Appendices HBL Market Effects Study Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs‘ Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation Prepared for: Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Program Administrators Submitted to: National Grid Burlington, MA, June 7, 2011
203
Embed
Appendices HBL Market Effects Study - ma-eeac.orgma-eeac.org/.../High-Bay-LIghting-Market-Effects-Study-Appendicies.pdf · Appendices HBL Market Effects Study Project 1A New Construction
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Appendices
HBL Market Effects Study
Project 1A New Construction
Market Characterization
Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs‘
Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation
Prepared for: Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Program Administrators
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-14
B.5 Share of technologies installed in these projects
The primary use of space served by high bay lighting in Massachusetts is presented in Table B-
19. Common uses of high bay space amongst Massachusetts end-users include retail
merchandise or wholesale showrooms (25%), non-refrigerated storage (21%) and convention or
conference spaces (13%).
Table B-20 shows that more high bay space in Massachusetts is lit by equipment purchased
over the past three years than in the comparison area. 74% of end-users in Massachusetts
recently installed new high bay lighting equipment over 75% of their eligible space, while in
comparison only 50% of end users in the comparison group did this. On the other hand, 21% of
end-users in the comparison group only installed new equipment in 1 to 10% of their eligible
space, while only 2% of Massachusetts end-users responded similarly. Both of the results are
significant at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-19
PL0. What was the primary use of the space that the high bay lighting equipment was
installed?
Weighted Frequency MA
n 155
Storage (not refrigerated) 21%
Storage (refrigerated) 3%
Convention, conference, multipurpose, or meeting room 13%
Exercise center or gymnasium 11%
Grocery sales 8%
Mall or atria 1%
Retail merchandise or wholesale showroom 25%
Garage 5%
Other (Specify)____________________ 13%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-15
Table B-20
PL1a. Roughly what percentage of the high bay space in your facility or facilities
included in this project is lit by the equipment you purchased in the last three years?
Your best estimate is fine.
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 74 110
Betw 1 and 10 2% 21% ** 6%
Betw 11 and 25 10% 13% 3%
Betw 26 and 50 7% 19% ** 17%
Betw 51 and 75 4% 11% 8%
Betw 76 and 100 74% 50% ** 67%
Don't Know 2% 0% 0%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
The mix of HID equipment installed differs between the two regions, as shown in Table B-21.
Pulse-start metal halides were installed by 80% of end users in Massachusetts but only 14% in
the comparison region. On the other hand, 36% of end users in the comparison area installed
other metal halides, while only 12% of end users in Massachusetts installed this type of
technology. These results are all significant at the 95% confidence interval.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-16
Table B-21
PL3a. What type or types of high intensity discharge equipment did you install?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 22 25 25
Metal halide 12% 36% ** 21%
Pulse start metal halide 80% 14% ** 23%
Pressurized sodium 16% 2% ** 3%
High pressure sodium 10% 11% 4%
Mercury vapor 10% 10% 7%
Other 1% 6% 7%
DON'T KNOW 8% 21% * 39%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-22 shows that the mix of fluorescent technologies installed differ between the two
regions. Massachusetts end users report more installations of T8, T5, and induction lighting
than end users in the comparison area.
Table B-22
PL4a. What type or types of fluorescent tube equipment did you install?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 118 47 98
T12 with magnetic ballast 18% 17% 14%
T8 with electronic ballast 68% 45% ** 43%
T5 with electronic ballast 37% 16% ** 22%
Induction 22% 5% ** 1%
DON'T KNOW 16% 22% * 26%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
B.6 Identification of HBL decision makers and decision
criteria applied to technology selection
The majority of end users in both regions had individuals outside their organization specify or
recommend the type of HBL equipment used in their installation project, but a larger majority of
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-17
end users in Massachusetts utilized this service. In Massachusetts, 70% of end users used
outside individuals to specify or recommend equipment compared to 51% of end users in the
comparison area. This difference is significant at the 95% confidence interval. In the
comparison region however, 11% of respondents did not know if they used an individual outside
their organization, compared to only 3% in Massachusetts.
Table B-23
PL6. Did a firm or individual outside your organization specify or recommend the type of
equipment used in this high bay lighting installation project?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
YES 70% 51% ** 65%
NO 28% 38% 20%
DON'T KNOW 3% 11% ** 16%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-24 shows that the majority of end users in both regions used contractors (either
electrical, lighting, or general) as the firm or individual who specified the type of HBL equipment
installed. 70% of end users in Massachusetts and 58% of comparison area end users mention
contractors. More end users in the comparison area use other organizations such as architects,
engineers, and distributors than end users in Massachusetts. Utility support was not mentioned
by respondents in Massachusetts.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-18
Table B-24
PL6a. What types of firm or individual specified or recommended the type of high bay
lighting equipment you installed?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 103 37 70
Architect or interior designer 6% 23% 10%
Engineer 19% 10% * 5%
Lighting Distributor 12% 12% 14%
General Contractor 30% 11% ** 11%
Electrical Contractor 28% 35% 28%
Lighting Contractor 17% 12% 14%
Friend/work colleague 3% <1% ** 1%
Trade association 0% <1% <1%
Other 16% <1% <1%
Utility 0% 5% 13%
Landlord 0% <1% 2%
State or Local Government 0% <1% 4%
Parent Company 0% <1% 5%
Upper Management/Corporate 0% <1% 2%
Lighting Manufacturer 0% 2% 1%
Don't Know 2% <1% 4%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
The use of pulse start metal halide equipment was only recommended to 9% and 15% of end
users in Massachusetts and the comparison area, respectively. In Massachusetts, 80% of end
users reported that this technology was not recommended to them, but only 43% of end users in
the comparison region knew that this was not recommended for their project. This difference is
significant at the 95% confidence interval. Conversely, as shown in Table B-25, the use of
fluorescent tubes or compact fluorescent tube lighting was recommended to 80% of end users
in Massachusetts and 67% of end users in the comparison region.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-19
Table B-25
PL8. Did your lighting vendor, contractor, or designer specify or recommend the use of
pulse start metal halide equipment for your project?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 148 19 17
YES 9% 15% 30%
NO 80% 43% ** 43%
DON'T KNOW 11% 42% ** 27%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-26
PL10. Did your lighting vendor, contractor, or designer specify or recommend the use of
fluorescent tube or compact fluorescent equipment for your project?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 144 22 60
YES 80% 67% 74%
NO 11% 20% 16%
DON'T KNOW 8% 12% 10%
REFUSED 1% 0% 0%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-27 presents the frequency in which a variety of lighting controls were installed in high
bay lighting projects. End users in Massachusetts utilize occupancy sensors and daylighting
controls more than end users in the comparison area. These differences are both significant at
the 95% confidence interval. Time clocks and simple on/off switches are other popular controls
installed during the high bay lighting projects in both regions.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-20
Table B-27
PL13. What types of lighting controls were used for this project?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 150 75 116
Simple on/off 81% 74% 56%
Occupancy or motion sensor 43% 12% ** 39%
Photo sensor 5% 5% 6%
Time clock 23% 14% 11%
Building or energy management system 10% 5% 7%
Daylighting controls 26% 3% ** 2%
None 0% <1% <1%
Other 0% 3% 5%
Refused 0% <1% <1%
Don't Know 5% 1% 1%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-28 show how important various features were in end users decision to install their
choice of lighting equipment. For all features, except energy use, Massachusetts end users
rated the feature as ―very important‖ more often than end users in the comparison area. The
majority of Massachusetts end users rated all features as ―very important‖.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-21
Table B-28
PL14. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means “Not at all important” and 10 means “Very
important”, how important were the following features in your choice of lighting
equipment for this project
Quality of light provided
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not Important at all <1% <1% 1%
2 0% <1% <1%
3 1% <1% 1%
4 2% <1% 3%
5 2% 8% 10%
6 2% 1% 3%
7 7% 2% 4%
8 4% 20% ** 22%
9 8% 15% 13%
10 Extremely Important 74% 51% ** 40%
Don't Know <1% 4% * 3%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appearance of the fixtures
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not Important at all 4% 9% 11%
2 2% 6% 13%
3 2% 7% 4%
4 5% 4% 8%
5 9% 23% ** 23%
6 3% 7% 2%
7 15% 8% 9%
8 13% 15% 7%
9 5% 6% 3%
10 Extremely Important 42% 11% ** 16%
Don't Know <1% 4% 3%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-22
Cost of maintenance
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not Important at all 2% 1% 4%
2 1% <1% <1%
3 <1% <1% 2%
4 0% 2% <1%
5 7% 11% 13%
6 3% 5% 4%
7 10% 9% 13%
8 13% 23% 21%
9 4% 11% 6%
10 Extremely Important 54% 35% ** 30%
Don't Know 4% 4% 7%
Refused 2% 4% 7%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Energy use
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not Important at all 1% 2% 2%
2 0% 0% 0%
3 2% 1% <1%
4 <1% <1% 1%
5 1% 10% 8%
6 2% 7% 2%
7 9% 9% 5%
8 8% 11% 10%
9 11% 12% 14%
10 Extremely Important 62% 44% 51%
Don't Know 3% 3% 6%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-23
Installed cost
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not Important at all 0% 4% 7%
2 0% 1% 2%
3 1% 3% 4%
4 2% 2% 1%
5 7% 15% 14%
6 6% 13% 2%
7 12% 9% 10%
8 8% 12% 12%
9 11% 8% 6%
10 Extremely Important 47% 30% ** 32%
Don't Know 4% 3% 9%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level. Table B-29 shows end users‘ ratings of their satisfaction with various lighting features.
Massachusetts end users are more satisfied with light quality and the appearance of fixtures
than end users in the comparison group. Out of all features reviewed, more Massachusetts end
users are satisfied with light quality than the other features.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-24
Table B-29
PL15. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means “Not at all satisfied” and 10 means “Very
satisfied”, how satisfied are you with following features of the lighting equipment used
for this project?
Quality of light provided
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not at all satisfied <1% <1% 1%
2 1% <1% <1%
3 0% <1% 1%
4 1% 2% 2%
5 <1% 7% * 6%
6 <1% <1% 7%
7 3% 6% 9%
8 12% 19% 20%
9 7% 18% ** 19%
10 Extremely satisfied 73% 48% ** 35%
Don't Know 0% <1% <1%
Refused 2% 0% 0%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appearance of the fixtures
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not at all satisfied <1% <1% 3%
2 3% <1% 1%
3 0% <1% 2%
4 0% <1% 4%
5 3% 16% ** 17%
6 <1% <1% 1%
7 5% 2% 8%
8 17% 27% 22%
9 7% 12% 11%
10 Extremely Isatisfied 62% 40% ** 29%
Don't Know 2% 1% <1%
Refused 0% 1% 0%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-25
Cost of maintenance
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not at all satisfied 6% 1% 1%
2 <1% <1% 1%
3 <1% 1% 2%
4 1% 0% * 3%
5 1% 8% 7%
6 3% 5% 4%
7 2% 14% ** 9%
8 19% 19% 20%
9 7% 8% 12%
10 Extremely Isatisfied 50% 41% 35%
Don't Know 9% 2% ** 7%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Energy use
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 75 116
1 Not at all satisfied 6% 2% 0%
2 <1% 1% <1%
3 <1% 4% 14%
4 1% <1% 16%
5 1% 6% 7%
6 3% 3% 31%
7 2% 12% ** 11%
8 19% 17% 0%
9 7% 7% 0%
10 Extremely Isatisfied 50% 39% 0%
Don't Know 9% 8% <1%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-26
B.7 Awareness of, influence of, and participation in state
energy efficiency programs (Massachusetts and
California sample only)
As shown in Table B-30, 61% of end users in Massachusetts are aware of utility programs that
are designed to help customers reduce energy use and costs.
Table B-30
UT1. Are you aware of programs that electric investor-owned utilities in Massachusetts
(or California) operate to help their commercial and industrial customers reduce energy
use and costs?
Weighted Frequency MA CA
n 155 122
YES 61% 52%
NO 33% 46%
DON'T KNOW 6% 2% Table B-31 shows that roughly half (52%) of eligible end users received an incentive from their
utility for their high bay lighting project.
Table B-31
UT2. Did your organization receive a financial incentive from a Massachusetts (or
California) electric investor-owned utility to defray a portion of the cost of the high bay
lighting equipment you installed for this project?
Frequency MA CA
n 55 9
YES 52% 50%
NO 48% 26%
DON'T KNOW 0% 25% Of those who did receive an incentive, 21% reported that it was very likely they would have
chosen efficient high bay equipment without the financial incentive. Conversely, 40% of
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-27
participants reported that absent the incentive, they would not have chosen efficient equipment.
The presence of incentives still has influence on end users equipment choices.
Table B-32
UT3. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means “Not at all likely” and 10 means “Very Likely”,
how likely is it that your organization would have used the energy-efficient high-bay
lighting you selected for this project if the financial incentive from your electric investor-
owned utility had not been available?
Frequency MA CA
n 52 6
Very Likely (8-10) 21% 17%
Medium Likelihood (5-7) 39% 50%
Relatively Unlikely (1-4) 40% 15%
Don't Know 0% 17%
Only 9% of customers eligible for incentives have installed pulse-start metal halide or
fluorescent high bay lighting equipment without receiving a financial incentive.
Table B-33
UT4. Has your organization installed pulse start metal halide or fluorescent high bay
lighting equipment in Massachusetts (or California) facilities without using financial
incentives available from investor-owned utility companies?
Frequency MA CA
n 53 7
YES 9% 6%
NO 91% 94%
DON'T KNOW 0% 0%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-28
B.8 Screening and Firmographic Information
The following section presents a series of tables covering screening information and
firmographic data collected from all end users in each of the samples.
Table B-34 shows most facility use is for retail and education in both regions.
Table B-35 and B-45 show that the average facility in Massachusetts has fewer
employees (94) and is smaller in area (71,798 square feet) than the comparison area
which has an average of 161 employees and 128,800 square feet.
Table B-40 shows that the majority of firms in both regions (78% in the comparison area
and 63% in MA) own the space they occupy, but significantly more do in the comparison
area than in Massachusetts. This result is significant at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-43 shows that the approximate age of the building stock of the HBL installations
tend to be slightly older in Massachusetts.
Table B-34
SC5 - First, what is the primary use of your facility – for example retail, education,
manufacturing, and so forth?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 80 124
Retail 28% 31% 31%
Manufacturing-process 5% 10% ** 14%
Education 15% 14% 12%
Manufacturing-assembly 10% 13% 11%
Warehouse/Storage 7% 14% 11%
Office 3% 1% 7%
Other Commercial 0% 4% * 4%
Other industrial 7% 3% 3%
Health Care 5% 2% 3%
Services 7% 3% * 2%
Public Assembly 1% <1% 2%
Food sales 10% 5% ** <1%Food service 2% 1% <1%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-29
Table B-35
SC6 - How many employees work at this facility?
Mean MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 78 12294 161 ** 169
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Table B-36
SC7 - Are there any high bay spaces in this facility or a facility that you manage, that is,
indoor spaces with ceiling heights that are fifteen feet or above?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 78 122YES 100% 100% 100%
Table B-37
SC8 - Did your organization install new or replacement lighting fixtures in these high bay
spaces between 2006 and 2008?
Weighted Frequency MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 155 78 122
YES 100% 100% 100%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 B-30
Table B-38
PL7a. - Which individuals in your organization – in terms of job titles – were involved in
the selection of the high bay lighting equipment that was installed?
Fluorescent Tube: All other, including T12/Magnetic Ballast 1% 11% ** 1%
HID: Pulse start metal halide 3% 31% ** 14%
HID: High-pressure sodium 1% 8% ** 3%
HID: Other HID such as mercury vapor or probe-start metal halide 1% 3% * 1%
Other: technologies such as Induction or LED 17% 2% 2%
Contractors in both regions report similar trends in the installation of fluorescent lighting in high
bay applications. As shown in Table C-5, contractors representing three quarters of the market
believe fluorescent lighting installations have increased over the past two years.
Table C-5
HFL1b. In relation to other technologies used in high bay lighting, would you say that
fluorescent lighting installations increased, decreased, or stayed about the same over
the past two years?
MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 43 74 125
Increase 78% 76% 72%
Decrease 1% 2% 1%
Stay the same 21% 22% 27%
Don't Know <1% 1% <1%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
By contrast, contractors in the two regions report different trends in the installation of pulse-start
metal halides. Contractors in Massachusetts primarily perceive that the frequency of the
installation of this equipment has not changed over the past two years. Likewise, only
contractors representing 7% of the market believed that these installations have increased in
Massachusetts, while in the comparison region, contractors representing 35% of the market
reported an increase. This difference is significant at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-38
Table C-6
HID1B. In relation to other technologies used in high bay lighting, have high bay pulse-
start metal halide lighting installations increased, decreased, or stayed about the same
over the past two years?
MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 20 71 94
Increase 7% 35% ** 5%
Decrease 24% 26% 75%
Stay the same 69% 39% 19%
Don't Know <1% <1% <1%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
C.4 Stocking and Promotion
For older, existing technologies such as fluorescent tubes and HID lighting, contractors in both
regions had similar perceptions about what technologies are considered energy efficient. For
new, emerging technologies like LEDs and induction lighting however, contractors in
Massachusetts were more likely to perceive these technologies as energy efficient. Contractors
who represent 94% of work done in Massachusetts would consider LEDs to be energy efficient
lighting, while contractors who represent only 68% of the market in comparison area had this
perception. These differences are both significant at the 95% confidence level. This could
suggest that contractors in Massachusetts are more aware of these technologies and their
benefits than those in the comparison region.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-39
Table C-7
LS3. Which of the following kind of lighting equipments do you consider to be energy-
efficient in high bay applications in the past two years?
MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 48 93 143
T-5 83% 73% 96%
T-8 39% 60% 88%
T-12 19% 8% 3%
HID: Pulse Start Metal Halide 35% 49% 21%
HID: Probe Start Metal Halide 16% 13% 14%
HID: High-Pressure Sodium 19% 21% 6%
HID: Low-Pressure Sodium 3% 4% 4%
HID: Mercury Vapor 2% 11% 1%
LED 94% 68% ** 79%
Induction 63% 12% ** 52%
Other 0% 1% ** 0%
Refused 3% 0% 0%Don't Know 0% 1% ** 1%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
In Massachusetts, contractors use direct customer contact to market energy efficient high bay
lighting. Contractors representing 74% of the market report talking directly to customers about
these technologies or using in-person sales to market this equipment.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-40
Table C-8
MS1. What activities does your firm undertake to market energy efficient high bay
lighting technologies?
MA
n 48
Talk directly with customers/in-person sales 74%
Direct mail/newsletter 2%
Telephone advertising 0%
Advertise on my company's website 0%
Purchase web ads (e.g., Googles Adsense) 0%
Advertise on contractor or trade websites 0%
Sell over internet/web 0%
Radio advertising 0%
Print advertising 0%
Showroom, tours 0%
Offer classes/workshops 0%
Offer special discounts, promotions 0%
Notify investor-owned and public utility companies 1%
Notify distributors 0%
Notify other contractors 1%
Other 2%
Refused 23%
Don't know 0%
As shown in Table C-9, state and local governments have not been providing contractors with
energy efficient high bay lighting marketing support thus far. There are however outside
organizations that have been providing this marketing support to contractors representing 22%
of the market (Table C-10).
Table C-9
MS2. Has your firm received marketing support from a state or local government
regarding energy-efficient high bay lighting?
MA
n 48
Yes 1%
No 95%
Don't Know 4%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-41
Table C-10
MS4. Does your firm receive any kind of marketing support for energy efficient high bay
lighting technologies from outside organizations that are not state or local government?
MA
n 48
Yes 22%
No 78%
When asked about awareness of electric utility incentive programs for energy efficient high bay
lighting, contractors representing a majority of the market (82%) reported being aware of these
programs.
Table C-11
PP1. Are you aware of any electric utility incentive programs in Massachusetts for
businesses to install energy efficient high bay lighting?
MA CA
n 48 124
Yes 82% 52%
No 12% 18%
Don't Know 6% 30%
As shown in Table C-12, contractors representing 62% of the market and were aware of these
programs reported that the program‘s existence is very important to their decision on how
heavily to promote energy-efficient high bay lighting equipment.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-42
Table C-12
PP7. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is very important, how
important are the utility programs in Massachusetts in your firm’s decisions about how
heavily to promote energy-efficient high bay lighting equipment?
MA CA
n 18 54
1-4 6% 8%
5-7 33% 13%
8-10 61% 79%
As shown in Table C-13, contractors reported that the existence of utility programs has had a
large influence on their customers and their decisions to purchase high bay lighting
technologies. Contractors representing 87% of the market believe that these programs have
been very influential in affecting the market share of high bay lighting equipment.
Table C-13
PP8. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all influential and 10 is very influential, how
much influence do you think utility programs in Massachusetts have on the market share
of energy-efficient high bay lighting technologies in your market area? That is, how much
did the program influence your customers?
MA CA
n 19 54
1-4 2% 6%
5-7 6% 21%
8-10 92% 73%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-43
Table C-14
GT5. Thinking about the overall market, what do you think could be done to increase the
installation of energy-efficient high bay lighting in the commercial and industrial
sectors?
MA
n 48
Lower prices overall 38%
Quality standards for equipment (low-Q deters customers) 0%
Fluorescents not good enough yet 0%
Education for contractors/architects 11%
Building code requirements 4%
It will change when induction is cost-effective 8%
It will change when LEDs are cost-effective 18%
More/bigger utility rebates 15%
More/bigger tax breaks from state 1%
More/bigger tax breaks from federal government 1%
Innovative Pricing Schemes (leasing rather than buying, etc.) 1%
Low-cost loans 0%
EE light quality must improve 0%
EE durability/maintenance must improve 0%
Other 41%
Refused 7%
C.5 Perceptions of Customer Awareness and Demand
As shown in
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-44
Table C-15, contractors‘ recommendations in both regions are similarly accepted by customers.
Contractors reported that the majority of the market (82% in MA and 75% in the comparison
area) accept the recommendations ―most of the time‖ or more. Only in the comparison area are
recommendations ever rejected or ignored.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-45
Table C-15
LS6. In cases where your firm recommended energy-efficient high bay lighting, how often
did customers follow this recommendation in the past two years?
MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 40 83 135
Always 22% 10% 10%
Most of the time 60% 65% 41%
Sometimes 18% 19% 8%
Rarely 0% 6% ** 41%
Never 0% 0% ** 0%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
According to contractors in Massachusetts, a large number of customers were aware of the full
range of options for energy efficient high bay lighting before a recommendation was provided.
On the contrary, this was not the situation in the comparison area, where the majority of
contractors reported that most customers were unaware of their options prior to the
recommendation.
Table C-16
LS7. Roughly what percent of your customers are aware of the full range of options for
energy-efficient high bay lighting available to them before you provide recommendations
about the lighting system?
MA
SC-GA-
AL-MI CA
n 26 86 139
Between 0 and 10 27% 33% 50%
Between 11 and 25 6% 12% ** 27%
Between 26 and 50 4% 37% 13%
Between 51 and 75 32% 3% 2%
Between 76 and 100 30% 14% 8%
Do Not Know 0% 1% 0%
* Significantly different from the comparison area at the 90% confidence level.
** Significantly different from the comparison area at the 95% confidence level.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-46
C.6 Building Code Awareness
Almost all contractors in Massachusetts are aware of the current building codes that pertain to
lighting. Of the contractors aware, those representing 89% of the market say that the codes did
not influence their ultimate equipment choices. For firms where building codes influenced their
equipment decisions, an average of 91% of projects were affected by the presence of these
codes. Likewise, firms representing 54% of the market stated that these codes completely
determined the type of high bay lighting equipment installed.
Table C-17
CD1. Are you aware of Massachusetts’s building codes for lighting?
MA
n 48
Yes 97%
No 3%
Table C-18
CD2. For the projects you completed in the past two years, did the Massachusetts
building codes influence your selection of high bay lighting equipment?
MA
n 45
Yes 11%
No 89%
Table C-19
CD3. What percent of the high bay lighting projects completed in the past two years were
influenced by the Massachusetts building codes?
MA
n 13
91%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-47
Table C-20
CD4. Please rate the influence of these codes on your selection of high bay lighting
equipment using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 indicates that the codes had “no influence on
your selection” and 10 indicates that the codes “completely determined the type of high
bay lighting equipment you installed”?
MA
n 13
1-4 0%
5-7 46%
8-10 54%
C.7 Experience with Chains and Franchises
When asked about their experience working with chains and franchises, contractors
representing 61% of the market reported working on high bay lighting installation projects with
these firms. These contractors report that, on average, 25% of their lighting projects over the
past two years have been in this market. Contractors representing 58% of this market found
that chains and franchises have specification policies for high-bay lighting, all of which specify
energy efficient fixture and control technologies. The majority of chains and franchises with
these polices (93%) use the same specifications for all facilities.
Table C-21
CF1. Has your firm installed high bay lighting at a facility that is part of a chain or
franchise?
MA
n 48
Yes 61%
No 39%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 C-48
Table C-22
CF2. What percent of the high bay lighting projects that your firm completed in the past
two years were for chains or franchises?
MA
n 20
25%
CF3. Did any of these
organizations have lighting
specification policies for
high bay applications?
CF4. Do these guidelines
incorporate fixture and
control technologies that are
energy-efficient?
CF5. In your experience do
chains and franchises tend
to use the same
specifications across
facilities for high bay lighting
applications?
n 19 15 15
Yes 58% 100% 93%
No 42% 0% 7%
Don't Know 1% 0% 0%
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 D-1
D. Appendix D: Insights from the Interviews
Distributors
D.1.1 Firmographics
KEMA interviewed five lighting distributors in January 2011. All five sell to contractors and four
of the five sell directly to end-users. Four also offer lighting layout and design services. One
distributor sells directly to OEMs and one offers both installation and maintenance services.
Three distributors sell primarily to end-users. These sales represent 60-80% of the sales for
these three. The fourth distributor sells 70% to contractors, 10% to end-users and the balance
through their lighting design services. The fifth participating distributor sells 95% to contractors.
Two of the five also offer lighting and design services that represent 20% of their sales. A fourth
offers lighting design services but clarified that they do not realize sales income from this
service.
These five firms range in size from 2-20 employees at their primary Massachusetts location.
They have a total of 51 employees with a mean of 10. One of these five (Granite State Electric)
has 18 locations in MA, with five more elsewhere in New England. The other four have a single
MA location. The geography served by these distributors ranges from national (Litemor) to the
eastern US -- ME to FL and OH (Villa Lighting Supply), with the other three serving primarily MA
and New England. Two of the five reported sales of $6-10 million; one sales of $2-5 m, one
over $10 m and one refused to characterize sales.
D.1.2 C&I Lighting Equipment Sales
Four distributors responded to this question; one did not, on the grounds that she was familiar
with C&I sales only yet the company also does substantial residential business as well. Three
of the four respondents do the majority of their sales in T-8s, ranging from 40-65%. For the
fourth, T-5s lead with 40%, LEDs in second place at 30% of sales and T-8s in third place at
20%. All four respondents sell metal halides ranging from 9-20% of sales. Two distributors sell
high-pressure sodium, accounting for 1-3% of their sales. One respondent sells mercury vapor
lighting, which represents 2% of sales. Three of the four respondents sell LEDs, although for
two of the three, these sales represent 5% of their total.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 D-2
Distributors were asked to characterize the percentage of their C&I sales that go to HBL
applications. All four respondents report that a significant portion of their sales of T-5s (from 10-
65%) are for HBL applications. Three of these four also estimate that 5-10% of their T-8 sales
go to HBL. One reported that 25% of their sales of pulse start metal halides go to high bay
applications.
To identify the lighting applications sold to contractors, three of the five firms rely on engineering
specifications; the other two assess the needs of the job, including the type of space, the light
levels desired, etc. ―Depends on the job and their needs- a warehouse is totally different than
an office space -- and then ask them what they need. What the end-user wants, and what the
rebate $ is. That plays a role in the fixture type and lamp type.‖
All five distributors agree that T-5s with electronic ballasts are energy efficient. Four of five
agree that T-8s with electronic ballasts are energy efficient. No respondents consider T-12s
with magnetic ballasts to be energy efficient. Three of these respondents consider pulse-start
metal halide lighting to be energy efficient. The two distributors who sell high-pressure sodium
lighting are on their opinions towards high-pressure sodium and mercury vapor lighting: one
respondent considers these to be energy efficient while one other does not. Of the three
respondents characterizing LEDs, two consider these to be energy efficient, while the third is
skeptical: ―I am not totally sold that LED is more efficient than fluorescent‖.
D.1.3 Distributor- Contractor Relations
All five distributors rely on straight bids for a significant portion of their contractor sales. For four
of the five, this share is 70-90% of all contractor sales. The fifth does 10% of their sales through
straight bids and 60% of contractor sales through work with the architect and/or project engineer
to develop lighting layouts. The second most common approach to contractor sales is through
the use of general application categories – all five distributors realize sales this way, ranging
from 5-15% of their contractor sales. All five also work with contractors to develop lighting
layouts and scheduled, and realize 1-15% of contractor sales through this approach. Four of
the five also work directly with architects and project engineers; outside of the distributor that
realizes 60% of their sales this way, the other three sell 4-10% of their contractor sales through
this path.
All five distributors recommend energy efficient options – four make such recommendations
―always‖, one does so ―sometimes‖. Three of the five report that contractors are aware of
energy efficient options; two report that contractors are generally not aware of these options.
Four of the five also report that contractors do generally accept the distributor‘s
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 D-3
recommendations for energy efficient products. The fifth reported that contractors do not
generally accept these recommendations because either they cannot (they have a pre-
established bill of materials from which they cannot deviate) or they will not: ―Contractors often
want the lowest price to do the job‖.
D.1.4 Product Trends
Fluorescent Lamps
Distributors see no clear trends for sales of fluorescent HBL. Two report that sales have
increased in the past two years, while two say that sales have remained about the same. Both
of these distributors attribute their sales increases to the utility rebates and the resulting
advantages over HID lighting. One said that sales have decreased, a trend that he attributed to
the national recession. Distributors cite the product advantages of T-5s and T-8s as the reason
sales will continue to stay strong or increase, reversing any observed declines once the
recession ends. ―As long as rebates continue, it‘s a better product‖.
Four of the five distributors report that contractor feedback on fluorescent high-bay lighting is
primarily positive. This fifth distributor confirmed this indirectly when he said: ―I haven‘t heard
anything -- I only get feedback if the contractors hate the product‖. Two distributors responded
regarding contractor views of fluorescent installations, saying that fluorescent high-bay
installations are ―easy‖ and result in very little comment from contractors. They also cite several
commercial advantages of the fluorescent high-bay products: ―instant on‖ capability (no
requirement for cooling between on-off operations); low maintenance costs; high energy
savings; high lumen/Watt; and long life expectancy.
Metal halide
Distributors that handle metal halides (four of five) report that sales have remained stable (two
of four) or decreased (two of four). Those observing sales declines attribute this to the advent
of T-5s, which have features customers prefer: ―Don‘t see much of these installations anymore,
because the tubes are same quality, they save energy, and they also have the instant on-
capability, which the customer really likes and the HID doesn‘t have‖. Those anticipating the
continued decline of metal halide in high applications attribute that to the continuation of utility
rebates and the increasing awareness of energy efficient options that the programs have
created. Those forecasting the continued stability of metal halides for HBL base this projection
on continuing improvements in the products, and the existence of a small population for which
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 D-4
these products are preferable for reasons of lighting quality: ―…metal halides will continue to
improve (and it‘s pretty efficient to start). Until LEDs start to picks up (for HBL), metal halide
continues to be decent option.‖
Distributors report little customer or contractor feedback on pulse-start metal halide in high bay
applications. They say that this technology suffers two installation-related challenges: restrike
time and replacement coverage. Restrike time (and the requirement in some applications for
redundant emergency lighting) remains a major disadvantage, as does energy consumption.
High-pressure sodium
The two distributors handling high-pressure sodium products for high-bay applications both
reported decreasing sales. They expect this trend to continue, as technologies without the color
concerns –specifically T-5s—continue to gain sales: ―high pressure sodium is a proven
technology, even if it is old‖. The commercial advantages of this technology include its 1-to-1
replacement of the lower efficiency lighting, and long lamp life.
D.1.5 General Market Trends
Four of five distributors get 50% or more of their sales from new construction, while one gets
10% from new construction. The same four see no differences in these trends as they apply to
new construction or to the retrofit markets. The fifth distributor, with considerable concentration
of sales in retrofit, sees a difference in the ability of these two segments to absorb new
technologies: ―In New Construction, there are newer technologies involved. In the Retrofit
market, customers often replace old lighting with the same, existing technology, because their
ability to put in newer technology is constrained or determined by pre-existing spacing and
considerations of how difficult (the new technologies are) to mount‖.
Three of the five distributors highlighted the need for more customer education regarding the
energy efficient high-bay options and benefits as key to increasing C&I HBL sales. Two
recommended continuing and/or increasing the utility rebates. One stressed the need to reduce
program requirements, paperwork and red tape: ―(there is) lots of red tape in the approval
process. The paperwork-- its too much effort to pursue rebates. Requirements like having to
use a contractor from the utility list rather than a contractor customer wants…‖
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 D-5
D.1.6 Marketing Support
Four of the five distributors had received no marketing support for their HBL product offers. One
distributor received marketing assistance in the form of product brochures from the
manufacturer, had run joint promotions with the manufacturer, and even offered a spiff as part of
these promotions. Their example featured DayBrite, manufacturer of a T-5HO linear high-bay
product which had been picked up by only a single distributor in MA. The responding distributor
joined forces with DayBrite on this promotion, including a spiff, thereby increasing total sales of
this new product. This distributor, alone of the five respondents, reported that such marketing
support is effective and can increase sales; they also said, however, that they would have
marketed the HBL products without this marketing support.
Three other distributors said they will occasionally partner with architects, end-users and/or
manufacturers to offer a joint promotion, but they receive no support for their efforts.
D.1.7 Program Participation
All five distributors are aware of the Massachusetts electric utility energy efficiency programs.
Four of five have participated in these programs. One of the five declined response on the basis
that all rebate applications, etc., are handled by the contractors so she has no observations of
participation in any specific program(s). The four respondents mentioned MassSave, NSTAR
and NGrid programs by name. Two respondents rated the programs favorably (an average
score of 8 out of 10), yet qualified this support: ―Lots of folks come to us based on the rebate,
but it‘s not the absolute factor. We would still promote it if the rebates weren‘t there, we‘d still
design the layouts with the linear HBs‖. Two respondents scored the program low (average of
3). One explained that in terms of frustration with the MA utility programs.
Responding distributors split the same way in characterizing the influence of the Massachusetts
programs. Tow scored the program high (8-9), citing the program‘s promotional strength: ―They
do a good job promoting it, and the more the word gets out, the better.‖ Two scored the program
significantly lower (2-3), again on the grounds of the ―hassle factor‖: ―NSTAR and NGRID – it is
an effort to go through incentive process, rewards often just justify the effort‖. Of these four
responding distributors, only one had participated in any other utility programs; three had zero
other program experience.
Respondent Codes
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 D-6
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-1
E. Appendix E: Insights from the Interviews:
manufacturers
E.1 Technologies manufactured
KEMA conducted five manufacturer interviews. We interviewed representatives from two large,
national brands – Sylvania and Philips—and three smaller names: Maxlite, Uspar and TCPI.
All five manufacture T-8s and T-5s. Three of the five manufacture LEDs, albeit in limited
volume at present for HBL applications. The two larger manufacturers manufacture T-12s with
magnetic ballasts, the other three do not. None of these manufacturers manufacture
pressurized sodium or mercury vapor for HBL applications. One manufacturers mercury vapor
for exterior lighting, outdoor/ highway applications largely in CA. Three manufacture other
technologies for HBL applications, including induction lamps (2) and high wattage CFLs from
retrofit into existing HID fixtures.
E.1.1 Energy efficient technologies
All five manufacturers consider T-8s and T-5s to be energy efficient technologies. Differences
of opinion exist regarding the energy-efficiency of the other technologies, based on the
standards used to determine whether a product is ‗energy efficient‘ or not. Three use basic
‗lumens/watt‘, a threshold that many of the technologies may meet and that doesn‘t change over
time. By this standard, three consider pulse-start metal halides to be energy efficient. Several
use EnergyStar standards, where these exist. Others look at the total energy savings over the
life of the bulb and/or fixture and by this standard, given the current cost of LEDs, do not
consider LEDs to be ‗energy efficient‘.
E.1.2 Sales activities
Three of the five sell 85-95% of their products to and through distributors; two respondents were
not able to categorize their sales by channel precisely. Those using other sales channels sell
either a small percentage (15-25%) to OEMs or directly to national accounts (5%).
Of the three selling HID, these fixture saes represent 15-45% of their total fixture sales. For one
manufacturer that sells primarily bulbs, fixture sales represent only 25% of their total HBL sales.
Across all five manufacturers, sales of T-8s and T-5s represent from a low of 20% to a high of
98% of their total HBL fixture sales. The two large manufacturers report that 55% and 65% of
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-2
their HBL fixture sales are T-8s and T-5s. One manufacturer reports HBL sales that are 70%
―Other‖ – high-wattage CLFs for HBL applications.
E.1.3 HBL Regional penetration
Three of the five manufacturers consider the East /Northeast region, or Massachusetts
specifically, to be leading the pack in terms of their HBL sales. The Midwest came in second for
two of them, while California was in second place for another two (one representative, covering
solely the Northeast, chose not to compare his region with any others). Three respondents
singled out the role of utility programs and/or rebate levels as responsible for the leadership of
these regions. In addition to California programs, the Midwest – specifically Detroit, Chicago
and Milwaukee—were mentioned as offering strong programs with significant rebates.
In the explicit comparison between Massachusetts HBL sales and that of other regions, three of
the five manufacturers reported that their HBL market share in Massachusetts is higher than in
other states; two others reported their Massachusetts market share to be ―about the same‖ as it
is in other states. Factors that draw Massachusetts out of the top spot were a) the
aggressiveness and size of CA programs; and b) the rapid growth of ‗new‘ states, where
incentives may have recently begun and sales levels are increasing sharply.
Fluorescent HBLs – T-5s and T-8s – are agreed by 4 of the 5 manufacturers to be the
technologies responsible for their MA HBL sales. Maxlite, with its significant sales of high-
wattage CFLs for HBL applications was the exception.
E.1.4 5. Factors differentiating regions
The manufacturers widely agree that sales are strongest in a region/ area that sees reinforcing
messages and motivations among three main factors: the incentives available, supportive state
legislation, and utility rates.
―(It) comes down to the utilities and state involvement – in MA, California, Chicago,
where all levels of government and utilities are involved and doing everything in their
power to educate the consumers on the benefits.. vs in other states (where this isn‘t
true)‖.
The absence of these factors creates less-desirable conditions:
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-3
―The lack of incentives and low power rates mean a smaller market – for example, down
south, the incentives are less and the power rates are less, so the incentives to act are
less.‖
The manufacturers identified other factors as playing a contributory role, but with less
importance that the ‗big three‘ factors identified above. These included:
The cost of living generally – ―when the cost of living is higher and/or the income levels
are higher, customers are more likely to pay out in the beginning and get the savings
back..‖
The level of construction activity, particularly the health of the commercial real estate
market – ―The big states are all doing well – CA is leading the charge – yet it‘s harder to
do business in CA, to move projects forward because of regulation. It‘s hard in MA and
Chicago too, yet in CA its worse. MA is one of the better states at getting projects
done.‖
E.1.5 Manufacturer strategy
All five manufacturers report that energy efficiency plays a key role in their competitive strategy.
Each positions themselves slightly differently: one sells only energy efficient products; one
targets primarily high-rebate areas in which to promote their energy efficient products; one other
explicitly ‗subscribes to the green theory – which means we are promoting less consumption of
energy for what the customer is doing‖. Several mentioned the high-value to the customer that
energy efficient products represent, and the fact that they use this value as a key point in their
strategic positioning.
E.1.6 Sales trends
High-Bay Fluorescents
All five manufacturers report that their sales of fluorescents for high bay applications have
increased in the last two years. Respondents see various reasons for this increase. Three of
the five attributed the increase to utility incentives, increased customer acceptance as
fluorescent technologies have matured and utility programs have endured. Two of five attribute
the increase to their own activities: internal changes in product sourcing; better inventory
controls, better forecasting and other internal efficiencies. Finally one mentioned the danger of
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-4
market saturation, particularly in the industrial segment, and the need expressed by some
distributors to turn to other products to maintain sales levels.
All five are also in agreement that –in the near term at least -- the trend toward increasing sales
of fluorescents for HBL applications will continue. They identify multiple reasons for the
continuation of this trend: a) new markets opening in the south and Midwest; b) the size of the
retrofit market yet to be reached; and c) most importantly, the time lag between the impact of
the on-coming LEDs. Two manufacturers specifically identified the advent of LEDs as ―the next
wave‖ of lighting technology, due to displace fluorescents in –in one view— roughly three years.
Manufacturers are divided about the applicability of these trends to Massachusetts. They see
the high power rates in MA as a factor in keeping the fluorescent market strong, yet place MA
second or third in the pack behind CA and the mid-Atlantic region in terms of continued market
growth for high-bay fluorescents.
Pulse Start Metal Halides
Manufacturers consider the trends for pulse-start metal halides as less clear than those for
fluorescents. Two reported that their HID sales had increased, one reported a decrease, and
two others don‘t manufacture the technology and/or didn‘t answer. Their comments suggested
that none of the five consider this technology a major area of investment or emphasis going
forward. Reasons for the ambiguous sales forecasts were a) the outlawing of standard metal
halides; b) the technology‘s restrike requirements and consequent customer dislike; and c) the
sluggish economy‘s affect on the rate of new construction that might opt to employ this
technology.
Whether sales of pulse start metal halides increase or decrease in the future was described by
two of the five as dependent on the rate of new construction because –in the words of one
―..most of the retrofitting underway is going to fluorescents‖. Three of the five declined to
compare the national trends to those in Massachusetts. The two replying suggested that trends
in MA would be comparable to those nationally. Alternatively, MA may show a greater decline
than other areas where, because of more recent rebate programs, the penetration of T-5s and
T-8s hasn‘t reached the levels already seen in MA. Or, stated differently, that pulse start metal
halides sell better when they replace older lighting technologies, but fare less well in areas
where significant penetration by fluorescents has already occurred.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-5
LEDs
While three of the five manufacturers reported that their LED sales had increased, these trends
must be placed in the context of their currently-limited offerings. Sales of LEDs are a) brand
new, so have no trend history; b) of ‗canopy /low-bay‘ lights, i.e., under 10 feet and therefore not
truly ―high-bay‖ by definition; or c) considered too high-cost to be offered as yet in the general
market. It is notable, however, that all five are active at some level with LEDs, in anticipation of
the market they expect to develop soon. However, while they attribute increases in their own
LED sales to different things, there is strong consensus that customer LED sales will also
increase. These trends are attributed variously to: a) continued technology improvements; b)
cost declines, bringing the technology into customer reach; and c) the ―cool‖ factor – ―and the
fact that people just think LEDs are cool – early adopters want to move with it.‖
Finally, manufacturers generally think that Massachusetts will experience the same trends in
LED sales as seen nationally. Two manufacturers voice reasons why the trend in MA might
differ from the national trend. One anticipates a slightly faster uptake on LEDs in MA, due to the
number of early adopters in the state. Another suggests that LED sales might lag those in
areas where customers can capture the benefits of a move directly from older, non-efficient
technologies directly into LEDs. In these areas, the customers‘ cost comparisons between the
older technologies and the savings from LEDs would help bring the more expensive LEDs into
the market sooner, than in areas where LEDs have to compete against the installed base of T-
8s and T-5s.
E.1.7 Manufacturer promotions
The five manufacturers use a variety of different methods to promote their products to
distributors. Three of the five utilize discounting and pricing mechanisms; one mentioned
cooperative advertising, one uses calculation tools and one mentioned their website. Three
also described the use of their field staff –sales reps, field agents and/or regional managers – to
make direct calls on distributors for marketing purposes. These calls may include customer
calls made with the distributor, ―to create a ‗pull-through‘ strategy from the contractors through
the distributors‖.
Two also described their training efforts, which maybe through phone training, webinars, and/or
regional distributor presentations. The majority use other methods, including: a) ―product of the
month/ week‖ specials, with special pricing; b) direct mail to customers; and c) telemarketing,
again directly to the customer, even when the customer is directed back to the distributor.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-6
Manufacturers also describe a mixed response when asked whether their promotional methods
on behalf of high-bay applications have changed in the last year. Three reported an increase in
HBL promotion, one a decrease and one reported no change. Those reporting an increase in
HBL promotion are doing so to capitalize on a) the growth in customer interest due to the
incentives, and b) their internal investment in better promotional vehicles: new fixture lines, new
website/ social media investments. In one case, the manufacturer has created a new national
sales position to capitalize on the HBL product line, move it closer to architects and other
buyers, while simultaneously positioning for LEDs sales to the same segments. None of the five
see any significant differences between their marketing plans for Massachusetts and the rest of
the country. While they acknowledge that incentive programs and distributor groups may be
different between regions, such that the details of their marketing efforts might change, none
saw any reason or plan to change their national approach or balance of effort in Massachusetts.
E.1.8 Distributor stocking practices
Distributor objections to the stocking of energy efficient high-bay lighting have changed over the
period since prior KEMA surveys. Of the five manufacturers, only two reported hearing
distributor objections related to inventory, and none to the other three categories of anticipated
objections. The stocking objections noted in the past have been handled by the manufacturers
through better inventory, especially in the case of promotional inventory, and manufacturer
‗quick ship‘ programs. Rather than expecting distributors to maintain inventories, it now appears
that the manufacturers have devised mechanisms that enable distributors to maintain only the
inventory levels they wish. Other anticipated objections – about product reliability, economics or
low customer demand – are no longer reported.
Three of the five manufacturers noted that the frequency of the objections they receive has not
changed in the last two years. One manufacturer noted that objections to stocking efficient
products have decreased, as a result of that manufacturer‘s introduction of a ‗quick ship‘
program, under which distributors could receive their product in a more timely fashion. One
other manufacturer responded that distributor objections had increased, due to concerns about
the advent of LEDs – in his view, distributors appear concerned that the quality, reliability and
availability issues that arose with the advent of fluorescents could occur again with LEDs:
―Because of what is happening to bring LEDs into the market, and they‘ve gotten burnt before,
so they will be cautious until the product is stabilized‖. The three manufacturers willing to
characterize objections from MA distributors painted a mixed picture – two said that objections
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-7
had stayed they same over the past two years, while one said they had increased, again
reflecting concerns about LEDs.
E.1.9 Distributor promotional practices
Four of the five manufacturers all report different distributor responses to energy efficient
products (one declined to answer). Whether distributors are motivated by increased margin, the
opportunity to increase customer loyalty, satisfaction or retention, the bottom line for most of
them seemed the same – the distributor gets the sale. Four of the five agreed that
Massachusetts distributors are more active in promoting energy efficient products than are
distributors in other parts of the country. They explain this variously in terms of more prevalent
‗green attitudes‘, a higher rate structure, utility success in promoting the incentives, or simply a
regional culture that features energy efficient actions more frequently in the news.
E.1.10 Energy efficiency promotion to customers
Only one of the five manufacturers interviewed does nay promotion directly to customers, and
this is only for the five percent of their sales that originates with national accounts. This one
manufacturer uses telemarketing, direct mail and national ads to reach these customers. This
manufacturer has not changed their promotional methods to these customers in the last two
years, has received some customer feedback but the respondent was unaware of the nature of
that feedback. The respondent was also unaware of any customer objections to the products,
whether customer objections have changed in frequency, or of their customers in
Massachusetts. While he assumed that direct supply contracts with MA customers contain
product specifications, he was unaware of the nature of those specifications.
E.1.11 Energy efficiency program familiarity and effectiveness
One of the five manufacturer representatives was sufficiently regional in focus as to be unaware
of programs elsewhere. Among the other four manufacturers, programs in California and the
Pacific Northwest are the most familiar (2 of 4), followed by those in the Midwest (WI, MI, IL)
and those in TX, FL and NV. Of the Massachusetts programs, three of the five were familiar
with NGrid‘s program; two of those three described themselves as familiar with both NGrid and
NSTAR‘s offerings.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-8
In terms of overall program effectiveness nationally, three ranked the California programs as the
top, most effective program. Reasons given for this ranking include:
The backing of state legislation, ahead of federal action
The size of the financial pool behind the programs;
The breadth of the incentives – ―There is both lamp & fixture coverage…. $ /lamp or
fixture, and the number of products covered..‖.
The aggressiveness of utility marketing, and, overall
The comprehensive, integrated and mutually reinforcing nature of the California
programs:
―These programs are a huge push in CA … Engaging the customer-manufacturers-
contractors, the whole line and pushing them to go Do It. Manufacturers are aware,
distributors are aware, the contractors may be – the more people working for success of
the program, the better. If we don‘t sell directly to the contractors (and we don‘t), we
need the distributors to get to the contractors- and that information is everywhere. The
contractors know where to get the product from, the manufacturers know who has done
this before, etc.‖
One of the four respondents counted Massachusetts as the most effective program nationally,
for a very specific reason:
―They adjust their incentives based on actual market costs, so they have a better
knowledge of the market dynamics… the market price/ payback has stayed pretty much
the same, even though the rebates and product prices have changed‖.
Manufacturers are exactly split on the most effective targeting of utility incentives. Two vote for
directing the incentive to the customer, two to the vendor, and one responded ―it depends‖. In
their explanations, however, manufacturers agree that the ultimate benefit of the incentive
needs to reach the customer. Their choice of who receives the incentive directly appears tied to
the speed of program payments, and the requirement to float the balance of project costs during
the wait for the incentives to arrive. If the program is administratively inefficient and incentive
payments take some time to arrive, manufacturers suggest that making the distributor (rather
than the customer) wait for the cash is better in the long run for all parties. As one described it:
―… vendors (manufacturers) will have 30-60 day terms, which means that the contractor
can purchase product, install it and within 30 days get the inspection and usually the $$
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-9
comes 2 weeks later. If the distributor has 60-day terms, then no-one is waiting on the
$$ except the manufacturers. If the $ goes to the customer, then they have to put out
the $$, then wait for 30-days to get the $$ back. All told, there is less time out-of-pocket
if the distributor.... claims the rebate.‖
Manufacturers point to other elements that increase program effectiveness. Some of these
repeat previous comments; they include:
Ensuring that vendors (manufacturers and distributors) have adequate product available
at the start of the promotional period.
Education for both customers and sellers: ―Educating customers and sellers – they need
to know what they‘re talking about, understanding that the return on investment is longer
term than the payback. Show them what they‘re saving over 5 years, not just payback –
seller needs to understand the full impacts on the businesses, not just the immediate/
short-term impacts.‖
Setting the rebates as Massachusetts as done.
Ensuring that all elements of the program are fully integrated and mutually reinforcing.
Manufacturers suggested several changes to improve the Massachusetts programs. Three of
the five singled out the need to reduce paperwork and streamline the process as the most
important immediate change, perhaps by broadening the number of prescriptive incentives.
Other suggestions include:
Distributor spiffs, for distributors that install or confirm the installations and file the the
customers‘ paperwork;
Broader scope of supported products;
Calculate incentives on a technology neutral basis, on the actual savings achieved –
―(example) these two products are very close in savings, yet because the utilities have
fluorescents on the brain, they don‘t have the pulse start ion the rebate list‖.
E.1.12 Technology and regulatory trends
Four of five manufacturers identified any Congressional change to tighten or repeal any current
energy efficiency standards as a market event that would affect the future of high-bay lighting.
Examples of these changes could include:
Outlawing of T-12s and magnetic ballasts, as is under consideration in some states;
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-10
Repeal of any of the current lighting standards;
Tighter energy or carbon codes;
Rule changes, for example requirements concerning pulse start metal halides;
Manufacturers also anticipate the advent of two market-based technology changes with
potential implications for the sales of high-bay lighting:
The advent of LEDs, as anticipated by three of the five manufacturers;
Continued improvement in the pricing, performance and competitive value of lighting
controls. One respondent anticipated that lower-cost controls would benefit HIDs
against fluorescents, as HIDs have longer total life and, with controls, comparable
efficiency.
Manufacturers don‘t anticipate a flood of new technologies entering the market, as they see
continued improvement of LEDs as the major technology change on the immediate horizon.
Induction lamps, while not a new technology, are also new in high-bay applications.
Manufacturers offer the following observations about these technolgies:
Induction lamps – Not as efficient as LEDs in lumens/watt but have long life. In
applications where a crane is required – tunnels, street lights—these have an
advantage. Induction lamps have zero restrike requirements and all the benefits of
metal halide.
LEDs – ‗True‘ high-bay LEDs are coming but have are unlikely to be suited for
applications over 20‘. Above 30‘ HID will prevail because of the lighting quality. HB
LEDs are also unsuited for locations subject to temperature build-up, as LED life is
affected by heat. LED applications in retail may also be limited by the amount of glare
that merchandisers will find acceptable.
Three manufacturers commented on regulatory trends affecting HBL; two saw little to no change
on the horizon. One reported the trend toward more efficient lighting systems under mandate,
as seen in CA. Manufacturers were more unified in their view of current HBL standards – three
of the four respondents say that these standards are helping their business. Finally, three of the
five manufacturers report that efficiency legislation at the federal level has the most impact on
their HBL business. Whereas they previously dealt with a relative handful of states, the role of
the federal government (e.g., through EPACT) and other federal-level activities like LEED now
take a much greater share of their attention.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 E-11
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-1
F. Appendix F: Insights from the Interviews: PA Staff
F.1.1 Program Description and Roles
In this section, KEMA asked the program staff to describe their involvement in six possible
categories of program activity. Two of the five PA representatives participate in program design
as members of the Massachusetts program design committee with other PA representatives.
Two others describe their roles as not really designers of the program but as implementers of a
pre-designed program. The fifth PA representative said that he works with the utility‘s planning
department in areas or program design.
The five PA representatives each describe the customer marketing of their programs differently.
Three responded that they themselves are directly involved in marketing the program to
customers. Of those, one says that his customer marketing activities are carried out in
conjunction with the utility‘s marketing department, and another coordinates marketing activities
with that utility‘s account managers. A fourth PA rep says that he is not personally involved in
customer marketing, as the utility‘s account executives have the primary responsibility for
commercial marketing. The fifth PA does direct customer marketing for their commercial new
construction program but does not for their commercial retrofit program, as in the latter case,
customer marketing is done through the trade allies.
Two utilities report that they see no need for marketing the program to vendors and trade allies,
while a third will do only such TA marketing as can occur during the effort to get projects
completed. Two PAs say that they do market the program to trade allies, and even beyond –
one respondent conducts ‗upstream‘ marketing, to distributors, contractors and manufacturers,
as well as to other trade allies such as architects, engineers and the design community.
Of the four PA reps responding to this question, two reported that trade ally participation in their
programs required no management. Two others are responsible for managing TA participation,
however they did so ‗passively‘, or as a byproduct of working with TAs to approve or otherwise
support specific projects.
Three of the five PA representatives do review, approve or otherwise administer incentive
payments but do not themselves deliver those payments. In two cases, the program staffer had
no involvement in the incentive process, as both applications and incentive deliveries are
handled by others, either the utility‘s inside sales staff or the account executives.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-2
Three of the five PAs provide some form of technical review or support for commercial
customers. These services may be provided directly, through in-house engineering staff, or via
referral to consulting engineers under contract to the utility. The other two PAs do not provide
technical review. In one of these, the utility will refer customers to external technical assistance
sources. In the final instance, the program staffer reported that there is no call for technical
support services in the case of HBL applications, as the technology and its applications are all
quite well-known.
F.1.2 Definition of HBL
All five program staff agreed with the definition of high bay lighting as given: ―installations in
commercial and industrial spaces with ceiling heights of about 15 feet or more.‖ At the same
time, four of the five acknowledged flexibility in the ceiling heights they would accept under this
definition. Each of these four mentioned a different height, whether 12‘, 16‘, 18‘ or 20‘ as their
guideline for determining HBL eligibility. In one case, the utility provides flexibility depending on
the lighting technology: ―we use 16‘ and above, if we‘re really looking for HBL. But it could be
below that if the alternative is an HID source‖. Another cited an eternal factor: ―Our cut-off is
where the contractors start charging a different price for their bigger ladder‖. A third handled the
height differences with a two-tiered structure: ―We have a two-tiered structure, to make sure
people aren‘t overpowering the lower ceiling heights‖. These points support the observation
that the definition of HBL is used as a starting point by the programs but then allowed to flex as
possible to accommodate different customer conditions.
F.1.3 HBL Customers Targeted
Four of the five programs target different customer groups for HBL promotion: two specify
industrial customers, one targets municipal customers, and the fourth targets C&I customers.
The fifth program targets not customer categories but building types. Account executives are
assigned strategic accounts by industry (e.g., hotels, biotech, health care, etc.,) and will seek
out buildings that might be HBL candidates within their assigned accounts. The building
categories mentioned by all PAs include: industrial buildings/manufacturing areas; warehouses;
schools/ gyms; loading docks; auto dealerships; service garages.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-3
F.1.4 HBL Technologies Covered
All five program respondents described a wide assortment of technologies eligible for support in
HBL applications. Two of the respondents referred specifically to the technologies listed on the
MassSave website, e.g.: ―Whatever is on the MassSave site – any kind (of technology).
Anything that meets the customers‘ needs‖. The three other PAs listed the eligible technologies
to include: high-efficiency fluorescents (T-8, T-5, T-5HO or high ballast factor); electronic
ballasted pulse-start metal halides, both fixtures and kits; LEDs. One PA pointed out that the
program will also consider HBL on a custom basis, leaving open the possibility that customers
could propose alternate technology and/or lighting design than available through the program‘s
prescriptive process.
F.1.5 Customer assistance offered
respondent # #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Incentives to promote N N Y N N TA: identifying opportunities N N Y N N TA: specs/ purchasing N N Y Y Y TA: installation design N N Y N N Advertising/marketing asst ? N N N N Vendor education Y -- N N Y Training for archs/ designers Y N N N N PO7: vary by technology? N N N Y DA
Financial incentives
All five PAs offer financial incentives, under the statewide MassSave program. Two of the five
specifically acknowledged the common incentive levels under MassSave, e.g.: ―Yes- we all do
this the same under MassSave‖. One of the programs, however, highlighted the fact that
programs may offer different paths to those incentives, through for example a) prescriptive
rebates; b) custom incentives; c) direct install programs; d) different offers for public sector
projects (municipal, federal and/or state projects).
Technical assistance in identifying opportunities
Four of the five utility programs help customers identify places to use high-efficiency commercial
lighting. Two will do informal ‗walk-through‘ type audits to assist customers in spotting
opportunities; one provides engineering assistance to spot those opportunities, and a fourth
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-4
reimburses between 50-100% of costs for an external customer-secured audit, costs depending
on the customer size. The program replying that they do not formally provide this service still
offers informal assistance to customers, through their account managers who will visit customer
premises and offer suggestions.
Technical assistance in specifying and purchasing
Three of the five programs do not offer customers technical assistance in specifying and/or
purchasing HBL; one said specifically ―We avoid this‖. Another added that there is little call for
this assistance in HBL ―…because the support for HBL is available in the market. We will
advise on a project but rarely get involved in developing lighting specifications. We refer the
customer to the lighting supplier and manufacturers‖. One program does provide this
assistance, and the fifth program offers a limited amount of help developing specifications. The
PAs will review the specifications of the choices customers have made, during their review of
the rebate application/ incentive calculation. They may also refer customers to product sources,
specifically lighting suppliers and manufacturers, but take care to do so in a ‗vendor-neutral‘
manner.
Technical assistance in installation design
None of the five utility programs offer any technical assistance in HBL lighting installation
design. The PAs are unanimous that they do not have this expertise and therefore any such
work would create a program liability that they do not wish to carry. Specific comments: ―We
don‘t do this, we don‘t want the responsibility‖ or ―No, we‘re not wiling to do this, it‘s not
appropriate, we‘re not trained (to do it).‖ As with equipment specification, the PAs would refer
requests for this type of assistance to others: ―Design help we‘d refer elsewhere. We‘ll do the
design review when it‘s (the design) is completed‖. Again, the PAs comment that there is little
call for design assistance for retrofit HBL
Customer education materials
Three of the programs have customer education offerings of various forms, yet clarified that
these were available primarily via their websites. One program reported general customer
education materials but none specifically for HBL. The fifth PA spoke about their customer
education through informal outreach but didn‘t address whether they have specific customer
education materials on HBL.
Facility manager training
Three programs support the facility manager training conducted through the Building Operator
Certification (BOC) program, for example ―this is done through the BOC, we support that. We‘d
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-5
pay for our customers to attend‖. Another does both BOC and their own training: ―we‘re
developing a class for school building operators…‖. A fourth PA provides its own training to
customers through an array of training sessions for the design community. The fifth PA did not
describe any facility manager training offered or supported.
Variations by technology
Incentives under the MassSave program vary by the level of savings achieved, which can vary
by technology selected. For example, replacement of 400 watt metal halide lamps being
replaced y T-5s could save enough to reach the higher tier of incentives. Otherwise, two
programs responded that access to their program services appears to vary not by technology
but by program, namely new construction versus retrofit. The retrofit program offers incentives
on a prescriptive basis, while the new construction program may require a design review to
ensure that the planned lighting exceeds the performance baseline.
Four of the five program representatives said that they do not currently offer any incentives to
distributors or contractors. Three program staff mentioned that a buy-down incentive or ‗spiff‘
has been piloted in the past and may be expanded in the future. One PA noted that its unlikely
that any spiff will be offered for HBLs or T-8s. The fifth PA pointed out that the current rebate
can go to either the customer or the contractor, however another PA contradicted that, saying
that current rebates go to the customers, who have the option of assigning it to the contractor.
Technical assistance in identifying opportunities
Only one of the five programs offers this assistance to distributors and/or contractors. The
others may do so on an informal, occasional basis: ‖Some vendors …might call me in, if they
don‘t have a lot of experience with lighting but do have a great relationship with their
customers‖. Another reported that they‘ll offer this support in the form of presentations to the
distributors on their programs: ―We try to hit every major distributor at least once a year…they
already have the capability to make the right decisions now. There is no formal technical
assistance except trying to establish these relationships and then in keeping people up to date
on our programs.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-6
Technical assistance in specifying and purchasing and/or installation design
Only one PA reported offering this, again on a limited case-by-case basis. The others said that,
while they generally have the capability to do so, they refrain. They mentioned the need to
protect vendor neutrality, and/or their practice of referring distributors to other sources like CEE.
Technical assistance in installation design
These responses were very similar to those offered for customer-oriented installation design
services. Only one PA replied that they offer this service. Others said that, in the instance of
most general HBL installation design, they rely on the manufacturers for this assistance as
these applications are pretty well understood. One said that they reserve this help for new
construction of schools and other instances where the lighting complexity is likely to be greater.
Advertising/marketing assistance
None of the programs currently offer any marketing or advertising support to vendors; one
mentioned that this might have been done in the past but is not now, except possibly in the form
of general public service advertising ―to encourage customers and contractors to consider
energy efficiency‖. One PA was very supportive of offering co-op ad opportunities to vendors,
has done so successfully in other programs, and is advocating for the MassSave program to
consider this option going forward. Another PA mentioned that doing so was under statewide
discussion but not resolved. A third PA mentioned again the concern about vendor-neutrality:
‖I‘ll …tell the customers that the incentive accompanies the actions, not the vendors‖.
Vendor education materials
Two of the five PAs offer some form of vendor education, two do not and the fifth did not
describe their vendor education efforts. Those with more formal vendor education programs
include vendor breakfasts, open houses, periodic meetings, technical training sessions, on both
general topics (albeit less on HBL) and on specific promotions. Two others described the need
to educate vendors on the program applications specifically: ―People are scared to death of our
forms…rated wattage drives people crazy…and people are really resistant in wading through
this list (of rated wattage)…contractors, over time, get familiar with it..it helps the contractor
when I make it easier for them and they know they have an ally here..‖
Training for designers, specifiers, installers
One program had conducted ―program introduction lunches‘ at the architectural firms, to
familiarize them with the program, but haven‘t done this with contractors or on HBL.‖ Another
points out that they have considerable project-by-project contact with this group.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-7
Variances by technology
As with the forms of assistance offered to customers, access to these services is not tied to
technology type but possibly to application. Three of the five PAs make no distinction now; a
fourth used the example of HBL in a warehouse, where controls might be suggested in addition
to the HBL. Looking ahead, one PA noted that LEDs are coming fast and may challenge the
MA program to make a distinction among technologies in the future: ―EPA has developed what
might become an EnergyStar LED product, and we MA PAs say, if it (a product) meets these
criteria, we‘ll provide an incentive, otherwise we won‘t… This is a difference by technology type,
and how we handle it. LEDs need a lot more hand-holding administratively‖.
F.1.7 Program Logic
Preamble: These questions were not understood by most respondents. It required significant
rephrasing and interviewer explanation to convey the intent and secure any response. One
respondent opted out entirely, answering no questions in this section. Three others answered
one or two questions, gradually getting more uncertain and confused despite explanation, then
opted out. Only one respondent, who participates on the PA program design committee, gave
answers that reflected an understanding of the questions. Changing the sequence of PL1 and
PL2 helped somewhat, however the overall impression is that a) only those PAs who participate
on the MA program development committee have any awareness of a program logic
diagram/mapping; b) that logic applies to the overall MA lighting program, not specifically to
HBL; and c) that most responses in this section reflect not familiarity with the program logic but
the respondents‘ views of what that logic should be. Bottom line: data in this section is very
questionable and should be viewed as more hypothetical than reflective of fact.
Long-term changes
Respondents had serious difficulty with this question, even with as much explanation as
possible without influencing answers. One respondent summed up their confusion well:
―reliability, efficacy.. these are the things we‘re striving for. But there‘s not a formal logic model,
these objectives are just inherent in the plan to access the savings‖. Of the four PAs
responding to this question:
Three said that long-term changes in distributor promotional practices are among the
program‘s long-term intentions, however one was not aware of any specific goals to that
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-8
effect. Two described actions taken by the program. One didn‘t think this was a program
goal.
Three said that changes in contractor behavior was an important goal to have, yet two
were not aware whether it was a goal of the program or not.
Two said that changes in customer awareness of efficient lighting products was
important. One said this was occurring through the program‘s energy education efforts.
Two said that customer understanding of product benefits was a program goal; one said
that this was particularly important for HBL. Two others either didn‘t know or didn‘t
answer.
Long-term changes in customer purchasing practices was identified as an objective by
one respondent. It was misunderstood by another to mean elimination of the rebates.
Two others didn‘t answer or weren‘t aware: ―I don‘t know, same as the awareness point
– if it‘s a goal, it‘s not known‘.
Logic Model
None of the respondents were aware of a logic model for the HBL program. One mentioned a
‗sales logic model‘ for the marketing of lighting more generally.
Customer influencers
Since they had no familiarity with any program logic model, respondents could not answer
questions about the model. In their own views, four of the five said that installation contractors
have the greatest influence over customer product selection. One PA said that distributors have
the greatest influence in the retrofit program, architects in the new construction program
followed by contractors.
Motivation of influencers
Respondents say that contractors are motivated primarily by the ability to make the sale.
Greater paybacks, enhanced by the rebates, is a core selling feature that enables the contractor
to close the sale. Lower O+M, lighting quality are other features that may be added in ―…but it‘s
uncommon. Mostly the salesman is talking rebates and payback‖. Two respondents noted that
life-cycle costing is not used ―…lifecycle costing is very rarely considered or seen at all‖.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-9
F.1.8 Barriers to HBL Promotion
Table x identifies barriers that PAs said inhibit the promotion of high-efficiency HBL by the
different groups that influence customer behavior the most. In their replies, the PAs
distinguished between the motivations and barriers facing the different groups.
respondent # #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Cost Y y Lack of familiarity
Y
Perceptions of product risk/durability
Y
Poor level/ quality of light
Installation challenges
Other Y
No Barriers Y
The three PAs that consider contractors the primary customer influence described several
factors that motivate or inhibit contractors. One PA reported that contractors already have no
inhibitions about promoting energy efficient HBL. A second said that contractors are motivated
in inverse relationship to the payback of the projects under consideration – longer paybacks
increase inhibition; shorter paybacks increase their motivation. Any fears about HBL
technologies, their performance, durability or lighting quality, are no longer concerns for
fluorescents, but may arise again with LEDs. The third PA identified two barriers: ―1) a lack of
customer relationships. They may recognize an opportunity and not be able to pursue it,
because they can‘t reach the customer. Or, 2) a lack of credibility, which is something we can
assist‖.
One PA identified architects as most influential in the new construction market. This respondent
identified two barriers – cost and technology. This respondent, unlike those characterizing
contractors, considers architects to be less familiar with energy efficient HBL options, therefore
less likely to have confidence in their performance or durability, and potentially more open to the
program‘s influence: ―by the PAs giving incentives for installation, any such concerns are
obviated – because the programs are well established, which speaks well for the technologies‖.
The fifth PA identified knowledge of the customer as an important barrier preventing the
promotion of energy efficient products by manufacturers: ―First, they may think the customer
doesn‘t care about energy, just concerned about least-cost for light. … And second, they can‘t
sell so well to people who don‘t see energy as a major operational cost‖.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-10
All five PAs consider it to be the role of the program to address these and other barriers to
action. They list several ways the program addresses these barriers, by:
Providing an ―independent assessment of opportunities the vendor may have identified‖;
Providing ―vendor-neutral support for customer choices‖;
Building ―a base of experience in these technologies through case studies‖;
―Reaching out to various markets‖, showing the opportunities for action;
Offering specific ―additional incentives‖ as warranted.
F.1.9 Marketing, Awareness and Sales Trends
The PAs voice different opinions over whether customer awareness has changed in the last two
years. Three PAs say that it has. Two disagree, saying that the increased awareness actually
occurred in the last five years and has changed little in the last two years: ―No, not in past two
years-- over five years, yes‖.
The same split shows again with regard to customer understanding. All respondents agree that
customer understanding is high. They differ on whether that change has occurred in the last
two years or over the last five years. ―Again, yes, but it was 5-6 years ago, not so much in the
last two years. Now, people generally understand the benefits of the HID- better lighting quality,
no maintenance problems, etc.‖
The PAs consider the program successful at addressing barriers to action by these important
influencers, even while they acknowledge that more could be done. ―I‘d like to say it‘s because
we‘re doing a great job—still, we do find that customers still need to be educated. We never run
out of projects to change to HBL, and now everyone upstream knows how to sell it‖.
Most of the PAs agree that vendor effort in HBL remains strong. Four of the five describe
vendor effort in positive terms:
―They are trying, subject to the economy‘s limitations‖;
―Among ESCos, that level of effort has never stopped‖;
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-11
―They are trying to promote everything, as the economy has motivated them to look
aggressively..‖
―… contractors are becoming more aggressive‖.
Only one PA was on the fence about the level of effort vendors have been expending, both
recently and over time: ―I don‘t see that much of a change in the contractors‘ effort…. Haven‘t
observed a change, but it could be happening..‖
Three PAs report that HBL sales have increased; two others are not sure: ―We can‘t really tell.
The longer list of eligible products suggests that yes, they have increased…. The Direct install
contractor can cite more projects from the last few years, so we‘re guessing that yes, demand
has increased.‖
F.1.10 Sources of information
The five PAs report that they cite numerous sources for information on HBL options and
applications. While the questions specifically inquire about sources insider versus outside
Massachusetts, the PAs‘ answers did not generally make this distinction:
Two PAs listed the manufacturers as a consult manufacturers‘ websites, even as they
characterized these as ―inside‖ MA;
Two PAs consult the national Design Lights Consortium.
Two PAs mentioned E-Source. One listed Jim Rogers, an E-Source facilities engineer
as a source of specific information.
Interactions with the PAs‘ counterparts at the other MA PAs were listed twice. These
contacts occur both directly, staff-to staff, and via the programs‘ committees.
Manufacturers workshops, for example training conducted by Philips, Sylvania and GE
for utility personnel;
Utility/ Employer-sponsored educational programs, e.g., on daylighting. Other informal
interaction with utility colleagues, for ―peer to peer‖ sharing.
US DOE – for EnergyStar and Lighting Updates. Jim Broaderick‘s Friday newsletter
from DOE was singled out by one PA as particularly helpful.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-12
Other sources, each mentioned once:
o The Lighting Resource Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;
o Seattle Lighting Center
o Free magazine ―Building Maintenance Quarterly‖.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 F-13
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-1
G. Appendix G: Survey Instruments
Surveys
This section presents each of the primary research instruments used in this study in the
following order:
A.1 End User Survey
A.2 Contractor Survey
A.3 Program Staff Interview Guide
A.4 Manufacturer Interview Guide
A.5 Distributor Interview Guide
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-2
A.1 END USER SURVEY
The End User survey is structured in the following sections:
Screening. Information used to identify the appropriate population and respondent.
Firmographics and end-user characteristics. General firmographic and interview
screening questions.
Saturation of high bay lighting. Current inventory of high bay lighting by type.
Purchase and installation of high bay lighting. Recent purchase activity of high
bay lighting, scope of project, decision makers, drivers and awareness of lighting choices.
Utility program recognition, participation, influence. Awareness of and
participation in programs.
Energy efficiency practices and policies. Market actor promotion of energy
efficient design.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-3
HBL MARKET EFFECTS STUDY: END USER FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
JANUARY 7, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Hello. This is _____________ calling on behalf of the Massachusetts electric and gas utilities‘ Energy Efficiency Program Administrators. We are conducting research on the commercial/industrial lighting market in Massachusetts. In particular we are focusing on the commercial and industrial end-users of high bay lighting. I want to assure you this is not a sales call and that the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. This survey should only take about 15 minutes of your time.
May I please speak to the person at your facility who is most familiar with lighting systems, including recent installations? [ENTER NAME OF CONTACT:] _________________________________
[IF CONTACT IS NOT AVAILABLE, ASCERTAIN BEST TIME TO CALL.]
[REPEAT INTRO AS NEEDED, CONTINUE OR ARRANGE FOR CALLBACK] [IF NEEDED]
For further questions about this survey, you can contact Andrew Wood at National Grid. His phone number is (781) 907-2234. Please make sure that you reference the High Bay Lighting Study.
SCREENING
SC1 First, our records show that your business is located at <ADDRESS> in <CITY>. Is this correct?
EP6 What sources of information does your organization use to learn about the performance and application
of lighting technologies? [PROMPT IF NEEDED. ACCEPT MULTIPLES.]
[IF MORE THAN ONE TYPE NAMED, ASK EP7. ELSE SKIP TO END.]
EP7 Which of these sources do you find most useful?
[CHECK ONE ONLY.]
EP6 EP7
1 Manufacturer‘s literature
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-25
2 Manufacturer representative
3 Distributor
4 Installation contractor
5 Colleagues in your own industry
6 Your industry trade or professional organization
7 Trade or industry publications
8 Friends
9 Other (Specify)
98 [Don‘t Know]
99 [Refused]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-26
A.2 CONTRACTOR SURVEY
The contractor survey is structured in the following sections:
Screening and firmographics. Information used to identify the appropriate
population and respondent. General firmographic and interview screening questions.
Lighting equipment installations. Percent of projects installed high-bay lighting by
lighting type, extent to which recommend energy-efficient high bay lighting, reasons for recommending, degree customers follow recommendations, impact of ceiling height on recommendations, customer awareness of energy efficiency options.
Lighting controls. Degree to which lighting controls are specified and motivations
for and against specification.
Codes. Influence of codes on energy efficient lighting and controls.
Chains and franchises. Impact of chains and franchise policies on lighting
specifications;
Fluorescent lamps – Reasons for and not for installing energy efficient fluorescent
high bay lighting. Expected changes in market share.
Pulse start metal halides – Reasons for and not for installing energy efficient pulse
start metal halide lighting. Expected changes in market share.
Program participation – Influence of program on lighting specifications and
recommendations.
Marketing support – Types of marketing support received.
General market trends – Overall trends in high bay lighting.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-27
HBL MARKET EFFECTS STUDY: LIGHTING CONTRACTOR FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
JANUARY 4, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Hello. This is _____________ from [NAME OF RESEARCH FIRM] calling on behalf of the
Massachusetts electric and gas utilities‘ Energy Efficiency Program Administrators.
We are conducting research on the commercial/industrial lighting market in Massachusetts. In
particular we are focusing on the installation of high bay lighting by contractors. For the
purposes of this interview we define high bay applications as installations for commercial and
industrial customers with ceiling heights of about 15 feet or more. I want to assure you this is not
a sales call and that the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. This survey
should only take about 15 minutes of your time.
May I please speak to someone at your company who is familiar with your sales and installation
of commercial lighting products?
[ENTER NAME OF CONTACT:] _________________________________
[IF CONTACT IS NOT AVAILABLE, ASCERTAIN BEST TIME TO CALL.]
[REPEAT INTRO AS NEEDED, CONTINUE OR ARRANGE FOR CALLBACK]
[IF NEEDED]
For further questions about this survey, you can contact Andrew Wood at National Grid. His
phone number is (781) 907-2234. Please make sure that you reference the High Bay Lighting
The guide is structured in the following sections:
Personnel roles and responsibilities. Current energy efficiency programs
undertaken and interviewees‘ role on those programs.
General Program Objectives and Operations. Identification of target markets and
review of incentives and assistance provided to customers and market participants.
Program Logic. Program goals, program logic, influence of different market
participants on lighting choices, incentives offered to different market participants, motivations and barriers to purchasing energy-efficient high bay lighting, effectiveness of program/evidence of market effects.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-56
HBL MARKET EFFECTS STUDY: PA PROGRAM MANAGERS AND ANALYSTS FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
DECEMBER 2, 2010
OBTAIN AND REVIEW PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS, PROGRAM PLANS, PROGRAM LOGIC
MODELS, AND APPLICATION MATERIALS PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW. ANSWER AS
MANY OF THE QUESTIONS BELOW USING THOSE MATERIALS. ONLY REVIEW THOSE
QUESTIONS WITH THE RESPONDENT IF THE DOCUMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE CLEAR
ANSWERS.
PERSONNEL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
PR1 Which energy efficiency programs are you working on?
PR2 What are your responsibilities regarding those Programs? What role do you play, if any, in:
a. Planning, designing, managing, and administering the Program;
b. Marketing the Program to customers;
c. Marketing the Program to distributors and installation contractors;
d. Managing distributor and installation contractor participation in the Program;
e. Administering the delivery of financial incentives to customers;
f. Administering the delivery of technical services to customers; and
g. Other aspects of the Program?
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-57
GENERAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND OPERATIONS
Next we are going to ask you a series of questions on <YOUR UTILITY‘s> program activities
with regards to the High Bay Lighting.
PO1 For the purposes of this interview we define high bay applications as installations in
commercial and industrial spaces with ceiling heights of about 15 feet or more. Is this consistent with your definition? If no, please explain.
PO2 What specific groups of customers does the program target?
a. Do the targeted groups include [commercial facilities with high bay lighting such as] schools, warehouses, garages and utility buildings. [PROBE]
b. Do the targeted groups include industrial facilities with high bay production, storage, and loading areas? [PROBE]
[ONLY ASK QUESTIONS PO3 – PO7 IF NOT CLEARLY ANSWERED IN THE PROGRAM
MATERIALS]
PO3 What types of high bay lighting technologies does the program support?
PO4 What kinds of incentives or assistance does the program provide to customers? [PROBE]
a. Financial incentives/rebates for purchase/installation of qualifying equipment
b. Technical assistance in identifying energy-saving opportunities
c. Technical assistance in specifying and purchasing energy efficient equipment
d. Technical assistance in design of installations
e. Customer education materials
f. Training oriented to facility managers or purchasers
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-58
PO5 Again, considering incentives or assistance that the program provides to customers, are there any differences (from what we just discussed) with regard to the type of efficient high bay lighting? [PROBE]
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-59
PO6 What kinds of incentives or assistance does the program provide to distributors and contractors? [PROBE]
a. Financial incentives for promotion or sale of qualifying equipment
b. Technical assistance in identifying energy-saving opportunities
c. Technical assistance in specifying and purchasing energy efficient equipment
d. Technical assistance in design of installations
e. Advertising or merchandising support
f. Vendor education materials
g. Training oriented to designers, specifiers, installers?
PO7 Again, considering incentives or assistance that the program provides to distributors and contractors, are there any differences (from what we just discussed) with regard to the type of efficient high bay lighting? [PROBE]
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-60
PROGRAM LOGIC
PL1 Do the goals of the program include the stimulation of long-term changes for high bay lighting in…
a. The way distributors promote and sell energy-efficient lighting products?
b. The way that contractors promote, design, and install energy-efficient lighting products?
c. Customers‘ awareness of efficient lighting products?
d. Customers‘ understanding of the energy savings and other benefits associated with efficient lighting products?
e. Customers‘ lighting equipment purchasing practices in the absence of financial incentives?
PL2 Has a formal logic model for the promotion of high bay lighting been developed for this
program?
[IF YES: REQUEST A COPY AND ASK PL2a; IF NO SKIP TO ITEM PL3]
PL2a Which market participants does the program logic model identify as important in terms of
influencing the selection of energy efficient high bay lighting equipment for retrofit, replacement, or new installations? [PROBE]
a. Customers
b. Manufacturers
c. Distributors
d. Installation Contractors
e. Lighting Designers
f. Architects
PL3 Based on your experience with the program and in the lighting market, which groups of market actors participants exercise the greatest influence on high bay lighting equipment selection? [PROBE]
a. Customers
b. Manufacturers
c. Distributors
d. Installation Contractors
e. Lighting Designers
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-61
f. Architects
[FOR EACH INFLUENTIAL GROUP NAMED in PL3 ASK PL4 and PL5]
PL4 What are the main motivations for this group to purchase/promote energy-efficient high bay lighting? [PROBE]
a. Energy cost savings
b. Lower lifecycle costs
c. Lower maintenance costs
d. Reduced lumen degradation
e. Narrowing the range of equipment being sold
f. Phase-out of older established technologies
g. Best product or best lighting level/quality
h. Manufacturers or distributors are promoting these products to the other market participants
e. Other (Specify)______________________________
PL5 What circumstances or conditions inhibit this group from purchasing/promoting energy-efficient high bay lighting? [PROBE]
a. Cost
b. Lack of familiarity with the technology
c. Perceptions of performance risk/durability
d. Not satisfied with level/quality of light delivered
e. Physical challenges to installation in existing buildings
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-62
f. Other
PL6 How well do you think the program is doing at addressing customer motivations and inhibitions for purchasing efficient fluorescent high bay lighting?
[PROBE] Why do you say that?
PL7 Have you noticed any changes in customers‘ level of awareness of efficient fluorescent high bay lighting over the past two years?
[PROBE] What kinds of changes have you noticed?
PL8 Have you noticed any changes in customers‘ level of understanding of the benefits of
efficient fluorescent high bay lighting over the past two years?
[PROBE] What kinds of changes have you noticed?
PL9 To your knowledge, has customer demand for efficient fluorescent high bay lighting increased over the past two years?
PL10 How well do you think the program is doing at addressing distributor and contractor motivations and inhibitions for promoting efficient fluorescent high bay lighting?
[PROBE] Why do you say that?
PL11 Over the past two years, have you noticed any changes in distributor or contractor level
of effort in promoting efficient fluorescent high bay lighting?
[PROBE] What kinds of changes have you noticed?
PL12 To your knowledge, have sales of efficient fluorescent high bay lighting increased, decreased or stayed about the same over the past two years?
PL13 What sources of information do you use to learn about high bay lighting technologies?
a. From within Massachusetts?
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-63
b. What about sources outside of Massachusetts?
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-64
A.4 Manufacturer Interview Guide
The guide is structured in the following sections:
Screening and Firmographics. General firmographic and interview screening
questions.
Lighting Technologies. Fixture types manufactured for high bay applications.
Types of fixtures considered to be energy efficient. Percent of sales by channel. Percent of sales by technology.
High bay Lighting Penetration Data. Regional differences in energy-efficient high
bay lighting sales and reasons.
Manufacturer Promotion, Barriers, and Motivation. Impact of promotion of energy
efficient technologies on competitive strategy.
Fluorescent lamps/Pulse start metal halides/LED. Sales trends and reasons.
Energy Efficiency Promotion to Distributors. Promotion of energy efficient high
bay lighting, reasons for and feedback on promotion of energy-efficient high bay lighting to distributors.
Energy Efficiency Promotion to Customers. Promotion of energy efficient high
bay lighting, reasons for and feedback on promotion of energy-efficient high bay lighting to customers.
Efficiency Programs. Awareness and importance of programs on lighting sales.
Regional comparison of energy efficiency programs.
Technical and Regulatory Trends. Awareness and importance of programs on
lighting sales. Regional comparison of energy efficiency programs.
Is there anyone else at your company or another manufacturer selling products in
Massachusetts that you would recommend we speak with? Would we want a second interview
at the same company?
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-92
A.5. Distributor Interview Guide
The guide is structured in the following sections:
Screening and firmographics. Information used to identify the appropriate
population and respondent. General firmographic and interview screening questions.
Lighting equipment sales. Percent of sales by fixture type overall and in high bay
applications. Types of fixtures considered to be energy efficient.
Contractor related questions. Degree to which distributors recommend energy
efficient high bay lighting to contractors. Awareness and acceptance of energy efficient high bay lighting by contractors.
Fluorescent lamps. Sales trends, reasons, and contractor feedback regarding
fluorescent high-bay lighting.
Pulse start metal halides. Sales trends, reasons, and contractor feedback
regarding pulse start metal halide high bay lighting.
High pressure sodium. Sales trends, reasons, and contractor feedback regarding
high pressure sodium high bay lighting.
General market trends – Overall trends in high bay lighting.
Marketing support – Types of marketing support received, sources of support,
impact of support on sales, internal marketing practices.
Program participation – Awareness and importance of programs on lighting sales.
Appendices
LCIEC – Project 1A June 7, 2011 G-93
HBL MARKET EFFECTS STUDY: LIGHTING DISTRIBUTOR FINAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
DECEMBER 2, 2010
1.1 INTRO
Hello. This is _____________ from KEMA, an energy consulting company, calling on behalf of
the Massachusetts electric and gas utilities‘ Energy Efficiency Program Administrators.
We are conducting research on the commercial/industrial lighting market in Massachusetts. In
particular we are focusing on the installation of high bay lighting by distributors. For the
purposes of this interview we define high bay applications as installations for commercial and
industrial end users with ceiling heights of about 15 feet or more. I want to assure you this is not
a sales call and that the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. This survey
should only take about 15 minutes of your time.
May I please speak to the manager or person at your firm most familiar with your sales and installation of commercial lighting products? [ENTER NAME OF CONTACT]: _________________________________
[IF CONTACT IS NOT AVAILABLE, ASCERTAIN BEST TIME TO CALL]
[IF NEEDED]
For further questions about this survey, you can contact Andrew Wood at National Grid. His
phone number is (781) 907-2234. Please make sure that you reference the High Bay Lighting
PP3 Who was the program‘s sponsor (i.e. the utility)? If you don‘t know specifically, please
describe the program, and what incentives were provided, who received the incentive,
and why?
PP4 On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is very important, how
important are the utility programs in Massachusetts in your firm‘s decision to promote energy-efficient high-bay lighting equipment?
[ENTER 1 – 10, 98 FOR DK, 99 FOR REFUSED] ........................... _____
PP5 Finally, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is no influence and 10 is a great deal of influence, how much influence do you think utility programs in Massachusetts have on the market share of energy-efficient high-bay lighting technologies in your market area?
[ENTER 1 – 10, 98 FOR DK, 99 FOR REFUSED] ........................... _____
PP6 Have you participated in other programs that promote energy efficient technologies for
businesses?
Yes ........................................................................................................ 1 No .......................................................................................................... 2