 27.

40 The Vermont Public Service Board Order in Docket No. 5270 cites the following as such societal benefits: reductions 

in acidic precipitation, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, reduction in habitat destruction, and reduction in 

nuclear waste disposal risks.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 40

5.10 AVOIDED COSTS

The avoided electric supply costs for this Vermont energy efficiency potential study consist of the 

electric supply costs avoided due to the implementation of electric energy efficiency programs. The costs 

that are avoided depend on the amount electricity that is saved, and when it is saved (in peak heating 

season periods, seasonal or annual, etc.). The avoided costs used in this study were adopted by the 

Vermont Public Service Board and provided to the GDS/Cadmus study team by staff of the Vermont 

Department of Public Service.41

Second, it is very important to note that the electricity avoided costs used in the Vermont Societal (VT 

SCT) Test do not represent the retail rate for each customer class. While the actual retail rate is used in 

the calculation of the benefits for the Participant Test, the actual retail rate is not the avoided electric 

cost used in the calculation of the benefits for the Societal Test or the Total Resource Cost Test.

5.11 TREATMENT OF EXISTING EFFICIENT EQUIPMENT STOCK AND ITS EFFECT ON THE POTENTIAL 

STUDY

The Nexus Market Research and KEMA market characterization studies show that a certain percentage 

of existing equipment in Vermont is currently energy efficient. This potential study excluded equipment 

that is currently efficient from the energy efficiency potential found for the 2012-2031 period. The 

analysis recognizes these measures as the portion of the market that has already been transformed and 

accounted for in the most recent ITRON forecast. Because naturally occurring energy savings are already 

largely reflected in the electricity sales forecast used in this study, these electric savings are not available 

to be saved again through the study team’s energy efficiency supply curve analysis.42

Just as with many of the assumptions made to develop energy efficiency potential in EEU service 

territories, one could make reasonable alternate assumptions regarding this issue. A contemporaneous 

program potential study completed by VEIC in 2010 recognizes the future potential for all current energy 

efficient equipment to become eligible for replacement during the 2012-2031 analysis. These increases in 

energy efficiency may be met by newer technologies or increased appliance efficiency standards over 

time. In place of the GDS/Cadmus approach that recognizes the current saturation of energy efficient 

equipment as the portion of the market that is not likely to be impacted by future DSM program efforts, 

VEIC instead assigned a unique free-ridership and spillover rate to the residential and 

commercial/industrial measures included in their study.43 The impact of these free-ridership and 

spillover assumptions is also a decrease in the overall number of units eligible for participation over the 

designated time-period, but at a different rate than those utilized by the GDS/Cadmus team.

This analysis utilizes the above described GDS/Cadmus team method when reporting the long-term 

potential for energy efficiency savings, particularly because the commercial sector analysis utilizes a topdown approach to determine savings potential that is based upon the load forecast. The merit of unique 

free-ridership and spillover measures was considered for program planning purposes and reintroduced 

 41 Avoided Energy Supply Component Study Group, report titled “Avoided Energy Supply Costs in New England: 2009 

Report”, dated October 23, 2009.

42 It is not possible to discern exactly how much naturally occurring efficiency is included in the ITRON forecast. The 

forecast uses data on consumption trends from the Energy Information Administration that includes installation of 

efficient equipment, price effects, and other factors affecting customers’ consumption. 

43 Although the VEIC approach may slightly overstate the potential for efficiency savings compared to predicted load 

through the inclusion of measures largely reflected in the sales forecast, it can be advantageous for program planning 

purposes. The use of historical and forecasted free-ridership and spillover rates allows the EEU to anticipate future 

budgets and expected net savings critical to the program planning process.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 41

into the analysis of the resource plan scenarios that are to be provided to the Public Service Board 

subsequent to this report. The issue of free-ridership is discussed further in the following section.

5.12 FREE-RIDERSHIP VERSUS FREE-DRIVERS

Free-riders are defined as participants in an energy efficiency program who would have undertaken the 

energy-efficiency measure or improvement in the absence of a program or in the absence of a monetary 

incentive. Free-drivers are those who adopt an energy efficient product or service because of the 

intervention, but are difficult to identify either because they do not collect an incentive or they do not 

remember or are not aware of exposure to the intervention.44 

The issue of free-riders and free-drivers is important. For the commercial and industrial sectors, where a 

top-down approach is used to estimate electric savings potential, free-riders are accounted for through 

the electric energy and peak demand forecast provided to the study team by staff of the Vermont 

Department of Public Service. This electric kWh sales forecast already includes the impacts of naturally 

occurring energy efficiency (including impacts from vintaging of electric appliances, electric price 

impacts, and electric appliance efficiency standards). Because naturally occurring energy savings are 

already reflected in the electricity sales forecast used in this study, these electric savings will not be 

available to be saved again through the study team’s energy efficiency supply curve analysis. The study 

team used this process to ensure that there is no “double-counting” of energy efficiency savings. This 

technical methodology for accounting for free-riders for the commercial and industrial sectors is 

consistent with the standard practice used in other recent technical potential studies, such as those 

conducted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, New Mexico and Utah.

Adjustments to Savings for the Residential Sector 

As noted above, the study team used a “bottom-up” approach to estimate potential kWh savings 

remaining in the residential sector in Vermont. The study team examined whether it would be necessary 

to adjust projected electricity savings for free-ridership, spillover and other market effects. The study 

team collected data on energy efficiency program realization rates from programs at NYSERDA, 

National Grid and Wisconsin Focus on Energy. As a result of this review, and using NYSERDA’s most 

recent data, GDS has used an adjustment factor of 1.0 at this time to capture the impacts reflected in 

realization rates and net to gross ratios for this sector, with one exception. Recognizing that CFL lighting 

technology in the residential sector has historically been evaluated with significantly lower net to gross 

ratios than other standard measures, residential CFL bulbs were assigned an annual net to gross ratio of 

0.40 during the 20 year analysis period. The net to gross assumption for residential CFL lighting is based 

on forecast trends assumed by Efficiency Vermont.

The definitions of these terms are provided below.

net to gross ratio: this is an adjustment factor that accounts for the amount of energy savings, 

determined after adjusting for free ridership and spillover (market effects), attributable to the program. 

realization rate: this factor is calculated as the energy or demand savings measured and verified divided 

by the energy or demand savings originally forecasted to occur by the EEU. A rate of 1.0 means that the 

savings measured and verified aligned exactly with the savings claimed. A rate greater than 1.0 means 

that the savings were under-reported, while a rate less than 1.0 means the savings were over-estimated.

 44 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, “A Framework for Planning and Assessing Publicly Funded Energy Efficiency 

Programs”, Study ID PG&E-SW040, March 1, 2001.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 42
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 43

6 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL ESTIMATES (2012 TO 2031)

This section of the report presents the estimates of electric technical, economic, and maximum 

achievable potential for the state of Vermont as well as the EVT and BED territories separately. 

Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 presented below, summarize the technical, economic, and achievable savings 

potential (as a % of forecast sales) for the Vermont service area by 2031. The maximum achievable 

potential estimates are based primarily on a market penetration scenario that targets the installation of 

energy efficient equipment in 80-90% of the remaining eligible market by 2031. If the targeted market 

penetration for all remaining eligible cost-effective measures can be reached over the next two decades, 

the maximum achievable potential for electric energy efficiency savings in this sector is approximately 

34.4% of projected residential sales (819,382 MWh). Energy efficiency measures and programs can also 

serve to lessen peak demand, creating a reduction of roughly 37% of the 2031 residential winter peak 

(30% of the summer peak) in the maximum achievable potential scenario. 

Figure 6-1: Summary of Residential Energy Efficiency Potential as a % of 2031 Forecast – VT Statewide

Table 6.1 also presents the separate technical, economic, and maximum achievable estimates for the 

EVT and BED service territories. In general the BED territory had slightly higher estimates of technical, 

economic, and achievable potential.45

 45 Higher estimates of achievable potential are likely a result of several contributing factors. The BED saturation study 

was completed in 2005 and may not capture the most recent market changes in energy efficiency measure saturation 

compared to the 2009 NMR saturation data used in the EVT Territory. In addition, the BED residential load forecast 

has a lower annual growth rate than the growth rate found in the EVT residential forecast. As a result, the BED energy 

and demand savings potential appear larger relative to the 2031 BED forecast sales.

 Of the combined 819,382 MWh of achievable potential energy 

savings, the BED territory achievable electric energy savings was 38,389 MWh (41% of 2031 BED sales). 

Achievable

Economic

Technical

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Energy (MWh)

Winter MW

Summer MW

34.4%

36.7%

30.0%

40.6%

45.2%

36.7%

42.4%

46.0%

36.8%
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 44

The EVT territory was estimated to have a maximum achievable potential of 780,993 MWh (34% of 

2031 EVT territory sales).

Table 6-1: 2031 Summary of Residential Energy and Demand Savings Potential

6.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES EXAMINED

67 residential electric energy efficiency programs or measures were included in the energy savings 

analysis for the residential sector.46 Below, Table 6-2 provides a brief listing of the various residential 

energy efficiency programs or measures considered in this analysis. The list of energy efficiency 

measures examined was developed based on a review of the measures and programs included by other 

technical potential studies and measures included in the Vermont TRM. 

Appendix 2 provides a brief discussion of each measure or program as well as the savings, useful life, 

cost assumptions, and VT SCT benefit-cost ratios at the “measure” level.

Table 6-2: Measures and Programs Included in the Residential Sector Analysis

End Use Type End-Use Description Measures/Programs Includes

Appliances General Home Appliances * Dehumidifiers

* Refrigerators

* Freezers

* Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In

Appliances/WH Kitchen/Laundry * Clothes Washers

* Heat Pump Dryers

* Clothes Dryer - Fuel Switch

* Dishwashers

Electronics Home Electronics * Controlled Power Strips

* Internal Power Supplies

* Laptops

* Computer Monitors

* Televisions (LED, LCD, Plasma)

* Set Top Boxes

 46 After accounting for adjustments to different building types, replacement approaches, and housing characteristics, 

particularly for measures targets the space heating and cooling end use, the number grew to approximately 379 measure 

permutations.

Energy 

(MWh)

% of 2031 

Sales

Winter 

MW

% of 2031 

Winter Peak

Summer 

MW

% of 2031 

Summer Peak

State-wide

Technical Potential 1,011,825 42.4% 215.6 46.0% 159.2 36.8%

Economic Potential 966,837 40.6% 211.9 45.2% 158.5 36.7%

Achievable Potential 819,382 34.4% 172.2 36.7% 129.5 30.0%

EVT Territory

Technical Potential 965,853 42.2% 205.6 45.5% 151.6 36.5%

Economic Potential 921,663 40.2% 202.0 44.7% 151.2 36.4%

Achievable Potential 780,993 34.1% 164.0 36.3% 123.3 29.7%

BED Territory

Technical Potential 45,972 49.1% 10.0 57.4% 7.6 46.1%

Economic Potential 45,174 48.3% 9.9 56.7% 7.4 44.6%

Achievable Potential 38,389 41.0% 8.2 46.7% 6.1 37.1%

Energy Demand
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 45

* Misc. Consumer Electronics

HVAC (Envelope) Building Envelope Upgrades * Weatherization

* Weatherization & Insulation Package

* Energy Star Windows

HVAC (Equipment) Heating/Cooling /Ventilation 

Equipment

* Efficient Central AC

* Efficient Room AC

* Efficient Furnace Fan Motors

* Exhaust Fans

* Primary Space Heat - Fuel Switch (MF Only)

* Reverse Cycle Chillers – Emerging Tech. (MF Only)

Lighting Indoor/Outdoor Lighting * Incandescent to CFL

* Incandescent to LED

* CFL to LED

* Specialty CFL bulbs (<=15W)

* Specialty CFL bulbs (>15W)

* Indoor Lighting Controls

* Outdoor Lighting Controls

Other Miscellaneous Efficiency Measures * Pool Pump Timer

* 2-speed Pool Pump Motor

* Direct Feedback Devices (In Home Display Units) –

Emerging Tech.

* Indirect Energy Consumption Feedback – Emerging 

Tech.

Water Heating Domestic Hot Water * Efficient Storage Tank WH

* Heat Pump WH

* Solar WH (w/ Electric Back Up) – Emerging Tech.

* Electric Water Heater - Fuel Switch

* Tank Wrap

* Pipe Wrap

* Low Flow Showerheads

* Faucet Aerators

6.2 RESIDENTIAL SECTOR S AVINGS METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

The portfolio of measures includes retrofit, early retirement, and replace-on-burnout programmatic 

approaches to achieve energy efficiency savings. In the residential sector, a retrofit measure refers to the 

application of supplemental measures (such as the addition of a low-flow device to a showerhead); early 

retirement includes the replacement of operational equipment before the end of its remaining useful life.

Existing homes were divided into single family and multi-family home markets in order to account for 

differing equipment saturations and heating/cooling consumption. New homes were also included in 

the analysis based on a forecast of the number of new customers each year from VELCO. The analysis 

of the potential for energy efficiency savings is based on the most recent residential electric sales 

forecasts for the EVT and BED service territories for the years 2012 through 2031.

The residential sector analysis was modeled using what is considered a “bottom-up approach.” The 

methodology is illustrated in Figure 6-2 below:
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 46

Figure 6-2: Residential Sector Savings Methodology - Bottom Up Approach

As shown in this figure, the methodology started at the bottom based on the number of residential 

customers (splitting them into single-family and multi-family customers as well as existing vs. new 

construction). From that point, estimates of the size of the eligible market were developed for each 

efficiency measure. For example, energy efficiency measures that affect electric water heating are only 

applicable to those homes in the EVT and BED territories that have electric water heating. 

To obtain up-to-date appliance and end-use saturation data, the study made extensive use of the data 

collected during the residential on-site surveys conducted for the 2009 Existing Homes Report and 2009 

Vermont Residential New Construction Study, both completed by Nexus Market Research, Inc. (NMR). 

For the BED territory, data collected during 2005 by KEMA was utilized to define baseline saturation 

characteristics. When available, estimates of energy efficient equipment saturations were also based on 

the on-site survey data. Additional estimates of energy efficient saturation were generated from regional 

or national data when needed. 

The full formula to determine savings at the measure level is shown below.

Technical 

Potential 

of Efficient 

Measure

=

Total 

Number of

Households

or Buildings

X

Base Case

Equipment

End Use

Intensity

[kWh/unit]

X Base Case

Factor X RemainingFactor X ApplicabilityFactor X Savings Factor

The goal of the formula is to determine how many households this measure applies to (base case factor), 

then of that group, the fraction of households which do not have the efficient version of the measure 

being installed (remaining factor). In instances where technical reasons did not permit the installation of 

the efficient equipment in all eligible households or competing technologies were eligible for a 

household, an applicability factor was used that limits the potential. The last factor to be applied was the 

savings factor, which is the percentage savings achieved from installing the efficient measure over a 

standard measure. 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 47

In developing the overall potential electricity savings, the analysis also took steps to account for the 

interactive effects of measures designed to impact the same end-use. For instance, if a home were to 

improve their air leakage rate, the overall space heating and cooling consumption in that home would 

decrease. As a result, the remaining potential for energy savings derived from additional thermal 

envelope efficiency measures and efficient heating/cooling equipment would be reduced. 

In this analysis, it was assumed that for those measures designed to impact the same end-use, the 

measure or program with the highest current market penetration would typically be installed first, 

followed by the measure(s) with the next highest market penetration. Presumably, the measures with the 

highest market penetrations are perceived as the most attractive based on costs, savings, or ease of 

implementation. Ranking the installation order in this manner also mimics the pattern of installation that 

is already occurring in the current market.

In instances where there were two (or more) competing technologies for the same electric end use, such 

as heat pump water heaters and high efficiency electric storage water heaters, a percent of the available 

population was assigned to each measure using the applicability factor. In the event that one of the 

competing measures was not found to be cost-effective, the homes assigned to that measure were 

transitioned over to the cost effective alternative (if any). 

Fuel-switching was analyzed in this analysis for electric water heating and primary space heating.47 These 

measures consist of replacement electric water and/or space heating equipment in favor of natural gas, 

oil, or propane units. Fuel switching was treated as a competing measure to other electric efficiency 

options. As a result, only a fraction of the total eligible homes were included in the fuel switch options. 

The majority of measures were analyzed under both the replace-on-burnout and early retirement option. 

In the technical potential, 50% of the eligible remaining market was reserved for early retirement and the 

remaining 50% of the eligible market was analyzed through the replace-on-burnout approach. If both 

measures proved to be cost effective, the 50/50 split remained through the economic and achievable 

potential scenarios. The assumption of a 50/50 split remained through the achievable potential to allow 

for overall linear participation, budgets, and savings in lieu of alternate periods of program growth and 

contraction. However, in the event that one replacement approach was not cost-effective, the remaining 

replacement approach received 100% of the eligible market. 

Finally, the residential savings potential also takes into account scheduled federal upgrades to 

incandescent lighting. Recently enacted federal standards (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) 

require incandescent bulbs to be approximately 30% more efficient beginning in 2012.48 These 

improvements to incandescent equipment performance result in decreased savings potential for CFL and 

LED technologies. While these new standards may shift the market even further towards wide-spread 

acceptance of CFL technologies, they do not necessary signal the end of incandescent bulbs. As a result, 

this analysis continues to include the potential savings from screw-in CFL bulbs from 2012-2019.49

 47 Primary space heat fuel switching was reserved for the multi-family sector only. The baseline saturation of primary 

electric space heat in the single family sector was deemed insignificant based on the results of the most recent end-use 

saturation studies.

48 The mandated increase in the efficiency of incandescent bulbs is phased in over a 3-year period: 100-watt bulbs must 

be 30% more efficient beginning in 2012, 75-watt bulbs in 2013, and 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs in 2014. To facilitate this 

analysis, GDS took the increased standards for incandescent lighting into account throughout the entire period of study 

(2012-2031). 49 As referenced in Section 5.12, although the analysis continues to include the potential savings from CFL bulbs from 

2012-2019, CFL bulbs were assigned a net to gross ratio of 0.40 to account for the wide-spread acceptance of CFL bulbs 

and the resulting increase in CFL bulb free-ridership.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 48

In 2020, a second tier of lighting standards is expected to take effect and require bulbs to be 45% more 

efficient than today’s incandescent bulbs. Although these standards do not ban the incandescent bulb, 

this study assumes the 2020 lighting standards will shift the market accordingly so that the standard new 

bulb has similar efficacy to a CFL bulb. As a result, all lighting savings from 2020-2031 are modeled as 

CFL to LED technology.

6.3 TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL S AVINGS

The technical potential represents the savings that could be captured if 100 percent of inefficient electric 

appliances and equipment were replaced instantaneously (where they are deemed to be technically 

feasible). As shown below in Table 6-3, total technical potential savings for the Vermont residential 

sector are 1,011,825 MWh, or 42.4% of forecast residential MWh sales in 2031. The technical potential 

for winter peak demand savings is 216 MW, or 46% of 2031 forecast winter peak demand. The potential 

for summer peak savings is approximately 159 MW (37% of the 2031 summer peak demand forecast). 

Table 6-3: Technical Energy and Demand Potential and % Share of Residential Energy Forecast Sales and 

Summer/Winter Peak Demand in 2031

Below, in Figure 6-3 presents the electric energy efficiency technical potential results for the residential 

sector in the form of a supply curve. The supply curve demonstrates the technical potential savings (as a 

% of 2031 forecast kWh sales) at varied levelized costs per lifetime kWh saved amounts. For example, 

roughly 31% savings can be achieved at a cost per lifetime kWh saved of $0.10 or less. To obtain 

increased electric energy from efficiency resources, it is necessary to move to the right on the curve and 

choose progressively more costly resources. It should be noted that the levelized costs are based on 

electric savings and do not factor in associated non-electric benefits, nor do they include program 

administrative costs. 

End Use Energy (MWh) Winter (MW) Summer (MW)

Water Heating 249,237 46 28

Lighting 194,429 74 17

Consumer Electronics 125,452 14 13

Appliances/WH 124,362 24 18

Other 107,221 16 34

HVAC (Envelope) 81,686 8 23

HVAC (Equipment) 79,093 20 12

Appliances 50,346 14 15

Total 1,011,825 216 159

% of 2031 Forecast 42.4% 46.0% 36.8%

Technical Potential
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 49

Figure 6-3: Residential Electric Efficiency Supply Curve for Vermont

The economic potential calculations were made by incorporating the various measure assumptions 

(savings, cost, and useful life, etc) into the cost-effectiveness screening tool.50 Any programmatic costs 

(e.g., marketing, analysis, and administration) were ignored in the economic potential analysis in order to 

screen whether energy efficient technologies were cost-effective on their own merit prior to any 

assistance or marketing endeavors from utilities or other organizations. 

For the economic potential scenario, the study assumed 100% of all remaining cost-effective measures 

eligible for installation were installed. This produces an economic potential of 40.6% of forecast 

residential MWh sales in 2031. Economic winter peak demand savings are 212 MW, or 45.2% of 

forecast residential winter peak demand. Summer peak demand savings are approximately 159 MW, or 

36.7% of the forecast residential summer peak.

 50 The cost-effectiveness of a measure is based on each measure’s full savings potential, before any adjustments for 

interactive impacts. After identifying which measures passed screening, we made an additional adjustment for interactive 

effects in order to finalize estimates of overall economic potential.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

Levelized $ / kWh

Technical Potential as a % of 2031 Residential Sales Forecast

Note: Only includes measures with a levelized $/kWh < $1.00. 
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 50

Table 6.4: Economic Energy Potential and Percentage Share of Residential Forecast Energy Sales and 

Summer/Winter Peak Demand in 2030

6.4 MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL S AVINGS

The maximum achievable potential is a subset of the economic potential and is limited by various market 

and adoption barriers, including the assumed 50/50 split of replace-on-burnout and early retirement 

measures. 

6.4.1 ESTIMATING MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE S AVINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

In the residential base maximum achievable scenario, achievable potential represents the attainable 

savings if the market penetration of high efficiency electric appliances and equipment reaches 80%-90% 

of the eligible market from 2012-2031. The 90% target achievable penetration was assumed for the 

appliances, appliances/WH, consumer electronics, HVAC (equipment) and water heating end-uses. 80% 

target market penetration was assumed for fuel-switching, emerging technologies, lighting, HVAC 

(envelope), and other end-uses51. 

The variation in target market penetration was utilized to account for increased barriers to measure 

adoption in certain end-uses. For example, homeowners may consider job length and personal 

inconvenience a greater barrier to implementation over the economics of the measure. Similarly, not all 

homes may have the appropriate building characteristics (orientation, shading, neighborhood codes) to 

be retrofitted with a solar hot water heating system (or other emerging technologies). For these reasons, 

this study assumed it was appropriate to assign a variable target market penetration across end-uses.

Once the total number of measures eligible to be installed over the 20-year analysis time frame was 

determined, one of four annual penetration curves (upward trending, bell curve, downward trending and 

flat) was assigned to each measure. In general, these curves were assigned based on measure cost and 

current market acceptance. For example, a measure with low cost or high market acceptance was 

assigned the downward trending curve, resulting in higher levels of penetration in early years, followed 

by a slow decline in incremental annual penetration during latter years. A measure with a high install cost 

 51 Although lighting has historically been an end-use that is able to achieve high levels of market penetration relative to 

other end-uses, this analysis limited the remaining potential to 80% of the remaining market. In the short term, the 

remaining potential is limited by the success of current lighting efforts and reduced remaining potential. In the long 

term, the market penetration was set at 80% to account for unknown LED bulb costs and the uncertainty of the LED 

lighting to be appropriate in all residential applications.

End Use Energy (MWh) Winter (MW) Summer (MW)

Water Heating 205,432 42 29

Lighting 194,429 74 17

Consumer Electronics 125,112 14 13

Appliances/WH 124,310 24 18

Other 107,221 16 34

HVAC (Envelope) 81,441 8 23

HVAC (Equipment) 78,545 20 11

Appliances 50,346 14 15

Total 966,837 212 159

% of 2031 Forecast 40.6% 45.2% 36.7%

Economic Potential
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 51

or low market acceptance was assigned the upward trending penetration curve. Early retirement 

measures and new construction measures were assigned a flat penetration curve. All four curves were 

tailored to ensure that the full desired market penetration was reached by the end of the analysis time 

frame. Although this method simplifies what an adoption curve would look like in practice, it succeeds 

in providing a concise method for estimating achievable savings potential over a specific period of time.

Finally, the majority of savings measures possess a useful life less than the analysis time frame. For 

example, a clothes washer installed in 2012, with a measure life of ~12 years, might expire in 2024. In 

this analysis, expiring measures were reintroduced the following year. This allows the savings (and costs) 

to persist throughout the entire 20-year study. As noted earlier, this analysis acknowledges that measures 

reintroduced in later years may be impacted by future improvements to building or appliance codes and 

standards yet assumes that future energy and demand savings remain consistent through similar 

improvements to high efficiency measure standards over time.

6.4.2 RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE S AVINGS POTENTIAL

By 2031 the total residential energy efficiency maximum achievable potential is 819,382 MWh, or 34.4% 

of forecast residential sales in 2031. The maximum achievable potential scenario also achieves 172 MW 

of residential winter peak savings, or 36.7% of the 2031 residential winter peak forecast. Summer peak 

savings are estimated at 129 MW, or 30% of the residential summer peak

Table 6-4: Maximum Achievable Energy and Demand Potential and % Share of Residential Forecast Energy 

Sales and Summer/Winter Peak Demand in 2031

Figures 6-4 and 6-5 are pie charts that show the maximum achievable potential by end-use and show the 

shifting flow of measure group share over time. In 2019, lighting is the dominant share (40%) of the 

total 2019 maximum potential. As noted earlier the section, in 2020 new federal lighting standards go 

into effect that are expected to effectively lead to CFL bulbs as the standard efficiency lighting 

technology in the U.S. The result is a significant drop-off in the potential for lighting savings in the 

residential. By 2031, lighting has decreased from 40% (~199,600 MWh) to 15% of the total maximum 

achievable potential (125,522 MWH). During this time, nearly all other end-uses have increased their 

share of the total maximum achievable potential.

Table 6-5 through Table 6-7 depict the cumulative annual energy and demand savings, by end-use, for 

the residential sector. In addition to the statewide maximum achievable potential, the maximum 

achievable potential for the EVT and BED service territories are also included. 

End Use Energy (MWh) Winter (MW) Summer (MW)

Water Heating 171,726 34 23

Lighting 125,522 59 14

Consumer Electronics 110,350 12 11

Appliances/WH 106,787 20 15

Other 85,773 12 27

Appliances 85,727 10 11

HVAC (Equipment) 67,723 17 10

HVAC (Envelope) 65,774 7 19

Total 819,382 172 129

% of 2031 Forecast 34.4% 36.7% 30.0%

Achievable Potential
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 52

Figure 6-4: Residential Sector End-Use Savings as a % of 2019 Maximum Achievable Potential

Figure 6-5: Residential Sector End-Use Savings as a % of 2031 Maximum Achievable Potential

Appliances

16%

Appliances/WH

10%

Consumer 

Electronics

6%

Other

5%

HVAC (Envelope)

6%

HVAC (Equipment)

4%

Water Heating

13%

Lighting

40%

Appliances

10%

Appliances/WH

13%

Consumer 

Electronics

14%

Other

HVAC (Envelope) 11%

8%

HVAC (Equipment)

8%

Water Heating

21%

Lighting

15%
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 53

Table 6-5: Cumulative Annual Residential Energy (MWh) Savings Potential by End Use for VT (Statewide), EVT Territory, and BED Territory

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 11,660 23,564 35,575 47,644 59,709 66,646 73,430 79,978 82,196 83,804 84,792 85,307 85,411 85,304 85,066 84,811 84,645 84,678 85,008 85,727

Appliances/WH 6,065 12,348 18,710 25,157 31,679 37,792 43,898 49,942 55,862 61,560 66,981 72,163 77,084 81,817 86,337 90,671 94,838 98,872 102,774 106,787

Consumer Electronics 2,877 5,807 8,845 12,045 15,461 19,145 23,153 27,538 32,463 37,927 44,038 50,687 57,768 65,172 72,792 80,519 88,246 95,865 103,269 110,350

HVAC (Envelope) 3,125 6,463 9,966 13,613 17,397 21,270 25,201 29,148 33,062 36,871 40,529 44,042 47,369 50,522 53,492 56,282 58,886 61,319 63,583 65,774

HVAC (Equipment) 2,430 4,964 7,526 10,164 12,946 15,789 18,756 21,890 25,202 28,686 32,365 36,197 40,155 44,176 48,239 52,300 56,281 60,196 64,018 67,723

Lighting 34,315 68,374 95,707 119,217 140,435 159,516 180,507 199,598 18,431 27,984 37,590 47,256 56,949 66,702 76,445 86,182 95,984 105,776 115,515 125,522

Other 2,557 5,165 7,802 10,533 13,409 16,457 19,734 23,275 27,190 31,449 36,131 41,175 46,498 52,045 57,727 63,471 69,203 74,864 80,370 85,773

Water Heating 6,813 13,883 21,229 28,852 36,760 44,864 53,238 61,874 70,804 79,962 89,348 98,882 108,474 118,059 127,571 136,926 146,071 154,952 163,496 171,726

Total 69,842 140,567 205,360 267,224 327,796 381,480 437,917 493,242 345,209 388,243 431,775 475,709 519,710 563,798 607,668 651,163 694,154 736,521 778,034 819,382

% of 2031 VT Sales 3.3% 6.8% 9.9% 12.8% 15.5% 18.0% 20.5% 23.0% 15.9% 17.8% 19.7% 21.5% 23.2% 25.0% 26.7% 28.3% 29.8% 31.5% 32.9% 34.4%

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 11,133 22,500 33,970 45,496 57,020 63,678 70,189 76,473 78,592 80,126 81,064 81,546 81,635 81,520 81,281 81,025 80,842 80,853 81,148 81,823

Appliances/WH 5,756 11,720 17,755 23,868 30,055 35,847 41,630 47,351 52,950 58,333 63,450 68,336 72,973 77,431 81,687 85,768 89,670 93,447 97,103 100,878

Consumer Electronics 2,740 5,531 8,424 11,472 14,726 18,236 22,053 26,231 30,922 36,127 41,948 48,282 55,027 62,080 69,338 76,700 84,061 91,319 98,372 105,117

HVAC (Envelope) 2,975 6,151 9,482 12,949 16,544 20,224 23,959 27,705 31,422 35,037 38,508 41,839 44,993 47,985 50,806 53,455 55,926 58,233 60,380 62,463

HVAC (Equipment) 2,301 4,690 7,106 9,594 12,223 14,910 17,713 20,674 23,801 27,089 30,558 34,167 37,893 41,674 45,494 49,308 53,037 56,700 60,277 63,758

Lighting 32,689 65,139 91,196 113,623 133,883 152,113 172,161 190,404 17,640 26,761 35,932 45,156 54,403 63,707 73,001 82,287 91,608 100,918 110,179 119,711

Other 2,469 4,987 7,530 10,161 12,936 15,871 19,028 22,438 26,204 30,300 34,802 39,649 44,763 50,089 55,543 61,058 66,556 71,985 77,266 82,455

Water Heating 6,529 13,307 20,346 27,655 35,239 43,002 51,030 59,309 67,873 76,656 85,664 94,816 104,024 113,233 122,366 131,354 140,136 148,663 156,879 164,788

Total 66,592 134,024 195,810 254,819 312,625 363,880 417,763 470,585 329,403 370,430 411,926 453,790 495,711 537,719 579,516 620,955 661,836 702,120 741,604 780,993

% of 2031 EVT Sales 3.3% 6.7% 9.8% 12.7% 15.4% 17.9% 20.4% 22.8% 15.8% 17.7% 19.6% 21.4% 23.1% 24.9% 26.5% 28.2% 29.6% 31.2% 32.7% 34.1%

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 527 1,064 1,605 2,148 2,689 2,968 3,242 3,504 3,604 3,678 3,728 3,761 3,776 3,784 3,785 3,787 3,802 3,825 3,860 3,904

Appliances/WH 308 629 955 1,289 1,624 1,946 2,268 2,592 2,912 3,227 3,531 3,827 4,112 4,387 4,650 4,904 5,168 5,424 5,671 5,909

Consumer Electronics 137 276 421 573 735 910 1,100 1,308 1,541 1,800 2,090 2,405 2,741 3,092 3,453 3,819 4,185 4,546 4,897 5,233

HVAC (Envelope) 150 312 484 664 853 1,047 1,242 1,443 1,640 1,833 2,021 2,203 2,377 2,537 2,686 2,828 2,960 3,086 3,204 3,311

HVAC (Equipment) 129 273 420 570 723 879 1,043 1,216 1,401 1,597 1,808 2,030 2,262 2,501 2,745 2,991 3,245 3,495 3,741 3,965

Lighting 1,627 3,235 4,510 5,594 6,553 7,403 8,346 9,193 791 1,222 1,658 2,100 2,546 2,995 3,444 3,894 4,376 4,857 5,336 5,811

Other 88 178 272 372 473 586 706 837 986 1,149 1,329 1,526 1,735 1,956 2,184 2,413 2,647 2,879 3,104 3,318

Water Heating 283 576 883 1,197 1,521 1,862 2,208 2,565 2,932 3,306 3,684 4,066 4,450 4,826 5,205 5,573 5,935 6,288 6,617 6,938

Total 3,250 6,543 9,550 12,406 15,171 17,600 20,154 22,657 15,807 17,813 19,849 21,918 23,999 26,078 28,152 30,209 32,318 34,401 36,430 38,389

% of 2031 BED Sales 3.8% 7.7% 11.1% 14.3% 17.3% 20.1% 22.9% 25.5% 17.6% 19.8% 22.0% 24.2% 26.2% 28.5% 30.7% 32.8% 34.9% 37.0% 39.1% 41.0%

Energy Savings (MWh) - Vermont (Statewide)

Energy Savings (MWh) - EVT Territory

Energy Savings (MWh) - BED Territory
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 54

Table 6-6: Cumulative Annual Residential Winter Peak Demand (MW) Savings by End Use for VT (Statewide), EVT Territory, and BED Territory

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 1.4 2.8 4.2 5.7 7.1 7.9 8.7 9.5 9.8 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.2

Appliances/WH 1.1 2.2 3.4 4.6 5.8 6.9 8.0 9.1 10.2 11.3 12.3 13.3 14.3 15.2 16.0 16.9 17.7 18.5 19.2 20.0

Consumer Electronics 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.8 5.5 6.3 7.1 8.0 8.8 9.7 10.5 11.3 12.1

HVAC (Envelope) 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

HVAC (Equipment) 0.6 1.2 1.9 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.7 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.3 9.3 10.3 11.3 12.4 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5

Lighting 10.7 21.5 30.3 38.0 45.2 51.9 59.4 66.3 9.5 13.9 18.3 22.7 27.1 31.6 36.1 40.6 45.1 49.6 54.1 58.7

Other 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.7 6.5 7.3 8.2 9.0 9.9 10.8 11.6 12.4

Water Heating 1.2 2.5 3.9 5.2 6.7 8.2 9.8 11.4 13.1 14.9 16.8 18.8 20.8 22.8 24.8 26.9 28.8 30.8 32.7 34.5

Total 16.1 32.3 46.7 60.2 73.3 85.5 98.5 111.2 59.8 69.8 79.9 90.1 100.5 110.9 121.3 131.7 142.0 152.1 162.2 172.2

% of 2031 VT Wtr Peak 3.7% 7.7% 11.1% 14.3% 17.2% 20.1% 23.0% 25.8% 13.8% 16.1% 18.3% 20.5% 22.6% 24.8% 26.9% 28.9% 30.8% 32.9% 34.8% 36.7%

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 1.3 2.7 4.0 5.4 6.8 7.6 8.4 9.1 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.7

Appliances/WH 1.0 2.1 3.2 4.3 5.4 6.5 7.6 8.6 9.7 10.7 11.6 12.6 13.5 14.3 15.1 15.9 16.7 17.4 18.1 18.8

Consumer Electronics 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.4 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.0 6.8 7.6 8.4 9.2 10.0 10.8 11.5

HVAC (Envelope) 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5

HVAC (Equipment) 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.5 5.2 6.0 6.9 7.8 8.7 9.7 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.7 14.6 15.6 16.5

Lighting 10.2 20.5 28.9 36.3 43.1 49.5 56.7 63.3 9.1 13.3 17.5 21.7 25.9 30.2 34.5 38.8 43.1 47.3 51.6 56.0

Other 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.1 6.9 7.7 8.6 9.4 10.2 11.0 11.8

Water Heating 1.2 2.4 3.7 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.4 11.0 12.6 14.3 16.2 18.1 20.0 21.9 23.9 25.8 27.7 29.6 31.4 33.2

Total 15.3 30.8 44.5 57.4 69.9 81.5 93.9 106.1 57.1 66.5 76.1 85.9 95.8 105.7 115.6 125.5 135.3 145.0 154.5 164.0

% of 2031 EVT Wtr Peak 3.7% 7.6% 11.0% 14.1% 17.1% 19.9% 22.8% 25.6% 13.7% 15.9% 18.1% 20.3% 22.4% 24.5% 26.6% 28.6% 30.5% 32.6% 34.5% 36.3%

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Appliances/WH 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2

Consumer Electronics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6

HVAC (Envelope) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

HVAC (Equipment) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0

Lighting 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.7

Other 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6

Water Heating 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3

Total 0.8 1.5 2.2 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.1 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.2 7.7 8.2

% of 2031 BED Wtr Peak 5.0% 9.9% 14.2% 18.1% 21.9% 25.0% 28.7% 32.1% 17.3% 19.9% 22.5% 25.2% 28.3% 30.9% 33.6% 36.2% 39.0% 41.7% 44.2% 46.7%

Winter Peak Demand Savings (MW) - Vermont (Statewide)

Winter Peak Demand Savings (MW) - EVT Territory

Winter Peak Demand Savings (MW) - BED Territory
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 55

Table 6-7: Cumulative Annual Residential Summer Peak Demand (MW) Savings by End Use for VT (Statewide), EVT Territory, and BED Territory

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 1.4 2.9 4.4 5.9 7.4 8.3 9.1 9.9 10.2 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.6

Appliances/WH 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.4 4.3 5.1 5.9 6.8 7.6 8.4 9.2 9.9 10.6 11.3 11.9 12.5 13.1 13.7 14.3 14.9

Consumer Electronics 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.6 7.4 8.2 9.0 9.8 10.6 11.3

HVAC (Envelope) 0.8 1.7 2.6 3.6 4.5 5.6 6.6 7.7 8.8 9.9 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 14.9 15.7 16.6 17.3 18.0 18.8

HVAC (Equipment) 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.4 5.0 5.5 6.1 6.7 7.3 7.9 8.5 9.1 9.6

Lighting 2.9 5.7 8.1 10.1 12.0 13.8 15.7 17.5 1.8 2.8 3.9 5.0 6.1 7.1 8.2 9.3 10.4 11.4 12.5 13.6

Other 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.4 4.3 5.3 6.4 7.5 8.8 10.1 11.6 13.2 14.9 16.6 18.4 20.2 22.0 23.8 25.6 27.3

Water Heating 0.8 1.6 2.5 3.4 4.3 5.3 6.3 7.4 8.5 9.7 11.0 12.3 13.7 15.1 16.6 18.0 19.4 20.7 22.1 23.4

Total 8.2 16.6 24.6 32.4 40.2 47.4 55.0 62.6 52.4 59.1 66.1 73.1 80.3 87.5 94.7 101.8 108.9 115.9 122.7 129.5

% of 2031 VT Sum. Peak 2.5% 5.0% 7.3% 9.4% 11.5% 13.4% 15.2% 17.1% 14.1% 15.7% 17.3% 18.8% 20.3% 21.8% 23.2% 24.6% 25.8% 27.3% 28.6% 30.0%

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 1.4 2.8 4.2 5.6 7.1 7.9 8.7 9.5 9.8 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.2

Appliances/WH 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.2 7.9 8.6 9.3 10.0 10.6 11.2 11.8 12.4 12.9 13.5 14.0

Consumer Electronics 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.7 4.3 4.9 5.6 6.3 7.1 7.8 8.6 9.3 10.1 10.8

HVAC (Envelope) 0.8 1.6 2.5 3.4 4.3 5.3 6.3 7.3 8.4 9.4 10.4 11.4 12.3 13.3 14.1 14.9 15.7 16.4 17.1 17.8

HVAC (Equipment) 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.6 6.2 6.7 7.3 7.8 8.3 8.8

Lighting 2.7 5.5 7.7 9.6 11.5 13.1 15.0 16.7 1.7 2.7 3.7 4.8 5.8 6.8 7.8 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 13.0

Other 0.8 1.6 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.3 8.5 9.8 11.2 12.7 14.4 16.0 17.8 19.5 21.2 23.0 24.6 26.3

Water Heating 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.2 9.4 10.6 11.9 13.2 14.6 16.0 17.3 18.7 20.0 21.3 22.5

Total 7.8 15.9 23.4 30.9 38.4 45.2 52.4 59.7 50.0 56.4 63.0 69.7 76.5 83.4 90.3 97.1 103.8 110.4 116.9 123.3

% of 2031 EVT Sum. Peak 2.5% 5.0% 7.2% 9.4% 11.4% 13.3% 15.1% 17.0% 14.0% 15.6% 17.1% 18.7% 20.1% 21.6% 23.0% 24.4% 25.6% 27.0% 28.4% 29.7%

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Appliances 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Appliances/WH 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9

Consumer Electronics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5

HVAC (Envelope) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0

HVAC (Equipment) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8

Lighting 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0

Water Heating 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8

Total 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.1 5.5 5.8 6.1

% of 2031 BED Sum. Peak 2.7% 5.5% 7.9% 10.3% 12.7% 14.9% 17.3% 19.5% 15.9% 17.9% 20.1% 22.2% 24.6% 26.3% 28.1% 30.0% 32.0% 33.8% 35.5% 37.1%

Summer Peak Demand Savings (MW) - Vermont (Statewide)

Summer Peak Demand Savings (MW) - EVT Territory

Summer Peak Demand Savings (MW) - BED Territory
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 56

6.4.3 IMPACTS OF FUEL SWITCHING IN THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE P OTENTIAL SCENARIO

A significant portion of the maximum achievable potential in the residential sector over the next 20 years 

is for conversion of residential electric water heating and/or space heating systems and electric dryers to 

alternative fuels. In total, approximately 16% of the residential maximum achievable potential (132,148

MWH) is a result of fuel conversion programs, where electric end-uses are converted to fossil fuels. The 

largest fraction of the fuel switching savings was a result of converting electric clothes dryers to fossil 

fuel alternatives (57,117 MWh). An additional 52,404 MWh and 22,627 MWh were estimated from 

water heating and space heating system fuel switching, respectively.

In the absence of fuel conversion programs, it would be possible to shift a significant portion of the 

savings currently attributed to fuel-switching into currently available competing technologies. For 

instance solar water heating or heat pump water heaters, which save 50%-60% compared to standard 

efficiency electric storage tank water heater, would be eligible to receive increased participation in lieu of 

fuel conversion. Similarly, heat pump dryers could increasingly contribute to the total maximum 

achievable potential in lieu of converting electric dryers to fossil fuel.

6.4.4 MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE P OTENTIAL BENEFITS & COSTS

For the maximum achievable potential, the 80%-90% target market penetration assumes that consumers 

would receive a financial incentive equal to 100% of the measure cost. For the replace on burnout 

approach, the incentive was 100% of the incremental cost to bridge the gap between the cost of standard 

efficiency equipment and high efficiency equipment. For retrofit and early retirement measures, the 

incentive was equal to 100% of the full measure cost. 

In addition, an overall non-incentive or administrative cost per first year kWh saved was assigned to each 

measure in order to calculate the achievable cost-effectiveness tests. Administrative costs in 2012 were 

determined based on the 2007-2009 average of non-incentive costs reported by EVT in their annual 

report filings.52 In all subsequent years, the administrative cost per kWh was escalated by the annual 

rate of inflation (2.6%).

In 2012, a cost of ~ $0.82 per kWh was used for all new construction measures based on the three-year 

average non-incentive costs calculated for EVT’s current Residential New Construction Program. 

Appliances, lighting, consumer electronics, and select easy-to-install retrofit measures were assigned an 

administrative cost of ~ $0.05 per kWh based on the three-year average non-incentive costs calculated 

for the current Residential Efficient Products Program. All other measures were assigned an 

administrative cost per kWh of ~$0.48 based on the Residential Existing Buildings Program. 

The overall benefit/cost screening results for the residential sector maximum achievable potential are 

shown below in Table 6-8. The net present value costs to Vermont of roughly $628.5 million dollars 

represent both total measure costs as well as the associated costs (i.e. marketing, labor, monitoring, etc.) 

of administering energy efficiency programs between 2012 and 2031. The net present value benefits of 

$1.4 billion represent the lifetime benefits of all measures installed during the same time period. In 

addition to the electric benefits received, the net present value benefit dollars include the impacts of 

reduced fuel consumption (or increased fuel consumption through fuel-switching efforts), water savings, 

 52 Non-incentive costs refer to the Total Efficiency Vermont Costs reported by EVT net of all incentives to participants 

and/or trade allies. It does not include participant or other third party costs. Performance incentives and operations 

fees, along with evaluation budgets are additional costs to deliver programs that are not included in this calculation.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 57

other O&M benefits, and the VT Societal Test externality benefits53. Although the maximum achievable 

potential estimates would require a substantial investment in energy efficiency over the long term, the 

resulting energy and demand savings would result in a net benefit of over $802.5 million dollars (present 

worth 2012).

Table 6-6: NPV ($2012) Benefits and Costs Associated with the Maximum Achievable Potential Electric 

Savings in the Residential Sector

The annual incentive and administrative cost associated with the maximum achievable potential savings 

are presented in greater detail in Tables 6.7 – 6.9. In total, the $2012 NPV of incentives is $577.8 million 

from 2012-2031. Total incentive costs are greater than the NPV measure cost recorded in the VT 

societal test ($477.4 million) because incentives were calculated as 100% of the measure cost and do not 

include any future year cost adjustments for early retirement measures whereas the VT societal test has 

applied a 10% reduction to energy efficiency measure costs for all calculations and does include future 

year cost adjustments for measures being retired before the end of their useful life.

Administrative costs are $151.2 million and range annually from 18% - 25% of the total estimated annual 

dollars necessary to achieve the targeted maximum achievable potential. Because administrative costs are 

tied directly to first year kWh savings, administrative costs are sensitive to the number of measures being 

installed each year and are not a predetermined fraction of the total budget. Additionally, administrative 

budgets are expected to increase at a more rapid pace in the 2nd decade as programs are expected to see 

new measures being installed on an annual basis as well as the reintroduction of measures installed 

during the 1st decade reach the end of their original useful life.

 53 See Section 5.9.5 for a discussion of the VT Societal Test externality benefits adder.

 Electric Non-Electric Non-Energy Total Benefits Measure Admin Total Costs

State-wide

NPV $2012 $1,093.1 $306.4 $31.5 $1,431.0 $477.4 $151.1 $628.5 2.3

EVT Territory

NPV $2012 $1,042.5 $294.4 $30.1 $1,367.0 $456.7 $144.9 $601.6 2.3

BED Territory

NPV $2012 $50.6 $12.0 $1.4 $63.9 $20.7 $6.2 $26.9 2.4

Benefits Costs

B/C 

(in millions) in millions Ratio
Vermont Energy Efficiency Potential

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 58

Table 6-7: Incentive and Administrative Costs Associated with the Residential Maximum Achievable Potential (VT Statewide)

Table 6-8: Incentive and Administrative Costs Associated with the Residential Maximum Achievable Potential (EVT Territory)

Table 6-9: Incentive and Administrative Costs Associated with the Residential Maximum Achievable Potential (BED Territory)

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

Appliances $8,301,844 $8,380,671 $8,376,219 $8,376,891 $8,372,041 $8,324,769 $8,280,006 $8,208,074 $8,108,276 $7,958,530 $7,789,753 $7,655,432 $7,516,754 $7,433,342 $7,343,301 $7,276,145 $7,356,916 $9,825,514 $9,856,500 $9,949,430 $85,117,517

Appliances/WH $12,096,003 $12,271,814 $12,199,547 $12,137,534 $12,060,800 $11,866,605 $11,676,403 $11,413,281 $11,075,784 $10,610,265 $10,212,947 $9,800,736 $11,457,444 $11,210,119 $17,011,721 $16,878,367 $16,617,931 $16,409,390 $16,210,816 $16,274,578 $128,513,121

Consumer Electronics $430,250 $437,847 $453,075 $475,963 $774,333 $885,785 $1,001,151 $1,073,812 $1,444,946 $1,561,033 $1,773,218 $1,916,175 $2,394,086 $2,548,877 $2,714,973 $2,939,127 $3,361,313 $3,499,352 $3,691,842 $3,799,517 $14,193,742

HVAC (Envelope) $12,631,747 $13,364,920 $13,669,692 $14,043,836 $14,469,090 $14,647,035 $14,866,121 $14,917,762 $14,794,601 $14,328,594 $13,710,900 $13,151,048 $12,461,243 $11,908,484 $11,223,707 $11,509,732 $10,909,097 $10,402,225 $9,873,433 $10,216,612 $138,307,247

HVAC (Equipment) $1,356,433 $1,392,010 $1,396,999 $1,431,315 $1,497,127 $1,555,804 $1,638,284 $1,735,417 $1,864,657 $1,976,432 $2,243,765 $2,364,650 $2,454,067 $2,731,935 $3,066,811 $3,093,903 $3,075,214 $3,058,236 $3,529,943 $3,537,913 $20,080,455

Lighting $8,932,177 $8,842,409 $7,213,216 $6,550,651 $6,197,996 $5,710,875 $5,756,417 $7,811,919 $5,076,562 $5,045,142 $6,310,760 $6,324,073 $6,282,219 $6,264,483 $6,221,741 $6,163,160 $6,126,190 $6,059,426 $6,000,599 $6,169,061 $69,786,695

Other $1,034,617 $1,103,516 $1,176,991 $1,721,561 $1,851,533 $2,010,129 $2,649,545 $2,882,081 $3,191,476 $3,965,471 $4,831,901 $5,265,502 $6,126,798 $6,576,376 $7,029,645 $7,902,207 $8,333,129 $8,748,402 $9,570,758 $9,940,476 $36,625,778

Water Heating $6,380,224 $6,398,231 $6,479,693 $6,625,549 $6,841,789 $7,115,081 $7,546,014 $7,931,300 $8,483,231 $9,022,702 $10,231,990 $10,661,222 $11,056,959 $11,234,896 $11,253,060 $11,117,358 $10,863,207 $10,500,790 $10,172,773 $9,657,069 $85,169,544

Total $51,163,294 $52,191,418 $50,965,432 $51,363,300 $52,064,709 $52,116,083 $53,413,939 $55,973,647 $54,039,534 $54,468,169 $57,105,235 $57,138,838 $59,749,571 $59,908,513 $65,864,958 $66,879,999 $66,642,997 $68,503,335 $68,906,663 $69,544,656 $577,794,099

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

Appliances $1,004,064 $1,050,562 $1,045,789 $1,058,134 $1,081,437 $1,084,186 $1,103,431 $1,114,692 $1,115,900 $1,085,781 $1,051,202 $1,024,144 $998,311 $1,000,885 $986,777 $986,401 $1,012,882 $1,892,916 $1,951,834 $2,097,582 $11,569,550

Appliances/WH $1,114,344 $1,170,003 $1,133,794 $1,134,209 $1,161,002 $1,155,791 $1,183,997 $1,204,254 $1,210,801 $1,168,917 $1,139,096 $1,105,445 $1,680,284 $1,717,294 $2,564,544 $2,601,173 $2,583,540 $2,603,949 $2,653,796 $2,968,171 $14,778,851

Consumer Electronics $138,658 $144,914 $154,144 $166,575 $267,180 $315,607 $392,407 $431,282 $578,659 $642,046 $748,697 $825,399 $1,070,392 $1,166,996 $1,273,515 $1,412,566 $1,639,268 $1,750,069 $1,924,901 $2,029,244 $6,179,926

HVAC (Envelope) $1,638,761 $1,788,939 $1,910,390 $2,030,210 $2,155,969 $2,255,014 $2,347,080 $2,415,320 $2,457,235 $2,447,860 $2,407,567 $2,356,605 $2,289,962 $2,228,908 $2,154,206 $2,310,903 $2,242,254 $2,181,887 $2,112,448 $2,152,822 $22,156,984

HVAC (Equipment) $1,263,019 $1,348,733 $1,387,399 $1,456,183 $1,568,047 $1,661,190 $1,770,230 $1,906,770 $2,052,751 $2,195,129 $2,527,691 $2,667,532 $2,805,910 $2,919,836 $3,076,991 $3,151,532 $3,172,610 $3,207,390 $4,179,617 $4,253,453 $21,313,479

Lighting $4,337,602 $4,489,214 $4,034,969 $3,834,757 $4,030,578 $3,900,793 $4,071,872 $7,393,540 $2,943,012 $2,925,744 $3,370,836 $3,387,041 $3,369,290 $3,432,276 $3,455,636 $3,497,087 $3,590,888 $3,701,929 $3,791,278 $4,314,525 $41,537,053

Other $592,121 $627,125 $614,937 $649,997 $681,098 $700,235 $770,667 $819,870 $871,529 $928,016 $1,697,923 $1,778,615 $1,834,569 $1,912,023 $1,996,903 $2,104,057 $2,205,869 $2,328,436 $2,471,660 $2,710,311 $11,557,764

Water Heating $1,462,770 $1,556,145 $1,647,651 $1,744,196 $1,843,162 $1,942,812 $2,068,746 $2,166,687 $2,260,891 $2,367,631 $2,630,887 $2,672,354 $2,740,564 $2,799,469 $2,821,699 $2,821,709 $2,820,823 $2,813,276 $2,853,191 $2,878,808 $22,054,888

Total $11,551,338 $12,175,636 $11,929,072 $12,074,261 $12,788,473 $13,015,628 $13,708,431 $17,452,415 $13,490,778 $13,761,124 $15,573,899 $15,817,135 $16,789,283 $17,177,687 $18,330,272 $18,885,427 $19,268,134 $20,479,853 $21,938,724 $23,404,916 $151,148,496

Incentive Costs - VT Statewide

Administrative Costs - VT Statewide

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

Appliances $7,901,609 $7,977,497 $7,972,906 $7,973,684 $7,971,259 $7,927,419 $7,885,220 $7,816,693 $7,721,071 $7,577,665 $7,416,580 $7,287,607 $7,155,234 $7,075,297 $6,989,498 $6,925,141 $6,990,343 $9,345,076 $9,375,149 $9,468,690 $81,024,258

Appliances/WH $11,550,286 $11,718,825 $11,645,948 $11,584,675 $11,514,328 $11,327,403 $11,145,360 $10,891,726 $10,566,854 $10,118,137 $9,735,364 $9,338,679 $10,947,085 $10,710,853 $16,233,469 $16,104,286 $15,826,487 $15,626,046 $15,439,293 $15,513,650 $122,630,697

Consumer Electronics $409,036 $416,287 $430,817 $452,579 $736,243 $842,089 $951,982 $1,021,110 $1,373,995 $1,484,403 $1,685,970 $1,821,929 $2,276,547 $2,423,768 $2,581,722 $2,794,682 $3,196,115 $3,327,425 $3,510,647 $3,613,004 $13,496,288

HVAC (Envelope) $12,128,394 $12,825,665 $13,100,467 $13,454,909 $13,860,645 $14,036,766 $14,244,132 $14,281,232 $14,164,003 $13,710,224 $13,121,117 $12,579,161 $11,912,234 $11,394,964 $10,746,152 $11,016,101 $10,404,310 $9,916,743 $9,413,805 $9,790,270 $132,467,138

HVAC (Equipment) $1,268,878 $1,302,338 $1,305,631 $1,336,606 $1,399,313 $1,452,924 $1,528,115 $1,616,796 $1,733,965 $1,834,861 $2,082,478 $2,191,151 $2,271,642 $2,529,872 $2,829,456 $2,854,650 $2,827,114 $2,810,756 $3,256,264 $3,269,108 $18,655,242

Lighting $8,520,435 $8,435,518 $6,884,375 $6,253,050 $5,919,355 $5,454,287 $5,496,400 $7,460,539 $4,845,961 $4,814,085 $6,023,827 $6,035,246 $5,993,433 $5,975,796 $5,935,231 $5,878,536 $5,832,437 $5,768,884 $5,712,520 $5,877,837 $66,590,314

Other $992,551 $1,058,508 $1,127,148 $1,642,909 $1,768,213 $1,917,718 $2,524,790 $2,746,800 $3,040,010 $3,775,041 $4,608,961 $5,020,307 $5,837,216 $6,262,835 $6,694,259 $7,521,240 $7,929,401 $8,323,371 $9,102,512 $9,456,139 $34,906,139

Water Heating $6,186,286 $6,199,178 $6,285,123 $6,426,900 $6,638,073 $6,891,756 $7,315,933 $7,691,445 $8,222,832 $8,748,288 $9,932,645 $10,344,574 $10,731,639 $10,910,434 $10,917,797 $10,785,444 $10,534,880 $10,184,001 $9,875,193 $9,370,240 $82,605,661

Total $48,957,475 $49,933,815 $48,752,414 $49,125,312 $49,807,429 $49,850,362 $51,091,932 $53,526,340 $51,668,691 $52,062,705 $54,606,941 $54,618,655 $57,125,030 $57,283,819 $62,927,583 $63,880,080 $63,541,087 $65,302,302 $65,685,382 $66,358,938 $552,375,739

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

Appliances $966,349 $1,011,707 $1,006,913 $1,019,407 $1,043,807 $1,047,419 $1,066,827 $1,077,753 $1,078,817 $1,049,611 $1,016,562 $990,318 $965,499 $968,016 $954,611 $954,111 $964,798 $1,816,690 $1,874,271 $2,019,528 $11,157,732

Appliances/WH $1,078,681 $1,133,104 $1,098,596 $1,099,768 $1,128,788 $1,124,080 $1,153,190 $1,172,673 $1,179,803 $1,137,848 $1,109,431 $1,076,722 $1,641,901 $1,678,769 $2,490,738 $2,525,870 $2,486,942 $2,507,299 $2,559,169 $2,872,998 $14,344,355

Consumer Electronics $132,053 $138,021 $146,830 $158,665 $254,484 $300,528 $373,769 $410,818 $551,204 $611,592 $713,048 $786,122 $1,019,606 $1,111,636 $1,213,118 $1,345,434 $1,561,384 $1,666,945 $1,833,595 $1,932,981 $5,886,402

HVAC (Envelope) $1,564,986 $1,707,777 $1,821,556 $1,935,317 $2,053,624 $2,148,026 $2,236,173 $2,298,244 $2,339,150 $2,329,259 $2,289,641 $2,240,091 $2,175,607 $2,120,859 $2,050,619 $2,198,965 $2,132,952 $2,073,997 $2,007,709 $2,053,281 $21,102,487

HVAC (Equipment) $1,198,978 $1,275,298 $1,311,742 $1,377,097 $1,485,721 $1,574,536 $1,677,149 $1,806,481 $1,942,897 $2,076,487 $2,390,767 $2,520,164 $2,649,089 $2,754,505 $2,899,845 $2,968,773 $2,976,006 $3,007,507 $3,926,515 $4,009,771 $20,135,473

Lighting $4,199,116 $4,349,738 $3,916,019 $3,727,792 $3,929,306 $3,808,955 $3,977,822 $7,190,558 $2,847,030 $2,829,263 $3,262,138 $3,276,745 $3,258,710 $3,319,718 $3,343,784 $3,383,418 $3,439,535 $3,546,158 $3,631,202 $4,150,567 $40,275,955

Other $582,636 $616,903 $603,819 $636,565 $668,661 $686,258 $753,841 $801,229 $850,322 $905,083 $1,661,678 $1,738,780 $1,789,369 $1,862,394 $1,945,749 $2,046,695 $2,138,456 $2,256,232 $2,392,527 $2,629,533 $11,282,276

Water Heating $1,374,239 $1,463,287 $1,547,303 $1,640,742 $1,733,482 $1,824,259 $1,944,380 $2,035,031 $2,125,270 $2,224,916 $2,479,761 $2,519,968 $2,583,229 $2,643,563 $2,663,581 $2,666,679 $2,661,538 $2,653,095 $2,697,838 $2,722,605 $20,762,417

Total $11,097,037 $11,695,835 $11,452,778 $11,595,352 $12,297,873 $12,514,061 $13,183,151 $16,792,787 $12,914,493 $13,164,060 $14,923,026 $15,148,910 $16,083,010 $16,459,460 $17,562,044 $18,089,946 $18,361,612 $19,527,924 $20,922,825 $22,391,264 $144,947,096

Incentive Costs - EVT Territory

Administrative Costs - EVT Territory

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

Appliances $400,235 $403,174 $403,313 $403,207 $400,782 $397,350 $394,786 $391,381 $387,205 $380,865 $373,173 $367,825 $361,520 $358,045 $353,803 $351,004 $366,573 $480,438 $481,351 $480,740 $4,093,258

Appliances/WH $545,717 $552,990 $553,599 $552,859 $546,472 $539,202 $531,043 $521,555 $508,930 $492,128 $477,583 $462,057 $510,359 $499,266 $778,252 $774,081 $791,444 $783,344 $771,523 $760,928 $5,882,424

Consumer Electronics $21,214 $21,560 $22,258 $23,384 $38,090 $43,696 $49,169 $52,702 $70,951 $76,630 $87,248 $94,246 $117,539 $125,109 $133,251 $144,445 $165,198 $171,927 $181,195 $186,513 $697,454

HVAC (Envelope) $503,353 $539,255 $569,225 $588,927 $608,445 $610,270 $621,989 $636,530 $630,598 $618,370 $589,784 $571,886 $549,009 $513,520 $477,555 $493,631 $504,786 $485,483 $459,627 $426,342 $5,840,109

HVAC (Equipment) $87,555 $89,673 $91,368 $94,709 $97,815 $102,880 $110,169 $118,622 $130,693 $141,571 $161,288 $173,499 $182,425 $202,064 $237,355 $239,254 $248,100 $247,480 $273,679 $268,805 $1,425,213

Lighting $411,742 $406,891 $328,841 $297,601 $278,640 $256,589 $260,016 $351,381 $230,601 $231,057 $286,933 $288,827 $288,787 $288,687 $286,509 $284,624 $293,753 $290,542 $288,079 $291,224 $3,196,380

Other $42,066 $45,008 $49,843 $78,652 $83,320 $92,411 $124,755 $135,281 $151,466 $190,430 $222,940 $245,195 $289,582 $313,541 $335,386 $380,967 $403,728 $425,031 $468,246 $484,337 $1,719,639

Water Heating $193,938 $199,053 $194,571 $198,650 $203,717 $223,324 $230,081 $239,855 $260,399 $274,413 $299,345 $316,648 $325,320 $324,462 $335,263 $331,914 $328,327 $316,789 $297,580 $286,829 $2,563,884

Total $2,205,819 $2,257,604 $2,213,017 $2,237,988 $2,257,280 $2,265,721 $2,322,008 $2,447,306 $2,370,843 $2,405,465 $2,498,293 $2,520,182 $2,624,540 $2,624,694 $2,937,375 $2,999,920 $3,101,910 $3,201,033 $3,221,281 $3,185,718 $25,418,360

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

Appliances $37,715 $38,854 $38,875 $38,727 $37,630 $36,767 $36,604 $36,939 $37,083 $36,170 $34,640 $33,826 $32,812 $32,869 $32,166 $32,290 $48,084 $76,226 $77,563 $78,054 $411,818

Appliances/WH $35,663 $36,899 $35,198 $34,441 $32,214 $31,711 $30,807 $31,581 $30,998 $31,068 $29,665 $28,724 $38,383 $38,525 $73,806 $75,303 $96,597 $96,650 $94,627 $95,173 $434,497

Consumer Electronics $6,604 $6,894 $7,314 $7,910 $12,696 $15,079 $18,639 $20,465 $27,454 $30,454 $35,650 $39,277 $50,786 $55,360 $60,398 $67,131 $77,884 $83,124 $91,306 $96,263 $293,525

HVAC (Envelope) $73,775 $81,162 $88,834 $94,893 $102,345 $106,987 $110,907 $117,076 $118,086 $118,601 $117,926 $116,514 $114,356 $108,048 $103,588 $111,938 $109,302 $107,890 $104,739 $99,541 $1,054,497

HVAC (Equipment) $64,040 $73,435 $75,657 $79,087 $82,326 $86,654 $93,081 $100,289 $109,854 $118,642 $136,924 $147,368 $156,820 $165,332 $177,146 $182,760 $196,604 $199,883 $253,102 $243,682 $1,178,006

Lighting $138,486 $139,476 $118,950 $106,965 $101,272 $91,838 $94,050 $202,982 $95,982 $96,481 $108,697 $110,296 $110,580 $112,558 $111,852 $113,668 $151,353 $155,771 $160,076 $163,958 $1,261,098

Other $9,485 $10,222 $11,119 $13,432 $12,437 $13,977 $16,826 $18,641 $21,207 $22,932 $36,245 $39,835 $45,200 $49,629 $51,154 $57,362 $67,413 $72,204 $79,132 $80,779 $275,488

Water Heating $88,531 $92,858 $100,348 $103,454 $109,679 $118,553 $124,366 $131,656 $135,620 $142,715 $151,125 $152,385 $157,335 $155,906 $158,118 $155,030 $159,285 $160,181 $155,354 $156,202 $1,292,471

Total $454,301 $479,801 $476,294 $478,908 $490,600 $501,567 $525,280 $659,628 $576,285 $597,064 $650,873 $668,225 $706,273 $718,227 $768,228 $795,482 $906,522 $951,929 $1,015,899 $1,013,652 $6,201,400

Incentive Costs - BED Territory

Administrative Costs - BED Territory
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 59

7 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL ESTIMATES 

(2012 TO 2031)

This section of the report presents the estimates of electric technical, economic, and maximum 

achievable potential for the state of Vermont as well as the EVT and BED territories separately.

Figure 7-1 and Table 7-2 below summarize the technical, economic, and maximum achievable savings

potential (as a % of forecast sales) for the Vermont service area by 2031. The maximum achievable 

potential presented here is for a market penetration scenario which assumes the installation of efficient

measures in 90% of the available commercial and industrial (C&I) market. If 90% market penetration 

for all cost-effective measures can be reached over the next 20 years, the maximum achievable potential 

for electric energy efficiency savings in the commercial and industrial sector is 616,291 MWh

(approximately 19% of projected commercial and industrial sales in 2031). Energy efficiency measures 

and programs can also serve to lessen summer and winter peak demand. 

Figure 7-1: 2031 Summary of C&I Energy Efficiency Potential

Table 6-1 also presents the separate technical, economic, and maximum achievable estimates for the 

EVT and BED service territories. In general the BED territory had slightly higher percentage estimates 

of technical, economic, and achievable potential. Of the combined 616,291 MWh of achievable 

potential energy savings, the BED territory achievable electric energy savings was 59,029 MWh (19.0% 

of 2031 BED sales). The EVT territory was estimated to have a maximum achievable potential of 

557,262 MWh (18.8% of 2031 EVT territory sales).

Achievable

Economic

Technical

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Energy (MWh)

Winter MW

Summer MW

18.8%

10.1%

13.2%

20.9%

11.2%

14.7%

23.8%

12.5%

16.0%
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 60

Table 7-1: 2031 Summary of C&I Energy and Demand Savings Potential

7.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES EXAMINED

Close to one hundred fifty (150) commercial and industrial electric energy efficiency measures were 

included in the energy savings analysis for the C&I sector. Below, Table 7-2 provides a brief listing of the 

various commercial and industrial energy efficiency programs or measures considered in this analysis. 

The list of energy efficiency measures examined was based mainly on what was found in the Vermont 

TRM and what is found in other studies and field experience. 

Appendix 3 provides a brief discussion of each measure or program as well as the savings, useful life, 

cost assumptions, and VT SCT benefit-cost ratios at the “measure” level.

Table 7-2: Measures and Programs Included in the Commercial/Industrial Sector Analysis

End Use Type Measures/Programs Includes

Space Heating * Heat Pumps (Ground Source, Water Source, High Efficiency)

* HVAC Tune-Up

* Insulation (Wall, Ceiling, etc)

* EMS/Controls

Space Cooling * Heat Pumps (Ground Source, Water Source, High Efficiency)

* HVAC Tune-Up

* Economizers

* High-Efficiency AC and Chillers

* Absorption Cooling

* Demand Controlled Ventilation

Ventilation * Ventilation Motors and Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs)

* Stove Hood

* Energy Recovery System

* Demand Controlled Ventilation

Water Heating * Heat Pump Water Heater

* Fuel Switching

* Low Flow Showerhead/Faucet Aerator

* High Efficiency Clothes Washers

* High Efficiency Tank and Booster Water Heaters

Lighting * LED Lighting Systems (Indoor and Outdoor)

* Lighting Controls

* LED Exit Signs

* Refrigerated Case Lighting

Energy 

(MWh)

% of 2031 

Sales

Winter 

MW

% of 2031 

Winter Peak

Summer 

MW

% of 2031 

Summer Peak

State-wide

Technical Potential 779,700 23.8% 62.9 12.5% 105.1 16.0%

Economic Potential 684,768 20.9% 56.6 11.2% 96.4 14.7%

Achievable Potential 616,291 18.8% 51.0 10.1% 86.8 13.2%

EVT Territory

Technical Potential 704,688 23.8% 57.1 12.3% 95.2 16.0%

Economic Potential 619,180 20.9% 51.4 11.1% 87.4 14.7%

Achievable Potential 557,262 18.8% 46.3 10.0% 78.6 13.2%

BED Territory

Technical Potential 75,013 24.2% 5.8 14.6% 9.9 16.3%

Economic Potential 65,588 21.2% 5.2 13.0% 9.1 14.8%

Achievable Potential 59,029 19.0% 4.7 11.7% 8.2 13.4%

Energy Demand
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 61

* High Efficiency T8 and T5 Systems

Cooking * High Efficiency Cooking Equipment

Refrigeration * Vending Machines/Vending Misers

* Reach-In Freezers

* Covers for Display Cases

* Evaporator Fan Controls

Office Equipment/Computers *Smart Power Strips

* Power Supplies

* LCD Monitors

Process * Industrial Process

* Water/Wastewater Treatment Options

Other * Efficient Televisions

* Energy Star Dehumidifiers

* Air Compressors

7.2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SECTOR S AVINGS METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

In all areas of the country, the residential sector has benefited from significantly more studies done on 

energy conservation related issues than any other sector. Hard data for many of the inputs needed for 

this analysis in the commercial and industrial sectors in Vermont was unavailable. In general, the 

preference for data sources in this study followed the order of: data provided by the DPS, EVT, and 

BED, TRM data, other Vermont-specific data, region specific data, national data, and engineering 

estimates. In the absence of better data, estimates had to be made based on the engineers’ and analysts’ 

judgment derived from experience elsewhere and an understanding of the types of factors that may 

influence the saturation of a specific measure one way or the other in Vermont.

In contrast to the residential sector analysis, the commercial and industrial sector analysis was modeled 

using what is called a “top-down” approach. As shown in Figure 7-2, the top-down potential estimate 

begins with a disaggregated energy sales forecast over the 2012-2031 time period, and then estimates 

what percentage of these sales a given efficiency measure will save. 

Figure 7-2: Commercial/Industrial Sector Methodology – Top-Down Approach
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 62

As in comparable studies, the choice of building segments is driven by the need to facilitate the analysis 

and modeling of potential electrical efficiency improvements. Therefore, buildings designated into 

selected building segments need to be reasonably similar in terms of major design and operating 

considerations such as building size, mechanical and electrical systems, annual operating hours, etc. In 

this study, the sales data are broken down by building type and end-use (see Tables 7.3 and 7.4 below) 

before the savings percent factor is applied. The breakdown of energy use by building type was 

informed by data provided by Efficiency Vermont as well as the 2009 Vermont Commercial Market 

Characterization Study. New construction sales are based on forecasted load growth in the commercial 

sector from 2012 to 2031.

Table 7-3: 2031 Sales by Industry Type

The next step in a top-down approach is to gather data on end-use consumption for each C&I building 

segment. Within each building type, sales were allocated to end uses based on data available from the 

EIA’s 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey and 2006 Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey. Information is given by region; therefore the data that is used in this analysis 

includes Vermont and surrounding states. To adjust for Vermont-specific characteristics, commercial 

end use shares were then adjusted to match Vermont forecasted sales for heating, cooling, and other end 

uses. Below, Table 7-4 shows the percent breakdown of end-use by building segment. 

Table 7-4: 2031 Sales by End-Use

Industry Type MWh Sales % of MWh Sales

1 Office 491,052 15.0%

2 Retail 529,693 16.2%

3 Other 946,040 28.9%

4 New Construction 294,003 9.0%

5 Industrial 974,692 29.8%

6 Street Lighting 38,252 1.2%

Total 3,273,732 100.0%

MWh Sales

% of MWh 

Sales

1 Space Heating 47,557 1.5%

2 Space Cooling 223,124 6.8%

3 Ventilation 285,876 8.7%

4 Water Heating 33,667 1.0%

5 Lighting 1,111,165 33.9%

6 Cooking 12,735 0.4%

7 Refrigeration 295,053 9.0%

8 Office Equipment 58,123 1.8%

9 Computers 138,786 4.2%

10 Process 735,365 22.5%

11 Other 332,280 10.1%

Total 3,273,732 100.0%

End-Use
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 63

The end-uses were then broken down into measure categories, explained in section 7.3. After measures 

were examined and saturation data was gathered, the technical, economic and achievable cases were 

calculated using the formula below:

Where:

 Total End-Use MWh (by market segment) is the total annual electric energy used by 

electric end-use in each market segment. This is the end-use electricity consumption that the 

efficient technology replaces or affects. For example, if the efficient measure is a CFL, the 

total end-use MWh is all electricity used for lighting in the specific market segment.

 Base Case factor is the fraction of the end-use energy that is applicable for the efficient 

technology in a given market segment. For example, for a high-efficiency lighting 

technology, this would be the fraction of the energy use that is for fluorescent lighting.

 Remaining factor is the fraction of applicable dwelling units or floor space that has not yet 

been converted to the efficient measure; (i.e. one minus the fraction of households or floor 

space that already has the energy-efficiency measure installed).

 Convertible factor is the fraction of the applicable dwelling units (or floor space) that is 

technically feasible for conversion to the efficient technology from an engineering perspective 

(e.g., it may not be possible to apply water pipe insulation in all buildings due to access 

difficulties).

 Savings factor is the percentage reduction in end-use energy consumption resulting from 

application of the efficient technology.

In this analysis, it was assumed that for those measures designed to impact the same end-use, the 

measure or program with the highest current market penetration would typically be installed first, 

followed by the measure(s) with the next highest market penetration. Presumably, the measures with the 

highest market penetrations are perceived as the most attractive based on costs, savings, or ease of 

implementation. Ranking the installation order in this manner also mimics the pattern of installation that 

is already occurring in the current market.

In instances where there were two (or more) competing technologies for the same electric end use, such 

as heat pump water heaters and high efficiency electric storage water heaters, a percent of the available 

population was assigned to each measure using the applicability factor.

Fuel-switching was analyzed in this analysis for electric water heating and dryers. These measures consist 

of replacement electric water and/or drying equipment in favor of natural gas, oil, or propane units.

Fuel switching was treated as a competing measure to other electric efficiency options. As a result, only 

a fraction of the total eligible facilities were included in the fuel switch options.

Achievable 

Potential of 

C&I Sector

=

Total 

End-Use 

MWh (by 

segment)

* Base Case

Factor * RemainingFactor * Convertible Factor * Savings Factor
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 64

The majority of measures were analyzed under both the replace-on-burnout and early retirement option. 

In the technical potential, 50% of the eligible remaining market was reserved for early retirement and the 

remaining 50% of the eligible market was analyzed through the replace-on-burnout approach. If both 

measures proved to be cost effective, the 50/50 split remained through the economic and achievable 

potential scenarios. The assumption of a 50/50 split remained through the achievable potential to allow 

for overall linear participation, budgets, and savings in lieu of alternate periods of program growth and 

contraction. 

7.3 TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL S AVINGS

The technical potential represents the savings that could be captured if 100 percent of inefficient electric 

equipment were replaced instantaneously (where they are deemed to be technically feasible). As shown 

below in Table 7-5 the total technical potential savings for the Vermont commercial and industrial sector 

are 779,700 MWh, or 23.8% of forecast C&I MWh sales in 2031. The greatest share of energy savings 

technical potential is expected from lighting measures providing 44.4% of the technical potential savings. 

Industrial process measures are expected to constitute about 15.5% of the technical potential, while

space cooling, refrigeration, and ventilation contribute around 10% each. The technical potential for 

winter peak demand savings is 63 MW, or 12.7% of 2031 forecast winter peak demand. The potential 

for summer peak savings is approximately 105 MW (16% of the 2031 summer peak demand forecast). 

Table 7-5: Technical Energy and Demand Potential and Percentage Share of C&I Forecast Energy Sales and 

Peak Demand Savings in 2031

Below, Figure 7-3 presents the electric energy efficiency technical potential results for the C&I sector in 

the form of a supply curve. The supply curve demonstrates the technical potential savings (as a % of 

2031 forecast kWh sales) at varied levelized costs per lifetime kWh saved amounts. For example, more 

than 18% of savings can be achieved at a cost per lifetime kWh saved of $0.10 or less. To obtain 

increased electric energy from efficiency resources, it is necessary to move to the right on the curve and 

choose progressively more costly resources. It should be noted that the levelized costs are based on 

electric savings and do not factor in associated non-electric benefits, nor do they include program 

administrative costs.

Energy (MWh)

Summer Peak 

Demand (MW)

Winter Peak 

Demand (MW)

Lighting 346,315 40.3 22.5

Process 121,027 25.8 25.8

Ventilation 85,783 9.1 5.1

Refrigeration 77,277 4.2 4.2

Space Cooling 62,792 22.1 0.1

Computers 33,730 1.5 1.9

Other 20,305 1.6 1.4

Space Heating 15,190 0.0 1.2

Water Heating 8,362 0.3 0.4

Office Equipment 8,292 0.2 0.2

Cooking 628 0.1 0.1

TOTAL 779,700 105 63

% of 2031 Commercial/Industrial Sales 23.8% 16.0% 12.5%
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 65

Figure 7-3: Commercial/Industrial Electric Efficiency Supply Curve

The economic potential calculations were made by incorporating the various measure assumptions 

(savings, cost, and useful life, etc) into the cost-effectiveness screening tool.54 Any programmatic costs 

(e.g., marketing, analysis, and administration) were ignored in the economic potential analysis in order to 

screen whether energy efficient technologies were cost-effective on their own merit prior to any 

assistance or marketing endeavors from utilities or other organizations. 

For the economic potential scenario, the study assumed 100% of all cost-effective measures eligible for 

installation were installed. Cost-effectiveness was determined as all measures with a VT SCT benefitcost ratio greater than or equal 1.0. As seen in Table 7-6 below, the economic potential, based on the 

result of the individual measure VT SCT tests is 684,767 MWh, or 20.9% of forecast commercial and 

industrial MWh sales in 2031. Economic summer peak demand savings is 96 MW, or 14.7% of forecast 

commercial and industrial peak demand.

 54 The cost-effectiveness of a measure is based on each measure’s full savings potential, before any adjustments for 

interactive impacts. After identifying which measures passed screening, we made an additional adjustment for interactive 

effects in order to finalize estimates of overall economic potential.

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Levelized $/kWh 

Savings Technical Potential as a % of 2031 Forecasted Electric Use

Note: Only includes measures with a levelized $/kWh < $1.00 
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 66

Table 7-6: Economic Energy and Demand Potential and Percentage Share of C&I Forecast Energy Sales and 

Peak Demand in 2031

7.4 MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL S AVINGS 

The maximum achievable potential is a subset of the economic potential and is limited by various market 

and adoption barriers, including the assumed 50/50 split of replace-on-burnout and early retirement 

measures. 

7.4.1 ESTIMATING ACHIEVABLE SAVINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

In the base case scenario, the commercial and industrial achievable potential represents the attainable 

savings if the market penetration of high efficiency electric equipment reaches 90% of the remaining 

eligible market between 2012 and 2031. The methodology for estimating energy efficiency measure 

adoption in the commercial and industrial sector each year from 2012 through 2031 is based on measurespecific ramping assumptions in each year. Because of the “top-down” methodology, the number of 

customers is difficult to determine. With new technologies, there is often low awareness of the 

technology among consumers and there may be a hesitancy to purchase the technology because of its 

newness. A program could then be designed to not only provide incentives, but to increase awareness 

and promote the technology’s reliability. In contrast, a mature technology may already have high 

willingness and awareness values and, thus, the adoption curve would follow a flatter trend over time.

7.4.2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE SAVINGS P OTENTIAL

The maximum achievable potential is a subset of the economic potential and is limited by two main

factors: 

1) The achievable potential for this study represents the attainable savings if the market penetration of 

high efficiency electric equipment reaches 90% of the remaining market by the year 2031 (where 

measures are deemed to be technically feasible). 

Energy (MWh)

Summer Peak 

Demand (MW)

Winter Peak 

Demand (MW)

Lighting 332,361 38.5 21.2

Process 121,027 25.8 25.8

Refrigeration 67,184 3.5 3.6

Space Cooling 55,875 19.6 0.1

Ventilation 38,860 6.2 1.9

Computers 24,410 1.2 1.3

Other 15,420 1.2 1.0

Space Heating 14,129 0.0 1.1

Water Heating 7,781 0.3 0.4

Office Equipment 7,094 0.1 0.1

Cooking 628 0.1 0.1

TOTAL 684,767 96 57

% of 2031 Commercial/Industrial Sales 20.9% 14.7% 11.2%
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 67

2) The 20 year program time period occasionally impacted the overall cost-effectiveness of a measure. 

Marginally cost-effective measures that were retained in the technical and economic potential screens 

(both of which assume immediate implementation) were excluded if the impacts of the discount rate, 

avoided costs forecast, and retail rate forecasts over the 20 year time period impacted a measure’s costeffectiveness in such a way that the 20 year costs were higher than the lifetime benefits under the VT 

SCT.

Table 7-7: Maximum Achievable Energy and Demand Potential and Percentage Share of Commercial and 

Industrial Forecast Energy Sales and Peak Demand in 2031

For the maximum achievable scenario the achievable potential savings are 616,291 MWh or 18.8% of 

projected 2031 kWh sales. The base case scenario also achieves 87 MW summer peak demand savings, or 

13.2% of the 2031 small and large commercial and industrial summer peak demand forecast. Figure 7-4

provides a breakdown of the electric end-use savings as a percent of the total maximum achievable 

energy savings potential. About 48% of the achievable cost effective savings is from high efficiency 

lighting, followed by processes and refrigeration. Lighting is usually the dominant end-use for achievable 

savings because every commercial and industrial customer has lighting, whereas only a small portion 

have upgraded to energy efficient systems.

Energy (MWh)

Summer Peak 

Demand (MW)

Winter Peak 

Demand (MW)

Lighting 299,124 34.7 19.1

Process 108,924 23.2 23.3

Refrigeration 60,465 3.1 3.2

Space Cooling 50,288 17.6 0.0

Ventilation 34,974 5.6 1.7

Computers 21,969 1.1 1.2

Other 13,878 1.0 0.9

Space Heating 12,716 0.0 1.0

Water Heating 7,003 0.3 0.3

Office Equipment 6,385 0.1 0.1

Cooking 565 0.1 0.1

TOTAL 616,291 87 51

% of 2031 Commercial/Industrial Sales 18.8% 13.2% 10.1%
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 68

Figure 7-4: Sector End-use Savings as a % of Total Achievable Potential – 2031

* “Other” category includes: Water Heating, Cooking, Office Equipment/Computers 

Table 7-8 through Table 7-10 depict the cumulative annual energy and demand savings for the 

commercial/industrial sector. In addition to the statewide maximum achievable potential, the maximum 

achievable potential for the EVT and BED service territories are also included. 

Space Cooling

8%

Ventilation

6%

Lighting

48%

Refrigeration

10%

Space Heating

2%

Process

18%

Other

8%
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 69

Table 7-8: Cumulative Annual C&I (MWh) Savings Potential for VT (Statewide), EVT Territory, and BED Territory

Table 7-9: Cumulative Annual C&I Winter Peak Demand (MW) Savings Potential for VT (Statewide), EVT Territory, and BED Territory

Table 7-10: Cumulative Annual C&I Summer Peak Demand (MW) Savings Potential for VT (Statewide), EVT Territory, and BED Territory

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

EVT Territory 68,801 140,894 216,449 284,780 343,360 393,662 436,940 474,258 506,539 520,833 524,336 527,905 531,528 535,191 538,881 542,584 546,286 549,976 553,639 557,262

BED Territory 7,262 14,870 22,843 30,056 36,241 41,555 46,129 50,075 53,492 55,014 55,400 55,794 56,193 56,597 57,003 57,411 57,819 58,226 58,630 59,029

Total 76,063 155,764 239,292 314,836 379,601 435,217 483,068 524,334 560,031 575,847 579,736 583,699 587,721 591,788 595,884 599,995 604,106 608,202 612,268 616,291

% of 2031 VT Sales 2.6% 5.3% 8.0% 10.5% 12.6% 14.3% 15.8% 17.1% 18.1% 18.6% 18.6% 18.6% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8%

Energy Savings (MWh)

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

EVT Territory 5.9 12.1 18.7 24.5 29.6 33.9 37.5 40.7 43.4 44.5 44.7 44.9 45.1 45.2 45.4 45.6 45.8 45.9 46.1 46.3

BED Territory 0.6 1.2 1.9 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7

Total 6.5 13.4 20.5 27.0 32.5 37.3 41.3 44.8 47.8 49.0 49.2 49.4 49.6 49.8 50.0 50.2 50.4 50.6 50.8 51.0

% of 2031 VT Sales 1.5% 3.0% 4.5% 5.9% 7.1% 8.1% 8.9% 9.6% 10.1% 10.4% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1%

Winter Peak Demand Savings (MW)

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

EVT Territory 9.5 19.5 29.9 39.3 47.4 54.4 60.4 65.6 70.2 72.2 72.8 73.5 74.1 74.7 75.4 76.0 76.7 77.4 78.0 78.6

BED Territory 1.0 2.0 3.1 4.1 4.9 5.6 6.2 6.8 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2

Total 10.5 21.5 33.0 43.4 52.3 60.0 66.7 72.4 77.4 79.7 80.4 81.0 81.7 82.5 83.2 83.9 84.7 85.4 86.1 86.8

% of 2031 VT Sales 1.8% 3.7% 5.7% 7.4% 8.9% 10.1% 11.2% 12.0% 12.8% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2%

Summer Peak Demand Savings (MW)
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 70

7.4.3 MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE P OTENTIAL BENEFITS & COSTS

For the maximum achievable potential, the 80%-90% target market penetration assumes that consumers 

would receive a financial incentive equal to 100% of the measure cost. For the replace on burnout 

approach, the incentive was 100% of the incremental cost to bridge the gap between the cost of standard 

efficiency equipment and high efficiency equipment. For retrofit and early retirement measures, the 

incentive was equal to 100% of the full measure cost. 

In addition, an overall non-incentive or administrative cost per first year kWh saved was assigned to each 

measure in order to calculate the achievable cost-effectiveness tests. Administrative costs in 2012 were 

determined based on the 2007-2009 average of non-incentive costs reported by EVT in their annual 

report filings.55 In all subsequent years, the administrative cost per kWh was escalated by the annual 

rate of inflation (2.6%).

In 2012, a cost of ~ $0.15 per kWh was used for all new construction measures based on the three-year 

average non-incentive costs calculated for EVT’s current Business New Construction Program. All 

other measures were assigned an administrative cost per kWh of ~$0.21 based on the Business Existing 

Buildings Program.

The overall benefit/cost screening results for the commercial and industrial sector maximum achievable 

potential are shown below in Table 7-11. The net present value costs of roughly $313.9 million dollars 

represent total measure costs as well as the associated costs (i.e. marketing, labor, monitoring, etc.) of 

administering energy efficiency programs and participant costs between 2012 and 2031. The net present 

value benefits of $973 million represent the lifetime benefits of all measures installed during the same 

time period. In addition to the electric benefits received, the net present value benefit dollars include the 

impacts of reduced fuel consumption, water savings, and other O&M benefits. Although the maximum 

achievable potential estimates would require a substantial investment in energy efficiency over the long 

term, the resulting energy and demand savings would result in a net savings of over $659.1 million 

dollars (present worth 2012).

Table 7-11: Overall Commercial and Industrial Sector Cost Effectiveness Screening Results

(dollars in millions)

The annual incentive and administrative cost associated with the maximum achievable potential savings 

are presented in greater detail in Table 7-12. In total, the $2012 NPV of incentives is $185.2 million 

 55 Non-incentive costs refer to the Total Efficiency Vermont Costs reported by EVT net of all incentives to participants 

and/or trade allies. It does not include participant or other third party costs.

Electric Non-Electric Non-Energy Total Benefits Measure Admin Total Costs

State-wide

NPV $2012 $958.0 $1.2 $13.9 $973.0 $160.5 $153.5 $313.9 3.1

EVT Territory

NPV $2012 $867.2 $1.1 $12.5 $880.8 $144.7 $138.8 $283.5 3.1

BED Territory

NPV $2012 $90.7 $0.1 $1.4 $92.2 $15.8 $14.7 $30.5 3.0

(in millions) (in millions) B/C Ratio

Benefits Costs
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 71

from 2012-2031. Total incentive costs are greater than the NPV measure cost recorded in the VT 

societal test ($160.5 million) because incentives were calculated as 100% of the measure cost whereas the 

VT societal test has applied a 10% reduction to energy efficiency measure costs for all calculations.

Administrative costs are $153.5 million. Because administrative costs are tied directly to first year kWh 

savings, administrative costs are sensitive to the number of measures being installed each year and are 

not a predetermined fraction of the total budget. Additionally, administrative budgets are expected to 

increase at a more rapid pace in the 2nd decade as programs are expected to see new measures being 

installed on an annual basis as well as the reintroduction of measures installed during the 1st decade reach 

the end of their original useful life.
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 72

Table 7-12: Incentive and Administrative Costs Associated with the Commercial and Industrial Maximum Achievable Potential

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

EVT Territory $20,977,547 $21,974,159 $23,024,504 $20,867,722 $18,314,658 $16,394,317 $14,414,948 $12,768,255 $11,601,810 $6,368,422 $6,198,871 $6,717,701 $10,216,217 $10,179,903 $11,572,655 $19,289,220 $19,269,857 $18,646,219 $17,484,638 $14,755,768 $167,002,239

BED Territory $2,283,505 $2,391,919 $2,506,185 $2,271,622 $1,994,485 $1,786,447 $1,571,360 $1,392,479 $1,266,138 $697,184 $674,536 $731,286 $1,113,784 $1,110,607 $1,248,002 $2,099,038 $2,097,326 $2,031,623 $1,907,126 $1,611,169 18,186,968.2

VT Statewide $23,261,051 $24,366,079 $25,530,689 $23,139,343 $20,309,143 $18,180,764 $15,986,308 $14,160,734 $12,867,948 $7,065,606 $6,873,407 $7,448,987 $11,330,001 $11,290,510 $12,820,658 $21,388,259 $21,367,183 $20,677,843 $19,391,764 $16,366,937 185,189,207.0

End-Use 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 NPV

EVT Territory $14,208,731 $15,283,131 $16,441,350 $15,267,987 $14,068,325 $13,008,585 $11,947,066 $10,918,895 $10,643,610 $6,420,991 $6,288,301 $6,579,534 $9,445,403 $9,309,194 $13,364,014 $20,733,562 $21,913,344 $21,290,487 $20,417,488 $17,610,533 138,762,368.0

BED Territory $1,498,951 $1,612,181 $1,734,250 $1,610,890 $1,487,864 $1,379,084 $1,269,081 $1,161,859 $1,136,839 $693,721 $687,977 $719,681 $1,019,140 $1,003,346 $1,375,989 $2,184,589 $2,311,214 $2,251,486 $2,167,431 $1,870,007 14,705,236.0

VT Statewide $15,707,682 $16,895,313 $18,175,600 $16,878,877 $15,556,189 $14,387,669 $13,216,147 $12,080,755 $11,780,449 $7,114,712 $6,976,278 $7,299,215 $10,464,543 $10,312,540 $14,740,003 $22,918,151 $24,224,558 $23,541,974 $22,584,919 $19,480,540 153,467,604.0

Incentive Costs - VT Statewide

Non-Incentive Costs - VT Statewide
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 73

8 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary, the potential for electric energy efficiency in Vermont by 2031 is significant. The estimated 

maximum achievable potential electricity savings would amount to 1,435,673 MWh a year (a 25.4% 

reduction in projected 2031 MWh sales). Energy efficiency resources can also serve to reduce the overall 

winter peak over the same time period by 223 MW, or 23% of the forecasted 2031 winter peak. 

Achievable summer peak savings are 216 MW, or 20% of the summer peak. Table 8-1 below 

summarizes the electricity savings potential in Vermont by 2031.

Table 8-1: Maximum Achievable Potential Summary

The results of this study demonstrate that cost effective electric energy efficiency resources can play an 

expanded role in Vermont’s energy resource mix over the next two decades. Table 8-1 also displays the 

present value of benefits and costs associated with implementing the maximum achievable potential 

energy savings in Vermont as well as the overall VT Societal Test benefit/cost ratio of 2.6. The potential 

net present savings to ratepayers in Vermont for implementation of cost effective electric energy 

efficiency programs over the next 20 years are approximately $1.46 billion in 2012 dollars.

8.1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 2011 AND 2006 VERMONT ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

POTENTIAL STUDIES

Overall the estimates for maximum achievable electric energy efficiency potential in this study are greater 

than those reported in 2006. 

Table 8-2: Differences between 2011 and 2006 VT Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Studies

Although there are numerous similarities between the two studies, there are also specific differences that 

were critical to the higher estimates of potential found in Table 8-2. Some of these differences include:

 The 2011 study included numerous additional measures compared to the 2006 study. For 

example, consumer electronics are treated as a comprehensive end use in the residential sector in 

the 2011 analysis yet were relatively absent in the 2006 study.

 Emerging technologies were included in greater detail in the 2011 analysis and included 

behavioral based energy conservation measures.

 The 2011 study targeted up to 90% of the remaining potential; the 2006 study targeted a cap of 

80% of the total market. In 2006 a measure with that was already 40% energy efficient could 

NPV Benefits 

$2012

NPV Costs 

$2012

Residential Sector 819,382 172.2 129.5 $1,431 $629 2.3

Commercial/Industrial Sector 616,291 51.0 86.8 $973 $314 3.1

All Sectors Combined 1,435,673 223.1 216.3 $2,404 $942 2.6

Cumulative 

Annual MWh 

Savings 

2031

VT Societal 

$ in millions B/C Ratio

Cumulative 

Winter MW 

Savings 

2031

Cumulative 

Winter MW 

Savings 

2031

MWh % MWh %

Max. Achievable Potential 1,286,824 19.4% 1,435,673 25.4%

2006 Study 2011 Study
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential 

Prepared by GDS Associates and the Cadmus Group

Page 74

only capture an additional 40% of the market, whereas in the 2011 the maximum achievable 

potential was 90% of the remaining market.

 Avoided costs have changed over time. As a result, there may some additional cost effective 

measures in 2011 that were not found to pass the VT Societal benefit-cost test in 2006.

 The 2011 study places greater emphasis on an early replacement programmatic strategy and 

includes many more energy efficiency measures for the new construction market.

 The 2011 study assumes an incentive level for energy efficiency measures of 100% of measure 

cost. The 2006 study selected a target incentive level of 50% of energy efficiency measure cost. 

The greater incentive level in 2011 should allow for higher market penetration over the long 

term.

8.2 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

It is clear that electric energy efficiency programs could save residents of Vermont a substantial amount 

of electricity by 2031. The electric energy efficiency potential estimates and the VT Societal Test savings 

provided in this report are based upon the 2011 planning load forecast provided by VELCO as well as 

appliance saturation data, data on energy efficiency measure costs and savings, and measure lives 

available at the time of this study. Over time, additional technologies are likely to become available in 

the market that may serve to increase the potential for energy and demand savings and warrant 

additional attention.

Finally, actual energy and demand savings will depend upon the level and degree of Vermont residences 

and business participation in the DSM programs offered by EVT and BED. In addition, the estimated 

savings and budgets are based upon a current forecast of unconstrained budgets amounts for DSM 

programs over the 20 year period of 2012-2031. Actual budget amounts are subject to annual review and 

approval by the Vermont Public Service Board. Therefore, while the figures presented in this report 

represent the best current estimates of savings and costs, actual results will be different.