lighting market assessment consumer survey and on-site saturation study

RLPNC 16-7: 2016-17 Lighting Market Assessment Consumer Survey and On-site Saturation Study FINAL

April 7, 2017

SUBMITTED TO:

The Electric and Gas Program Administrators of Massachusetts

SUBMITTED BY: NMR Group, Inc.

D.P.U. 17-100 2016 Plan-Year Report Appendix 4D, Study 16-10 of 169

EXECUTIV

OVERA

LED

CFL

KEY FI

Sock

Pen

Pan

Pan

Stor

EISA

RECOM

Rec

Con

Guid

SECTION

1.1 1.2

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.3 1.3.1

SECTION

2.1 2.2

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.2.3

2.3 2.4

SECTION

3.1

VE SUMMARY

ALL ASSESSM

Ds .............

Ls .............

NDINGS .......

ket Saturatio

etration ......

el Visits – C

el Trends by

rage Behavio

A Coverage,

MMENDATION

ommendatio

siderations .

dance for Fu

1 INTRO

STUDY OBJE

METHODOLO

1 Telephon

2 On-site L

COMPARISO

1 Effect of

2 CHAN

SATURATION

COMPARISO

1 ENERGY

2 Linear Fl

3 Saturatio

SATURATION

ROOM-BY-R

3 PENE

BULB PENET

Y .................

MENT ............

...................

...................

...................

on Trends ...

...................

hanges in B

y Key Demo

or ................

, Exemptions

S, CONSIDER

ons ..............

...................

uture Study P

ODUCTION ...

ECTIVES .......

OGY .............

ne Surveys .

Lighting Inve

ON OF PANEL

Direct-Insta

NGES IN SOC

N BY HOUSEH

ON AREA .......

Y STAR® LE

luorescent S

on by Demog

N OF SPECIAL

ROOM SATURA

ETRATION ....

TRATION ......

Table of...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

Bulb Types o

graphics .....

...................

s, and Exclu

RATIONS, AND

...................

...................

Planning ......

...................

...................

...................

...................

entories .......

VISITS TO NE

all Participan

CKET SATURA

HOLD ............

...................

ED Saturatio

Saturation ....

graphics ......

LTY SOCKETS

ATION ANALY

...................

...................

f Content...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

over Time ....

...................

...................

usions .........

D GUIDANCE

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

EW VISITS ...

nts on Satura

ATION OVER

...................

...................

on ...............

...................

...................

S .................

YSIS ............

...................

...................

ts ...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

ation Estima

TIME ...........

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

....................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

....................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

ates ..............

....................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

....................

...................

...................

.................. I

.................. I

.................. I

.................. I

.................. I

................. V

................ V

............... VI

................ IX

................. X

................ X

................ X

............... XI

............... XI

.................. 1

.................. 1

.................. 1

.................. 2

.................. 2

.................. 5

.................. 9

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

................ 11

................ 17

................ 18

................ 19

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

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

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

................ 27

................ 28

I I I I I I

V VI

I X X

XI XI

I I 1 1 1 2 2 5 9 0 1 7 8 9 0 1 2 7 8


3.1.1

3.1.2

SECTION

4.1 4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3

4.1.4

4.1.5

4.2 SECTION

BULB F

5.1 5.2

SECTION

6.1 6.1.1

6.2 6.3 6.4

6.4.1

6.4.2

6.4.3

SECTION

7.1 SECTION

8.1 A.1.

A.1.2

8.1.1

8.2 8.3 8.4

1 Room-by

2 Rooms W

4 PANE

BULB CHANG

1 Newly In

2 Bulb Rep

3 Bulb Rep

4 Newly In

5 Delta Wa

TRACKING C

5 FAMI

FAMILIARITY .

FAMILIARITY

BULB PREFE

6 RECE

SOURCES O

1 Sources

PURCHASES

CONSUMERS

INFORMING C

1 Presence

2 Informati

3 Informati

7 STOR

STORED BU

8 EISA

EISA OVERV

1 EISA Ph

2 EISA Ph

1 Enforcem

EISA AWAR

PHASE I EIS

EISA PHASE

y-Room Ana

Without Ener

EL VISITS – C

GES 2016-20

nstalled Bulb

placement B

placement B

nstalled Repl

atts .............

CFLS OVER T

LIARITY AND

...................

Y AND SATISF

ERENCES (CO

ENT PURCHA

F NEWLY AC

of Bulbs by

S BY ENERG

S’ PURCHASI

CONSUMER B

e of Marketi

ion Sought W

ion Driving B

RAGE BEHAV

LB STATUS ..

A COVERAGE

VIEW ...........

ase I ...........

ase II ..........

ment and Se

RENESS ........

SA COVERAG

E I COVERAG

alysis ...........

rgy-Efficient

CHANGES IN B

017 ..............

bs .................

Behavior ......

Behavior by D

lacement Bu

...................

TIME .............

SATISFACTI

...................

FACTION WITH

ONSUMER SU

ASES .............

QUIRED BULB

Income and

Y STAR STA

NG BEHAVIO

BULB PURCH

ng Materials

When Shopp

Bulb Type P

VIOR .............

...................

E, EXEMPTION

...................

...................

...................

ell Through P

...................

GE ................

GE – REPLACE

...................

t Bulbs ........

BULB TYPES

...................

...................

...................

Demographi

ulbs by Dem

...................

...................

ON ..............

...................

H BULB TYPE

URVEY) ........

...................

BS ..............

d Home Type

ATUS ...........

R ................

HASES ..........

s .................

ping for Bulb

urchasing D

...................

...................

NS AND EXCL

...................

...................

...................

Period .........

...................

...................

EMENT BULB

...................

...................

S OVER TIME

...................

...................

...................

ic Variables

ographics ...

...................

...................

...................

...................

ES ................

...................

...................

...................

e .................

...................

...................

...................

...................

bs ................

Decisions .....

...................

...................

LUSIONS ......

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

S ................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

....................

...................

...................

...................

....................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

....................

...................

....................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

................ 29

................ 34

................ 37

................ 38

................ 40

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

................ 53

................ 60

................ 62

................ 62

................ 65

................ 65

................ 70

................ 74

................ 78

................ 78

................ 80

................ 83

................ 84

................ 87

................ 87

................ 88

................ 89

................ 93

................ 96

................ 98

................ 99

................ 99

.............. 100

.............. 101

.............. 102

.............. 103

.............. 107

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


8.5 SECTION

APPENDIX

A.1 A.1.

A.1.2

A.2 APPENDIX

APPENDIX

C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

E.1 E.2

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

G.1 G.2 G.3 G.4

FIGURE 1FIGURE 2FIGURE 3

IN

FIGURE 4FIGURE 5FIGURE 6FIGURE 7FIGURE 8FIGURE 9FIGURE 1

EISA PHASE

9 DEMO

X A METH

CONSUMER

1 Weightin

2 Survey S

WEIGHTING

X B SATU

X C CONS

KEY DEMOG

MASSACHUS

MASSACHUS

MASSACHUS

EXAMINING T

X D DETA

X E COM

SATURATION

PENETRATIO

X F ADDI

X G PANE

PANEL RESP

PANEL DEMO

PANEL SATU

NY PANEL N

: SATURATIO

2: MA & NY S3: MA & NY LN 2016 & 2014: MA LED P5: REPLACEM

6: 2016-17 R7: LED SATU

8: BULBS BY

9: ON-SITE VI

0: TIMING OF

E I COVERAG

OGRAPHICS .

HODOLOGY ..

SURVEY ......

ng Scheme ..

Sample Erro

SCHEME .....

URATION BY D

SUMER SURV

GRAPHIC DIFF

SETTS CONSU

SETTS CONSU

SETTS CONSU

THE EFFECT

AILED CONSU

PARISON OF

N COMPARISO

ON COMPARIS

ITIONAL ANA

EL NON-RES

PONSE RATE

OGRAPHIC A

URATION COM

NON-RESPON

ON OVER TIM

SATURATION

LED BULB S17 ...............

PENETRATION

MENT BULB TREPLACEMEN

RATION AND

EISA PHASE

ISITS OVER TF ON-SITE VI

GE BY INCOME

...................

...................

...................

...................

r ..................

...................

DEMOGRAPH

VEY RESULTS

FERENCES BE

UMERS’ BULB

UMERS’ REC

UMERS’ BULB

OF AGE DIFF

UMER SURVE

PANELISTS T

ONS .............

SONS ...........

ALYSIS OF LIG

PONSE BIAS

S .................

NALYSIS ......

MPARISON ....

NSE BIAS ASS

FigME ................N 2017 – WEI

SATURATION

...................N BY ROOM TTYPES ..........

T BULBS BY

REPLACEME

E I CATEGOR

TIME .............SITS ............

E AND HOME

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

HICS .............

S BY SURVEY

ETWEEN SUR

B FAMILIARITY

ENT LIGHTING

B PREFERENC

FERENCES BE

EY RESULTS .

TO NEW VISIT

...................

...................

GHTING TREN

..................

...................

...................

...................

SESSMENT ...

gures ...................IGHTED .......2009-2017

...................TYPE, 2009-2...................DEMOGRAPH

ENT TRENDS

RY, 2016 & 20......................................

TYPE ..........

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

Y MODE AND

RVEY MODES

Y AND AWAR

G PURCHASE

CES ............

ETWEEN STA

...................

TS ...............

...................

...................

NDS ..............

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................WITH ENER...................2017 ..............................HIC ..............BY INCOME -017 ...................................................

...................

....................

....................

...................

...................

...................

...................

....................

DEMOGRAPH

...................

RENESS OF E

ES ................

...................

ATES ............

....................

....................

...................

...................

....................

....................

...................

...................

...................

...................

....................

....................GY STAR L................................................................................- MA VS. NY............................................................

.............. 109

.............. 110

.............. A-1

.............. A-1

.............. A-2

.............. A-3

.............. A-4

.............. B-1

HICS ....... C-1

.............. C-2

ISA ....... C-3

.............. C-6

.............. C-8

.............. C-9

.............. D-1

.............. E-1

.............. E-1

.............. E-1

.............. F-1

.............. G-1

.............. G-1

.............. G-1

.............. G-2

.............. G-3

................. II

................ IVEDS

................. V

................ V

............... VI

.............. VIIY ............... IX................ X.................. 4.................. 4

9 0 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 6 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 I

V V

VI I I

X XI 4 4


FIGURE 1FIGURE 1FIGURE 1FIGURE 1FIGURE 1FIGURE 1

LFIGURE 1FIGURE 1

MFIGURE 1FIGURE 2FIGURE 2FIGURE 2

(MFIGURE 2FIGURE 2FIGURE 2FIGURE 2FIGURE 2

LFIGURE 2

HFIGURE 2FIGURE 3

IN

FIGURE 3S

FIGURE 3FIGURE 3FIGURE 3FIGURE 3

SFIGURE 3

CFIGURE 3FIGURE 3FIGURE 3

SFIGURE 4FIGURE 4FIGURE 4FIGURE 4FIGURE 4

1: MA SATU

2: MA & NY3: EFFICIENT

4: COMPARI

5: MA & NY6: MA & NY

LEDS IN 20167: SPECIALT

8: ENERGY-MASSACHUSE

9: MA AND N20: LED PEN

21: CFL PEN

22: INCANDES

MASSACHUS

23: OVERALL

24: WHAT RE

25: REPLACE

26: CFL USE

27: MASSACH

LEVELED OFF

28: MASSACH

HALOGENS HA

29: MASSACH

30: MASSACH

NSTALLED LE31: MASSACH

SATISFACTION

32: PREFERE

33: REASONS

34: ENERGY35: TYPE OF LSURVEY ........36: SIGNAGE,CONSUMERS W37: BULB PUR

38: EFFICIENT

39: MASSACH

SIGNIFICANTL

40: EISA PHA

41: BULBS BY

42: BULBS BY

43: COMPARI

44: COMPARI

URATION RAT

Y SATURATIO

T VS. INEFFIC

NG CFL AND

Y BULB SATU

Y LED BULB

6 & 2017 .....TY BULB SAT

EFFICIENT BETTS ............NY PENETRA

NETRATION BY

ETRATION BY

SCENT + HAL

ETTS) ..........L BULB REPL

EPLACED WH

EMENT BULBS

, SALES, AND

HUSETTS CO

F AFTER STEA

HUSETTS AND

AS INCREASE

HUSETTS CO

HUSETTS AND

ED BULBS ...HUSETTS AND

N .................NCES BETWE

S FOR LED O

Y STAR LEDLIGHT BULBS

..................., MATERIALS

WHEN BUYIN

RCHASES BA

T BULB PURC

HUSETTS CO

LY IN RECENT

ASE I CATEG

Y EISA PHAS

Y EISA PHAS

SON OF MA

SON OF MA

TES 2009-20ON 2017 - WE

CIENT BULB SD LED ADOPT

URATION 201SATURATION

...................TURATION BY

ULB SATURA

...................ATION ...........Y ROOM TYP

Y ROOM TYP

LOGEN PENE

...................LACEMENTS, HAT ..............S BY DEMOG

D SHIPMENT

NSUMERS’ FA

ADY INCREAS

D NEW YORK

ED ................NSUMERS’ UD NEW YORK

...................D NEW YORK

...................EEN CFLS AN

OR CFL PREF

DS ................S PURCHASE

...................S, AND INFOR

NG CFLS OR

ASED ON INFO

CHASES BAS

NSUMERS’ AT YEARS .......

GORIES .........SE I CATEGO

SE I CATEGO

& NY ON-SIT

& NY PANEL

17 ..............EIGHTED ......SATURATION

TION ...........3-2017 .......

N 2009-2017...................

Y ROOM TYPE

ATION BY RO

...................

...................PE, 2009-201

E, 2009-201TRATION BY

...................MASSACHUS

...................RAPHIC .......ESTIMATES,AMILIARITY W

SES, WHILE NK CONSUMER

...................SE OF FAMIL

K CONSUMER

...................K CONSUMER

...................ND LEDS BY

FERENCES BY

...................ED IN THE LAS

...................RMATION SEE

LEDS .........ORMATION SO

SED ON INFOR

AWARENESS O

...................

...................ORY ..............ORY ..............

TES WITH CE

L AND NEW V

...................

...................N RATES 2009......................................

7 WITH ENER...................

E, MASSACHU

OM TYPE, 20......................................7 (MASSACH

7 (MASSACH

ROOM TYPE

...................SETTS & NEW

...................

...................2005 TO 20

WITH CFLS A

NY CONTINUE

RS’ FAMILIAR

...................LIAR TECHNO

RS’ SATISFAC

...................RS’ REASONS

...................STATE IN 20

Y STATE .........................ST SIX MONT

...................EN BY MASSA

...................OUGHT ........

RMATION SOU

OF EISA HAS

...................

...................

...................

...................ENSUS ..........VISITS ..........

....................

....................9-2017 ................................................RGY STAR

....................USETTS 2017009-2017, ........................................HUSETTS) .....HUSETTS) .....E, 2009-2017....................

W YORK ................................................16 ...............

AND LEDS HA

ES TO INCREA

ITY WITH

....................OLOGIES .......CTION WITH

....................S FOR LOW L....................016 AND 2017........................................THS – CONSU

....................ACHUSETTS

....................

....................UGHT ...........S DECLINED

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

................ 11

................ 15

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

................ 17

................ 18

................ 197 .............. 22

................ 25

................ 29

................ 31

................ 327

................ 33

................ 47

................ 51

................ 53

................ 63AS

ASE ......... 67

................ 68

................ 69

................ 73ED

................ 747 ............. 75................ 76................ 84UMER

................ 85

................ 88

................ 91

................ 92

.............. 103

.............. 105

.............. 106

.............. 109

.............. 112

.............. 113

1 5 6 7 8 9 2 5 9 1 2 3 7 1 3 3 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 4 5 8 1 2 3 5 6 9 2 3


FIGURE 4FIGURE 4

B

FIGURE 4A

FIGURE 4T

FIGURE 4F

FIGURE 5Y

TABLE 1:Y

TABLE 2:TABLE 3:

YTABLE 4:TABLE 5:TABLE 6:TABLE 7:TABLE 8:TABLE 9:TABLE 10

STABLE 11TABLE 12TABLE 13TABLE 14TABLE 15TABLE 16TABLE 17TABLE 18TABLE 19TABLE 20TABLE 21TABLE 22TABLE 23TABLE 24TABLE 25TABLE 26TABLE 27

45: KEY DEM

46: MASSACH

Y AGE, TENU

47: MASSACH

AGE, TENURE

48: MASSACH

TENURE, AND

49: MASSACH

AMILIARITY B

50: ENERGY-YORK ...........

CURRENT PYEAR—UNWE

CURRENT P CURRENT P

YEAR—UNWE

CURRENT P PANEL AND

DIRECT-INS

COMPARISO

COMPARISO

INSTALLED

0: DEMOGRA

SATURATION.1: SATURATIO

2: HOU VALU

3: ROOMS W4: REASONS

5: REASONS

6: PANEL RE

7: 2017 PAN

8: NEWLY INS

9: REPLACEM

0: EMPTY SO

1: BULB REP

2: BULBS RE

3: REASONS

4: REPLACED

5: REPLACEM

6: REPLACED

7: REPLACEM

OGRAPHIC DHUSETTS CO

URE, AND INC

HUSETTS CO

E, AND INCOM

HUSETTS CO

INCOME CAT

HUSETTS AND

BY AGE CATE

EFFICIENT B...................

PANEL AND NEIGHTED, MA

PANEL VISIT TPANEL AND NEIGHTED, NEW

PANEL VISIT T NEW VISIT D

STALL PROGR

ON OF SATUR

ON OF SATUR

LINEAR FLUO

APHICS WITH S...................ON OF SPECI

UES FOR EFF

WITHOUT ENE

FOR NOT INS

FOR NOT INS

EPLACEMENT

EL REPLACE

STALLED BU

MENT BULBS

OCKETS 2016PLACEMENT IN

EPLACING INC

FOR BULB TD BULBS BY DMENT BULBS

D/REPLACEM

MENT BULBS

DIFFERENCES

NSUMERS’ BCOME CATEG

NSUMERS’ PME CATEGORY

NSUMERS’ LTEGORY .......D NEW YORK

EGORY .........ULB SATURA

...................

TaNEW VISIT SA

ASSACHUSETT

TIMING BY FI

NEW VISIT SA

W YORK .......TIMING BY FI

DEMOGRAPH

RAM PARTICI

RATION RATE

RATION RATE

ORESCENTS .STATISTICAL

...................IALTY SOCKE

FICIENT AND IRGY-EFFICIE

STALLING EESTALLING CFBULB SUMM

EMENT BULBS

LBS ............. BY BULB SO

6-2017 .........N MASSACHU

CANDESCENT

TYPE CHANGE

DEMOGRAPH

BY DEMOGR

MENT BULBS

BY DEMOGR

S BETWEEN CULB FAMILIA

GORY ...........URCHASES IN

Y ................ED AND CFL...................

K LED, CFL,...................ATION BY RO

...................

ables ATURATION CTS ...............RST VISIT YE

ATURATION C...................RST VISIT YE

ICS COMPAR

PATION BY YES................ES, 2009-201...................LLY SIGNIFICA

...................ETS BY BULB

INEFFICIENT

ENT BULBS ..E BULBS - MA

FLS/LEDS –MARY (UNWE

S ....................................OURCE ...........................USETTS AND

T BULBS ......E.................

HIC, MASSAC

RAPHIC, MAS

BY DEMOGRA

RAPHIC, 2016

CONSUMER SARITY AND EI...................N THE LAST S...................L PREFERENC

...................HALOGEN A

...................OM TYPE, 20...................

COMPARISON

...................EAR, MASSAC

COMPARISON

...................EAR, NEW YO

RISON ..........YEAR (UNWEI

...................17 ..................................ANT DIFFERE

...................B TYPE .........BULB TYPES

...................ASSACHUSET

NEW YORK .IGHTED) ..................................................................................NEW YORK .......................................

CHUSETTS ....SSACHUSETTS

APHIC, NEW

6-17 ............

SURVEY MOD

ISA AWAREN

....................SIX MONTHS

....................CES BY AGE,....................

AND EISA

....................013-17, NEW

....................

BY FIRST VI

....................CHUSETTS ...BY FIRST VI

....................ORK .................................IGHTED) ...................................................................ENCES IN LED........................................S BY ROOM T....................TTS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................S .................YORK ..........

....................

DES ......... C-2NESS

.............. C-5 BY

.............. C-7, .............. C-9

............ C-10W

.............. F-2

SIT

.................. 5

.................. 6SIT

.................. 6

.................. 6

.................. 7

.................. 8

.................. 9

................ 14

................ 20D

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

................ 21TYPE ........ 30................ 34................ 36................ 36................ 39................ 39................ 42................ 43................ 44................ 45................ 48................ 52................ 57................ 58................ 58................ 60

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


TABLE 28TABLE 29TABLE 30TABLE 31TABLE 32TABLE 33TABLE 34TABLE 35TABLE 36TABLE 37TABLE 38TABLE 39TABLE 40TABLE 41TABLE 42TABLE 43TABLE 44TABLE 45TABLE 46TABLE 47TABLE 48TABLE 49TABLE 50TABLE 51TABLE 52TABLE 53

STABLE 54TABLE 55TABLE 56TABLE 57TABLE 58TABLE 59

HTABLE 60TABLE 61TABLE 62TABLE 63

KTABLE 64

YTABLE 65TABLE 66TABLE 67

8: REPLACEM

9: DELTA WA

0: ESTIMATIN

1: LED SATIS

2: LED SATIS

3: LED SATIS

4: LED INDIC

5: BULBS OB

6: PURCHASE

7: SELF-REP

8: PURCHASE

9: PURCHASE

0: LEDS AND

1: TYPE OF L2: CONSIDER

3: STORED B4: COMPARIN

5: STORED B6: STORED B7: STORED B8: EISA PHA

9: EISA EXE

0: WATTAGE

1: GENERAL

2: MASSACH

3: MASSACH

SOURCE .......4: RESPONSE

5: CONSUME

6: SURVEY S7: ON-SITE S8: ON-SITE V9: 2017 SATU

HOUSEHOLD .0: SATURATIO

1: MASSACH

2: SATURATIO

3: CONSUME

KNOWLEDGE

4: MASSACH

YEAR ............5: 2017 CON

6: 2009 – 207: PANEL AN

MENT BULBS

ATTS BY BUL

NG CFLS REP

SFACTION ....SFACTION BY

SFACTION BY

CATORS BY MBTAINED .......E SOURCE ...ORTED PURC

E SOURCE BY

E SOURCE, 2D CFLS PURC

LIGHT BULBS

RATIONS IN LI

BULBS BY BU

NG STORAGE

BULBS BY BU

BULBS BY BU

BULBS STATU

ASE I SCHEDU

MPTIONS .....RATIOS ......SERVICE CO

USETTS REP

USETTS REP

...................E RATES ......R SURVEY W

SAMPLE ERRO

SAMPLE ERRO

VISIT WEIGHT

URATION BY

...................ON BY DEMO

USETTS STAT

ON BY DEMO

RS’ BULB AW

BY SURVEY MUSETTS CON

...................NSUMER SURV

17 CONSUME

D NEW VISIT

BY DEMOGR

LB TYPE FOR

PLACING OTH

...................Y BULB TYPE

Y CUSTOMER

MASSACHUSE

...................

...................CHASE SOUR

Y HOME TYP

2016 AND 201CHASED JULY

S OBTAINED I

IGHT BULB PULB TYPE OVE

E HABITS ......ULB BY INCOM

ULB BY HOME

US ................ULE ....................................................

OVERED BY ELACEMENT BLACEMENT B......................................

WEIGHTING SC

OR ...............OR FOR SATU

T SCHEME .....SOCKET AND

...................OGRAPHICS –

TEWIDE SOC

OGRAPHICS –WARENESS A

MODE ..........NSUMERS’ BU

...................VEY RESULT

ER SURVEY RT SATURATIO

RAPHIC, 2016PAST YEAR

HER CFLS ......................

ES ................R AVERAGE A

ETTS CONSUM

...................

...................RCE BY INCOM

E – MASSAC

17 ..............Y-DEC 2016N PAST YEAR

PURCHASES B

ER TIME .........................ME ...............E TYPE .....................................................................................ISA PHASE I

BULBS BY EISBULBS COVER

...................

...................CHEME ...........................URATION EST

...................D MEAN AND

...................– MASSACHUS

CKET COUNTS

– NEW YORK AND FAMILIAR

...................ULB PURCHA

...................S ................RESULTS ....N COMPARIS

6-17, CONT’D............................................................................

AND NUMBER

MER DEMOG

...................

...................ME – MASSAC

HUSETTS ........................– PANEL ON

R – PANEL OBY STATE ............................................................................................................................................................I SATURATIO

SA PHASE IRED BY EISA............................................................................TIMATES .........................MEDIAN SAT

...................SETTS .........S BY ROOM T...................RITY AND LIG

...................ASE CONSIDE

...................

...................

...................SON..............

D .................................................................................................

R OF LEDS ....RAPHICS ..............................................CHUSETTS ...........................................N-SITE VISITS

ON-SITE VISIT

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................ON ................CATEGORY ..

A PHASE I BY

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................TURATION BY

....................

....................TYPE ................................

GHTING

....................ERATIONS BY

....................

....................

....................

....................

................ 61

................ 62

................ 64

................ 70

................ 71

................ 72

................ 77

................ 79

................ 80

................ 81

................ 82

................ 83S .............. 86TS ............ 87................ 89................ 94................ 95................ 95................ 96................ 97................ 99.............. 101.............. 104.............. 107.............. 108Y

.............. 108

.............. A-2

.............. A-3

.............. A-3

.............. A-4

.............. A-4Y

.............. A-5

.............. B-3

.............. B-4

.............. B-5

.............. C-1

.............. C-8

.............. D-1

.............. D-3

.............. E-1

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


TABLE 68TABLE 69TABLE 70TABLE 71TABLE 72TABLE 73TABLE 74TABLE 75

8: PANEL AN

9: BULB REP

0: MA PANEL

1: MA PANEL

2: MA SATUR

3: NY PANEL

4: NY PANEL

5: NY SATUR

D NEW VISIT

PLACEMENT B

L DISPOSITIO

L DEMOGRAP

RATION COM

L DISPOSITIO

L DEMOGRAP

RATION COMP

T SATURATIO

BY QUARTILE

ON ................PHICS...........PARISON* ....N ................

PHICS ...........PARISON* ....

N COMPARIS

ES – MASSAC

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

SON..............CHUSETTS ......................................................................................................................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

.............. E-1

.............. F-5

.............. G-1

.............. G-2

.............. G-3

.............. G-3

.............. G-4

.............. G-4

1 5 1 2 3 3 4 4


for this son-site ligNew YorSyracusecompletecomparisresidentiain 2012 a

It is impothe study

1. Timinsite vdata

2. Concevaluhelp baseconcu

3. New particchoseframewe seachie

This exeboth the more deMethodo

1 https://rm

EETRIao

tudy came fghting invenrk, namely ae, as well aed between son area bal lighting mand essentia

ortant to noty in three key

ng of on-sivisits this yeacollection w

current fielduators shouldeliminate pod on visit timurrently in bo

York concipants in Nen to improve. In additionecured resp

eved a larger

cutive summon-site visits

etailed findilogy and Ap

msresults.com/w

S ExecutThis report Residential nc. The stu

and other crof and interafrom randomntories of hoa 40-mile ra

as all of WeOctober of

because it market has really all upstre

te that the 2y ways:

te visits. War, which enould be com

ding of ned ensure tha

ossible differming. Accoroth Massach

sumer surNew York viave responsen, based on

ponses to thr sample siz

mary beginss and the congs from t

ppendix A.

wp-content/uplo

ive Sumpresents

Lighting Mady was desritical marketactions with mly sampledomes in Masadius aroundestchester C

2016 and Jpresents a

esponded to eam incentiv

016-17 Mar

We moved upnabled us to mplete by Fe

w and panat new visitsrences in satrdingly, in thhusetts and

rvey sampla an online

e rates amona new sam

e consumerze at similar

with an oveonsumer surthese effort

oads/2017/02/P

2

mmarythe results

arket Assesigned to updt indicators, the lighting web and te

ssachusetts d the cities

County, referJanuary of

unique opthe cessatio

ves in 2014.

rket Assessm

p the fieldinmove up thbruary of 20

nel visits. Ts and panelturation leve

he 2017 stuNew York.

le frame. panel main

ng the sampple frame a

r survey fromcosts to prev

erall assessrvey. The rets. Methodo

Panel-Book-20

2016-17 LIGH

s of the 2ssment conddate estimatand assessmarket in M

elephone surand a compof Albany,

rred to in th2017. New

pportunity toon of standa

ment differs

g of the cone 2018 wav

018.

The 2015-16 visits are fi

els between dy we fielde

The 2017 ntained by Rple of homesnd moving tm a wider gvious years.

sment followemaining bodological det

016e.pdf

HTING MAR

2016-17 Maducted by Ntes of lightins consumersMassachusetrveys with reparison areaBuffalo, Roc

his report asYork was c

o understanard spiral CF

from previo

nsumer survve of the stud

6 Study sugielded simulpanelists an

ed new and

study recruRMS.1 This s included into web-baseroup of hou.

wed by key fdy of the reptails can b

RKET ASSE

assachusettsNMR Groupng saturations’ knowledgetts. The dataesidents anda (portions ochester, ands New Yorkchosen as and how theFL incentives

ous waves o

veys and ondy so that al

ggested thaltaneously tond new visits

d panel visits

uited on-sitemethod wasn the sampleed surveyinguseholds and

findings fromport presentsbe found in

ESSMENT

I

s p, n e a d

of d

k) a e s

of

-ll

at o s s

e s e

g, d

m s n


OVERA

LEDs

Evidenceimpact oLEDs, LMassach

• LY

• LY

Further, accountetwo state

CFLs

In 2013, respectivMassachdivergenAuthorityupstreamPublic Stransform

Over thedecline iMoving fo

• RthM

• M• C

KEY FIN

Socket

Betweensaturatiodecreasesteadily scommon

LL ASSESS

e from this n saturation

LED saturathusetts.

LED saturatiYork. LED penetraYork.

ENERGY Sed for seven es.

Massachusvely), but behusetts wasce aligned

y’s (NYSERDm lighting inService’s comed without

e past three n CFL satuorward, we e

Recent changhat most CF

MassachusetManufacturerConsumers a

NDINGS

Saturation

2009 and n (the perce

e in incandesince 2014, type of ene

SMENT

study sugge and penetrion and pe

ion is 18%

ation is 61%

STAR® LEDof the eight

etts and Newegan to dives 25% highclosely with

DA) decisioncentives in nclusion thaadditional pr

years, we huration in Mexpect to se

ges to the EFLs will no ltts ended prors and retaileare rapidly ad

n Trends

2017, Massentage of soescent bulb

increasing sergy-efficien

ests that theration of LEDenetration ra

in Massach

% in Massac

Ds (the onlyt-percentage

w York had erge betweeher than Nh the New n to cease s2014—an a

at the residrogram inter

have observeMassachusetee this trend

ENERGY STonger qualifogram suppers are movidopting LED

sachusetts eockets filled saturation. Asix-fold fromt bulb in use

e MassachuDs. While coates continu

husetts and

husetts and

y type of LEe-point differ

similar levelen 2013 andNew York’s

York State spiral CFL inaction drivedential lightirvention.

ed a steadyts, down froaccelerate f

TAR specificfy for ENERort for CFLsing away fro

Ds

experienced with a specAs Figure 1

m 2014 to 20e in 2017, C

usetts prograonsumers inue to lag t

d significan

d significan

EDs supportrence in LED

ls of CFL sad 2017; by 2

saturationEnergy Re

ncentives in n by the Neng market

y (though noom 33% in for three key

cations (ENERGY STAR s as of Deceom CFLs

a steady incific bulb typ shows, LE

017. While CCFL saturati

ams have hn New York athe rates m

tly lower (1

ntly lower (4

rted by progD saturation

aturation (282017, CFL s(29% vs.

esearch & D2012 and eew York Dewas or wo

ot statistically2014 to 29

y reasons:

ERGY STARstatus and, mber 31, 20

ncrease in epe) and a coED saturationCFLs were sion has dec

had a strongare adoptingmeasured in

10%) in New

48%) in New

gram effortsbetween the

8% and 26%saturation in22%). This

Developmenessentially alepartment oould become

y significant9% in 2017

R 2.0) meanas a result

016

efficient bulborrespondingn has grownstill the mos

clined slightly

2015-1

II

g g n

w

w

s) e

%, n s

nt ll

of e

t) 7.

n t,

b g n st y

6 LIGHT


(althoughthe first inefficieadded towere fille

Analysis saturatioidentifiedby steadywell as o

CompariThe use state thalargely p2 shows(32% vs.

h not statistitime, saturnt (incandeo CFL and ed with an ef

of saturatn in Massa

d. This increy CFL satura

over time by

son Area Treof a compa

at continues hased out it, New York 47%) and h

cally signification of effiescent andLED saturatfficient bulb t

ion by rooachusetts haase has moation rates. Aroom type c

ends arison area to support

ts support ofcontinues to

has higher co

Figu

cantly) over icient (CFL

d halogen) tion, over otype in 2017

m type revas doubled

ostly been dAdditional a

can be found

design alloenergy-efficf energy-effio lag Massaombined ine

ure 1: Satu

the past thrand LED) bbulbs (41%

ne-half (54%7.

veals that, or remaine

riven by incnalysis relat

d in Section 2

owed us to acient bulbs, cient bulbs

achusetts in efficient satu

uration Ove

ree years. Dbulbs (47%)%); when fl%) of all so

since 2009ed very higcreased LEDted to satura2.1 and Sec

assess trento those of between 20combined Cration (53%

er Time

Despite this, ) has surpasluorescent s

ockets in Ma

9, energy-egh in most D saturation ation trends ction 2.3.

nds in MassNew York,

012 and 201CFL and LEvs. 41%).

in 2017, fossed that osaturation isassachusetts

efficient bulbroom typesand buoyedover time as

achusetts, aa state tha

4. As FigureED saturation

2015-1

III

r of s s

b s d s

a at e n

6 LIGHT


ENERGY

Further, both statbulbs, whNot onlyMassachFigure 3)entire difpoint diffLEDs obENERGYsupport iLEDs) is

At the saENERGYadoption STAR LE

Fi

STAR LEDs

in 2016 andtes. During thich were thy was saturhusetts com), but the infference in Lference in Ltained in the

Y STAR LEDin Massachudriving incre

ame time, inY STAR LED

of LEDs. AEDs can be f

igure 2: MA

d 2017, we wthe on-site vhen used to ration of ENpared to Necreased satLED saturatED fixture se past year Ds obtainedusetts (whiceased adopt

ncreases in D saturationAdditional cofound in Com

A & NY Sat

were able tovisits, we codetermine i

NERGY STAew York (10turation of Eion betweensaturation. Ain Massachu in New Yoh exclusiveltion of LEDs

non-ENERGn in New Yoomparison amparison Ar

turation 20

o explore satollected modf an LED waAR LEDs m

0% vs. 3%, ENERGY STn the two staAdditionally, usetts (65%rk (37%). Thy supports E

s in the state

GY STAR Lork offer evidarea analysirea.

017 – Weig

turation of Edel numbersas ENERGYmore than a statistical

TAR LEDs aates, aside the percent) is nearly dhis is strongENERGY ST

e.

ED saturatiodence of nais as well a

ghted

ENERGY STs for all screY STAR quathree timeslly significan

accounted fofrom a one-tage of ENE

double the pg evidence tTAR produc

on in both saturally occuas analysis

TAR LEDs inw-base LED

alified or nots as high innt differenceor almost the-percentageERGY STARercentage othat programcts, including

states and inurring markeof ENERGY

2015-1

IV

n D t. n

e; e

e-R of m g

n et Y

6 LIGHT


Penetra

In additiois an impand peneinstallatio7% of ho

Figure 4 As the fdoubled one LED(42%). Imhighest h

2 This assuin Section 3 NMR, No

Figu

ation

on to saturatportant gaugetration rateon to more somes in 2012

shows LEDigure showssince the 2

D (47%), follmportantly, ehours of use

umption is parti5.1 of this repo

ortheast Reside

ure 3: MA with ENE

ion, penetrage of LED pes rise, satusockets. LED2 to more tha

D penetrations, in Massa015 study. Bowed closelexteriors, kitaccording to

ially based on hort. ential Lighting H

& NY LED ERGY STAR

ation (the perprogram sucration rates D penetratioan one-half

n by room tychusetts, LEBedrooms wly by living tchens, and o the Northe

high levels of L

Hours-of-Use S

Bulb SatuR LEDs in

rcentage of cess. As moshould follo

on has skyro(61%) in 20

ype in MassED penetratwere the mospaces (46%living space

east Residen

LED satisfactio

Study, 2014. htt

uration 2002016 & 201

homes with ore househoow suit as hocketed in M17.

sachusetts frtion in all ro

ost common%), bathroomes are the thntial Lighting

n among surve

tp://tinyurl.com

09-2017 17

one or moreolds decide households e

Massachuset

rom 2009 thoom types place to inms (46%), a

hree room tyg Hours-of-U

ey participants

m/TimelessHOU

e LED bulbsto try LEDsexpand LEDtts, from only

hrough 2017has at leasstall at leasand kitchensypes with theUse study.3

as discussed

U

2015-1

V

s) 2

D y

7. st st s e

6 LIGHT


Additionaby room

Panel V

To date, in New Yduring thinventorietypes of empty) in2017 westorage (

LEDs wesecond mcommon states (2Massachhouseho

Note thaeffort to tincandesreplacem(29%) an

al details ontype, can be

Figure

Visits – Cha

four waves York. Duringhe most reces (2016), dbulbs housen 2017. Jusre new to th(23%), and j

ere the mosmost commo

replacemen20%). Inca

husetts houlds (40%).

at halogen atrain technicscent are likment bulbs, and the most c

n penetratione found in Se

e 4: MA LED

anges in B

of panel visg the panel vcent lighting directly obseeholds chosest as observhe home (73ust 4% cam

st common on replacemnt bulb typendescent bseholds (22

and incandecians to idenkely halogenare the secocommon in N

n, including ection 3.

D Penetrat

ulb Types

sits have beevisits, techninventories

erving bulb re as replaceved in 2016,3%—purchase from anoth

replacemenent bulb typ

e in both stabulbs were 2%) and th

escent bulbstify halogen n, and vice

ond most coNew York (5

penetration

tion by Roo

over Time

en completeicians comp(2017) to d

eplacement ements (excl, nearly thresed or obtaiher fixture.

nt bulb typee in New Yoates and we

the seconhe most co

s are nearlybulbs but re

e versa. Commmon repla

52%).

for other lig

om Type, 2

e

ed in Massacpared the budata listed fbehavior. F

luding sockeee-quarters ned), nearly

e (49%) in ork (32%). Cere chosen nd most coommon cho

y indistinguisecognize thambined inca

acement bulb

ghting techn

2009-2017

chusetts, anulb in each sfor the prev

Figure 5 sumets that wereof replacem

y one-quarte

MassachuseCFLs were th

at similar rommon chooice among

shable. We at some bulbandescent ab type in Ma

nologies and

d two wavessocket foundvious lightingmmarizes thee changed to

ment bulbs iner came from

etts and thehe third mosrates in bothoice among

g New York

make everybs labeled asand halogenassachusetts

2015-1

VI

d

s d g e o n

m

e st h g k

y s n s

6 LIGHT


While LEreplacedin both Mwere repCFLs wereplacem

Panel T

Using thhome typdeterminthat whilerenters, lLED as single-faAdditionafound in

EDs were a. In 2017, w

Massachuseplaced with aere replace

ment behavio

Trends by K

e panel datpe, tenure, e if replaceme LEDs werelow-income a replacememily househal details onSection 4.1.

a popular rewe observedtts and Newa halogen ored with a hor, including

Figure(Panel hou

Key Demog

ta, we furthprimary langment behave the most chouseholdsent bulb comholds (Figur bulb replac2.

eplacement backsliding

w York. In Mr an incandehalogen or types of bul

e 5: Replacuseholds 201

graphics

her exploredguage spok

vior varied becommon rep, and multifampared to hre 6). Similcement beha

choice, we g (efficient bMassachusetescent. In Nan incandebs replaced

cement Bu7; excludes e

d replacemeken at homeetween demlacement buamily househomeownerslar trends wavior, includ

also obserbulbs being rtts, 21% of

New York, 25escent. Add, can be fou

ulb Typesempty sockets

ent behaviore, and numbmographic chulb type choeholds were s, non-low-inwere also oing types of

rved some replaced witLEDs and 15% of LEDsditional detaund in Sectio

s)

r by educatber of bulbsharacteristicsen by paneless likely t

ncome housobserved inf bulbs repla

LEDs beingth inefficient2% of CFLs and 20% oails on bulbon 4.

ion, incomes replaced tocs. We foundelists overallo choose anseholds, and New York

aced, can be

2015-1

VII

g t) s

of b

e, o d l, n d k. e

6 LIGHT


Figure 7 trends (thyear) by income hthey are compara

• Wssalo

• LmF

• BMlo[r

Figure

narrows ouhe percentaincome in

households adopting LEble rate as n

Within Massignificantly aturation am

ow-income h

Low-incomemany LEDs (

igure 7)

Both LED satMassachuseow-income rate that LED

e 6: 2016-1(Base

r focus to LEage of LED b

both Massamay lag be

EDs at a fasnon-low-inco

sachusetts, lower than

mong low-inhouseholds i

e household(40%) than

turation and etts low-inchouseholds

Ds were use

17 Replace: Massachuse

EDs, compabulbs that wachusetts anehind their nster pace thome househ

LED satunon-low-in

ncome housn New York

ds in Masslow-income

d the rate at wcome houses in New Yod as a repla

ement Bulbetts Panel Ho

aring both LEwere installednd New Yor

non-low-incohan low-incoolds in New

ration amoncome housseholds in (13% vs. 4%

sachusettse household

which LEDseholds wereork (13% vs.cement bulb

bs by Demoouseholds)

ED saturatiod to replacerk. The datame counter

ome househoYork. Notab

ong low-incseholds (13Massachuse%) (left side

installed mds in New

s were used e comparab. 11% [saturb]; dotted ora

ographic

on and LED e other bulbsa show that

rparts in Maolds in Newbly:

come house3% vs. 21%etts was higof Figure 7)

more than foYork (8%) (

as replacemble to the raration] and 4ange lines in

replacemens in the past, while lowssachusetts

w York and a

eholds was%). However

gher than in).

our times as(right side o

ment bulbs inates of non40% vs. 40%n Figure 7).

2015-1

VIII

nt st

w-s, a

s r, n

s of

n -

%

6 LIGHT


This is simpact osimilar trmore detreplacem

Figur

Storage

Four out The averwere stilland 59%next clos

strong evideon efficient rends for edtails on satu

ment behavio

re 7: LED S

e Behavior

of every fivrage numbel the most co

%, respectivesest bulb typ

ence that thbulb adoptioducational auration by dor by demog

Saturation

ve (83%) hor of stored bommonly stoly), with more (CFLs).

e Massachuon among l

attainment, hdemographicraphic facto

and Repla

omes in the bulbs in Masored bulb tyre than twice

usetts lightinlow-income home type, c factors andrs.

acement Tr

on-site studssachusetts pe in both Me as many in

ng programhouseholdsand tenure

d Section 4

rends by In

dy had at leahomes was

Massachusencandescen

s are havins. The findine. See Secti.1.3 for mor

ncome - MA

ast one bulbs 17. Incandeetts and Newnt bulbs in st

ng a positivengs point toion 2.2.3 fore details on

A vs. NY

b in storageescent bulbs

w York, (56%orage as the

2015-1

IX

e o

or n

e. s

% e

6 LIGHT


EISA Co

The Enehave a pin place take effeJanuary the scopeto includcandelab

ImportanDOE furtnon-comfor a posDOE indstakehold

While wethe influunderstaEISA Pha

• S• D• L• N

Massachwere covOn-site dSimilarlyMassach2017). Ad

overage, E

ergy Indepenprofound imp

since Januaect until Janof 2017, thee of Phase Ie seven pre

bras) and inc

ntly, while thther clarifiedpliant lamps

ssible delay dicated theders—so thi

e wait to seeence that End the impaase I status.

Subject to EISDirectional (c

inear fluoresNot covered b

husetts on-sivered by EISdata from N, there we

husetts (25%dditional det

Exemptions

ndence and pact on the rary 1, 2014,uary 1, 202

e DepartmenII. Specificaleviously execreased the

e final rulesd in a footnos manufactuin enforcem

ey would lis is an area

e how the mEISA Phaseact of Phase .

SA (Generacovered by ascent by EISA or a

ite data showSA Phase I ew York in re fewer E

% in 2016 vstails on EISA

s, and Exc

Security Acresidential lig Phase II (a

20. While thnt of Energyly, the DOE

empt bulb caupper end o

s say that mote that it wred before t

ment for at leke to keethat merits

market will ree I has hadI, we group

l Service Liga separate ru

another rulem

wed that neain 2017, mo2017 provid

EISA Phases. 15% in 2A can be fou

lusions

ct (EISA) of ghting markalso known ae exact imp

y (DOE) issu changed thategories (mof the lumen

manufacture would likely athe backstop

east some bup an ongocareful atten

eact to Phasd on the re

ped installed

ghting) ulemaking an

making

arly six out oore than weded a similae I-exempt 2017) and Nund in Sectio

2007 has hket. While Phas the EISA

pact of Phasued two rulehe definition most notably

range.

and sale of allow manufp goes into ulb categorieoing dialog ntion.

se II, we caesidential ligbulbs into fo

nd requirem

of every ten ere covered ar estimate o

bulbs currNew York (2on 8.

had and willhase I of EISA backstop) se II is yet es that greatof bulbs sub

y, reflectors,

lamps are facturers to effect and hes. In the fin

with light

n focus our ghting markfour categori

ents)

currently inin 2016 (59of covered brently instal24% in 2016

l continue toSA has beenis not set tounknown, intly expandedbject to EISAglobes, and

covered, thesell through

have allowednal rules, theing industry

attention onket. To helpies based on

stalled bulbs9% vs. 51%)bulbs (62%)led in both

6 vs. 13% in

2015-1

X

o n o n d A d

e h d e y

n p n

s ). ). h n

6 LIGHT


RECOM

In this seplanning consideraevaluatio

Recomm

Recommabout anIn additiothe next among acompleterecomme

RLop

Figure

MENDATIO

ection, NMR based on

ation, or poon activities c

mendation

mendation 1nd provide inon, the PAs program cy

any EISA-eed in 2017endation.

Rationale: WEDs, evidenn saturationenetration in

e 8: Bulbs

ONS, CONS

offers recomthe finding

oint of guidconducted a

ns

1: The PAs ncentives for

should contycle (2019 –xempt bulb7 and 201

While consumnce from thisn and penetn the compa

by EISA P

SIDERATION

mmendationgs discussedance, we oas part of this

should contr LED bulbstinue to care

– 2021), as bs. The res18 will pro

mers in the ns study showtration ratesarison area

hase I Cat

NS, AND GU

s, consideraed in this roffer a ratios study.

tinue with exs through theefully assesopportunitieults of fortovide addit

non-programws that the ps of energy-(New York)

tegory, 201

UIDANCE

ations, and greport. For onale based

xisting planse current 20s the need

es may conthcoming evtional insig

m comparisonprograms ha-efficient bul

continue to

16 & 2017

guidance foreach recom

d on the fi

s to educate016-2018 profor continuetinue to exisvaluation sthts to ass

n area are aave had a slbs. LED sao lag signific

r future studymmendationndings from

e consumersogram cycleed support inst, especiallyudies to besist in this

also adoptingstrong impacaturation andcantly behind

2015-1

XI

y n, m

s e. n y e s

g ct d d

6 LIGHT


thbybmo

Conside

Considebe madewant to bulbs bestorage.

RsabininLrero

InMstinst

Guidanc

Guidancspecificaretailers should inthat futurof informand cons

RathJa

Guidancevaluatopanel visnew visit

he rates founy program etween the

marketplace, ver the next

erations

eration 1: The to encouraconsider a fore they bu

Rationale: Wavings from e a sell-thro

ncandescentndicates thatEDs. Still, theason housooms was th

n addition, iMassachusettorage as th

ncandescenttorage, it is h

ce for Futu

ce 1: The lly incorporaare plannin

nclude researe studies ar

mation includsumer surve

Rationale: Gind recent ch

he full impacanuary 2017

ce 2: As cors should al

sits to help es based on v

nd in Massaefforts) acctwo statesit is possible

t few years.

he PAs shoage custome

bulb buybaurn out, fill th

With the recethe residen

ough period, t-to-LED andt consumershe majority

seholders prhat the bulbs

incandescentts homes in

he next closets were beinhighly likely

ure Study P

PAs shouldate researchng to take aarch questiore designed de: supplier ys.

iven recent hanges in thct of EISA P7 rules, it is l

onducted inso continue

eliminate posvisit timing.

achusetts. Ecounted for s. Still, givee that the op

uld continueers to replacck programhem with CF

ent changes tial lighting mrelatively fe

d incandescs are already

of bulbs arerovided for s had not yet

nt bulbs man 2017, with est bulb typeng stored for

that they wil

Planning

d be carefuh questions taction in resns related toto specificainterviews,

actions by he administraPhase II will likely that ve

n this 2016-to ensure t

ssible differe

ENERGY STAnearly all on the rapidpportunity fo

e to carefullyce inefficient to persuadFLs or LEDs

to Phase IImarket is rapew bulbs rement-to-CFL c

y inclined to e replaced unot using

t burned out

ade up the more than tw

e (CFLs). Nor future use.ll eventually

l to ensureto determine

sponse to Eo the remainally address

literature re

the DOE to ation in Wasbe. Howeve

ery few bulbs

-2017 studyhat any new

ences in satu

TAR LEDs (thof the differed pace of cor program in

y consider wt bulbs befode people tos, and remo

I of EISA, thapidly closingmain EISA econversion freplace incaupon failureenergy-effic

t.

majority (5wice as manotably, two-tIf these bulb

y be installed

e that upcoe when and

EISA Phase ning EISA-exthis market

eviews, on-s

o greatly expshington, it iser, if implems will remain

y, future onw visits are furation level

he only LEDrence in LEDchange obsentervention m

what programre failure. To change o

ove inefficien

he window fg. While therexempt. Thefound in theandescents e and the mcient bulbs

56%) of storny incandescthirds (67%)bs are not red.

oming evaluhow manufaII. In additi

xempt bulbsniche. Poss

site studies,

pand the scs difficult to

mented as oun exempt.

n-site saturafielded concs between p

Ds supportedD saturationerved in themay diminish

m efforts canhe PAs mayut inefficien

nt bulbs from

for capturingre is likely to

e high rate oe panel studywith CFLs oost commonin particula

red bulbs incent bulbs in of all stored

emoved from

ation effortsacturers andon, the PAs

s and ensuresible sources, sales data

ope of EISAassess wha

utlined in the

ation studiescurrently withpanelists and

2015-1

XII

d n e h

n y

nt m

g o of y

or n

ar

n n d

m

s d s e s

a,

A at e

s h d

6 LIGHT


Rbthwwa2

Guidancpurchasethe curreachieve provide ishould be

RmsipthLthdw

Rationale: LEetween 201

he panel visiwhether obsewere a bypro

nd panel vis016.

ce 3: This ste behavior aent upstreamremaining pinformation e designed s

Rationale: Asmultifamily hingle-family urchase beh

hese demogEDs. Howev

he sample ddefinition of working with

ED saturatio5 and 2017)its before beerved differeduct of visit sits concurr

udy supportamong HTR m model or apotential in son a wider specifically t

s discussedhouseholds

counterparhavior. This graphic grouver, this stu

does include HTR includevaluators t

on is increa7). For the 2eginning theences in LEDtiming. For t

rently, which

ts the effortshouseholds

a revised or such househrange of ho

to capture un

d in the ratioappear to

rts in Massmay be an

ups. Similarlydy was desia substanti

des more thto assess the

asing rapidl016 on-site

e new visits, D saturationthe 2017 onh appears to

s the PAs has. This wouldifferent pro

holds and inouseholds thnderreprese

onale for Rebe lagging sachusetts indication th

ly, HTR groigned as a gial number ohan just ince viability of

ly (approximvisits, NMRwhich made

n were due n-site visits, No have obvi

ave initiated tld inform theogram designcrease thehat are con

ented househ

ecommendabehind the

in terms ohat LEDs arups may begeneral pop

of low-incomcome. Note:f such a HTR

mately 0.5%R completed de it difficult

to HawthornNMR compleiated issues

to directly ste discussion

gn would be ir adoption

nsidered HTRholds.

ation 2, low-eir non-low-of LED satre still too ee lagging inpulation studme household: the PAs aR study.

% per monthnearly all o

to determinene effects oeted the news detected in

tudy use andn of whethebest able to

of LEDs. ToR, the study

-income and-income andturation and

expensive fo adoption o

dy and, whileds (134), theare currently

2015-1

XIII

h of e

or w n

d er o o y

d d d

or of e e y

6 LIGHT


for a com

1.1 ST

The goaconsumeportions some prchanges efficiency

• Efluw

• Dth

• Pre

• Ainb

• Ca

• EdN

1.2 ME

NMR comSome of 55%), wtelephonyear, westill colleoverview

1mparison are

TUDY OBJE

als of this ers’ knowledof Upstate

rior critical min the light

y standards.

Examine souorescents a

well as by EIS

Determine (vhat burn out

Provide inforeplacement

Assess custonstall prograe traced dire

Compare thend New Yor

Examine wheivergences

New York and

ETHODOLO

mpleted 601the Massac

while the ree. In previob responses

ected more w of methodo

1 SectioThis reporResidential Inc. The dalighting invMassachus

ea (New York

ECTIVES study are

dge of and iNew York. Tmarket indicting market, These obje

cket saturaand installatSA categorie

ia the panel or are remo

mation on v

omer awarems), use, anectly to the R

trends in cork to see if ev

ether the lain efficient bd Massachu

OGY 1 consumer chusetts houemaining Mus years, ths were adderesponses

ology for the

n 1 Irt presents

Lighting Mata for this sventories cosetts and homk) completed

to update nteractions These specicators, as w, such as th

ectives are a

ation by butions of ENEes: covered,

visits) whatoved

various savi

eness, purchnd storage oResidential L

onsumer purvidence of p

ack of NYSEbulb socket usetts

surveys in seholds resassachusett

he New Yorked to the Nevia phone consumer s

ntroduthe results

arket Assesstudy came fonducted wimes recruited from Nove

estimates with the lighific objectivewell as exahe advent os follows:

ulb type, iERGY STAR exempt, dir

t types of bu

ngs parame

hase (includof energy-effLighting Initia

rchases andprogram impa

ERDA incensaturation a

Massachusponded via ts househok survey waew York surv(n=263, 65%surveys and

2017 LIGH

ction s of the Mssment condfrom telephoith random ed from a paember 2016

of lighting hting markees include thmining emeof new tech

including thR® qualified rectional, an

ulbs consum

eters such a

ding bulbs oficient bulbsative

d saturation act continue

ntives still aand househo

etts and 40a web versio

olds (n=214as administevey (n=139,%). In this on-site visit

HTING MAR

Massachuseducted by None surveys

samples oanel maintaithrough Jan

saturation et in Massache continuederging issuehnologies an

he presencversus non

d linear fluo

ers use to re

as delta wat

obtained thr, and wheth

between Maes

appears to cold penetrat

2 surveys inon of the su, 45%) res

ered only by 35%), thousection, we

ts. Additiona

KET ASSES

etts 2016-17NMR Groups and on-siteof homes inned by RMS

nuary 2017.

and assesschusetts andd tracking o

es related tond increased

ce of linean-qualified asrescent

eplace those

tts and early

rough directer these can

assachusetts

contribute totion between

n New Yorkrvey (n=331sponded viay phone; thisugh the teame provide anal information

SSMENT

1

7 p, e n S

s d

of o d

ar s

e

y

t-n

s

o n

k. ,

a s

m n n


regardingweightingsite visitsindicators

1.2.1 T

The MascollectionbehaviorThe 2012016 and

RecruitminformatiTeam seProgram and a $5after whioverall re

The NewFirst, becrelied onpotential incentivewith the $PAs, the for the N

1.2.2 O

Additionacollect dain both M(new visparticipamentioneon-site dbeen cooduring th

4 Coordinathe Regionand 2017 f

g the consg schemes—s represent ts having bee

Telephone

ssachusetts n on key ligh) and were 7 survey w

d in New Yo

ment in Masson for consuent an adva

Administrat5 prepaid incich the Teaesponse rate

w York survecause the Ten an online

New York es. Because $5 prepaid iresponse ra

ew York onl

On-site Ligh

ally, NMR vata on their Massachusesits) and othnts in New ed earlier, thata collectioordinated siis period, an

tion between 2nal Hours of Usfor reasons disc

umer surve—can be fouthe most recen tracked s

Surveys

and New Yohting indicatused to rec

was administrk from Nove

sachusetts aumers in theance letter tor (PA). Eacentive. Resm attemptede in Massach

ey approacheam did not panel maint

respondenpotential re

ncentive andate in New Yine and pho

hting Inven

visited 615 hlighting use

etts and Newhers havingYork were ae current vis

on. Importannce 2009.4 nd Figure 10

2009 and 2013 se Study). Masscussed in the b

ey and the und in Appecent efforts insince 1998.

ork consumetors (e.g., buruit new partered in Maember 2016

and New Yoese areas. Ato randomly

ach letter cospondents hd to contacthusetts was

h differed frohave custom

tained by RMts, so they

espondents d because thYork was lowne samples

ntories

homes—465, storage, an

w York wereg taken paralso recruitesits represenntly, visits coFigure 9 pro

0 provides a

reflected particsachusetts, hobody of the rep

on-site visndix A. The n a long time

er surveys culb familiaritrticipants forassachusetts to January

ork differed As describedy selected ntained a lin

had roughly t them by p27%.

om that in Mmer lists for MS. Second

y did not rein New Yorhey were cower than in were 3% an

5 in Massacnd purchase

e recruited tht in prior o

ed via an onnt the most ronducted in ovides an osummary of

cipation in jointwever, funded

port.

2017 LIGH

sits—includin2016-17 co

e series of d

continued a ty, bulb satisr the on-sites between O2017.

based on thd in greater dcustomers nk to the wetwo weeks

phone to co

Massachusethe New Yo

d, addresseseceive advark did not reontacted on bMassachusend 6%, respe

chusetts ande behavior. Shrough the 2on-site visitsnline panel recent effortsMassachuse

overview of f visit timing.

t studies (Multidata collection

HTING MAR

ng samplingonsumer surdata collecte

long time sesfaction, ande studies in October and

he availabilitdetail in Appof each Maeb version oto complete

omplete the

etts in four cork compariss were not

ance letters eceive an adbehalf of Maetts. The resectively.

d 150 in NeSome of the2017 consus (panel vismaintained s in a long tietts and Newon-site visit.

state Modelingn in New York i

KET ASSES

g error andrvey and ond, with some

eries of datad purchasingthese areasd Novembe

ty of contacpendix A, theassachusettsof the surveye the surveysurvey. The

critical waysson area, weavailable foor pre-paid

dvance letteassachusettssponse rates

ew York—toe householdsmer surveys

sits). On-siteby RMS. Asime series ow York havets conducted

g Efforts and in 2015, 2016,

SSMENT

2

d -e

a g s. er

ct e s y y, e

s. e

or d

er s s

o s s e s

of e d


The PAsNew Yorhow the incentiveEnergy Rspecialtysmall comNew Yorhad the same pe

1.2.2.1 As mentknown aMassachpanel in

• Mvi1

• Mwa

• Mwvi

• Mwinfo

In 2015, Massach

• N2

• Nvih

Throughoappropria

s, Energy Efrk as a comresidential l

es in 2012 aResearch ay CFLs and Lmpared to thrk serve as aMassachuseriod.

Panel Visitstioned earlieas panel vishusetts, andMassachuse

Massachuseisited in 20150 homes fo

Massachusewere first vis

dditional 15

Massachusewere first visisited in 201

Massachusewere first visin 2015, and or the first tim

NMR oversahusetts. In 20

New York Pa015 and visi

New York Paisited in 201omes for the

out this repate.

fficiency Advmparison are

ighting markand essentiand DevelopLEDs throughose suppora proxy to heetts PAs sim

s er, the on-ssits. To dat two wavesetts was first

etts Panel W3 as part of

or the first tim

etts Panel Wsited in 20131 homes for

etts Panel Wited in 20135—and visit

etts Panel Wited in 201395 that were

me.

aw the esta015, we visit

anel Wave Oited an addit

anel Wave T15 and 61 the first time.

port, we refe

visory Counea because ket has respally all upstrment Authogh mid-2014rted in Masselp understa

milarly elimin

ite visits incte, four was of panel vt established

Wave One:f the Regionme.

Wave Two:3 and 114 the first time

Wave Three3, 98 that wted an additi

Wave Four:, 83 that wee first visited

blishment ofted a total of

One: In 201tional 70 hom

Two: In 201hat were firs

er to the va

ncil (EEAC) it presents aponded to thream incent

ority (NYSER4, but the voachusetts. O

and what manated standa

cluded housaves of panvisits have bd in 2013 wit

In 2014, weal Hours-of-

In 2015, wthat were fie.

e: In 2016, wwere first vis

onal 150 ho

: In 2017, were first visited in 2016—a

f a panel in f 101 homes

6, we returnmes for the f

7, we returnt visited in 2

arious wave

2017 LIGH

Consultantsa unique ophe cessationtives in 201RDA) continlume of ince

On-site lightiay have happard spiral CF

seholds we nel visits habeen complth 150 new o

e returned to-Use Study a

we returned irst visited i

we returned ited in 2014

omes for the

we returned ed in 2014, and visited a

New York as for the first

ned to 80 of first time.

ned to 105 ho2016—and v

es by state

HTING MAR

s, and evalupportunity ton of standar4. The New

nued limitedentivized buing saturatiopened in MaFL incentive

had visitedave been ceted in Newon-site visits

o 111 of theand visited a

to 203 homn 2014—an

to 270 hom4, and 95 thfirst time.

to 315 hom72 that were

an additiona

as a comparit time.

the homes f

omes—44 thvisited an ad

and wave

KET ASSES

uators choseo understandrd spiral CFLw York Stated support folbs was very

on surveys inassachusettses during the

d previouslycompleted inw York. Thes.

e homes firsan additiona

mes—89 thand visited an

mes—77 thahat were firs

mes—65 thae first visited

al 150 homes

ison area fo

first visited in

hat were firsdditional 150

number, as

SSMENT

3

e d L e

or y n s e

y, n e

st al

at n

at st

at d s

or

n

st 0

s


Figur

Figure

re 9: On-sit

e 10: Timin

te Visits ov

ng of On-s

2017 LIGH

ver Time

ite Visits

HTING MARKET ASSES

SSMENT

4


1.3 CO

One potchange Hawthornnew visitMassach

The 201ensure thdifferencsuch, in tand New

Table 1 sthe study

For the 2panel anpurchase2014 repreport, areport. Mfound in

Table

Bulb Typ

# of hom

# of soc

Incandes

CFLs

LEDs

Halogen

Fluoresc

LED Fixt

Empty So

Other/Doknow

5 The Hawtalter behav

OMPARISO

ential drawbtheir behavne Effect.5 Tt householdshusetts pane

5-16 Study hat new visites in saturathe 2017 stu

w York.

shows satury. There wer

2014 and 2d new visits

e behavior. Aport, a full dnd a full dis

More details Appendix E.

e 1: Curren

pe 2

mes

kets 3

scent 3

2

ent

ure

ocket

on’t <

thorne effect, avior due to obse

N OF PANE

back of a pvior becauseTo test for ts, the Team

elists to the 1

provided gts and pane

ation levels budy we fielde

ration in Masre no signific

015 analyses showed veA full discusiscussion ofscussion of comparing

.

nt Panel anYear—

2013 20

65

3,925 4,

35% 3

27% 3

18% 1

7% 8

8% 7

2% 2

3% 4

<1% 1

also called reacervation.

EL VISITS T

panel study e of study his and othe

m compared 150 Massach

guidance thal visits are fibetween paned new and

ssachusetts cant differenc

es, we perfoery similar ossion of the 2f the 2015 rethe 2016 resaturation a

nd New Vis—Unweight

Pane

014 20

83 7

,523 4,8

36% 32

30% 29

2% 20

8% 8%

7% 6%

2% 3%

4% 3%

1% <1

ctive effects or

TO NEW VI

is the posparticipatio

er possible saturation ahusetts new

at in future ielded simulnelists and panel visits

in 2017 by ces in satura

ormed similar identical le2014 resultsesults can b

esults can band penetrat

it Saturatioted, Massa

elists

015 201

72 95

801 5,98

2% 28%

9% 26%

0% 21%

% 10%

% 7%

% 3%

% 3%

1% 1%

observation bi

2017 LIGH

ISITS ssibility that on—a pheno

differences and demogra

w visits.

on-site stutaneously tonew visits bconcurrently

the first yeaation based

ar comparisevels of pens can be foube found in Ae found in Ation in new

on Compaachusetts

16 All Pa

5 315

82 19,23

% 32%

% 28%

% 18%

% 8%

% 7%

% 3%

% 3%

% 1%

as, occurs whe

HTING MAR

study partiomenon knbetween th

aphic data f

dies, evaluao help eliminbased on visy in both Ma

ar a home paon year of f

sons and fonetration, satund in AppenAppendix BAppendix E and panel v

arison by F

New Visits

nel 2017

5 150

31 7,917

% 33%

% 27%

% 15%

9%

8%

3%

4%

1%

en subjects of a

KET ASSES

cipants mayown as the

he panel andfrom the 315

ators shouldnate possiblesit timing. Asassachusetts

articipated inirst visit.

und that theturation, andndix D of the of the 2015of the 2016

visits can be

First Visit

s All

465

7 27,148

33%

28%

17%

9%

7%

3%

3%

1%

an experiment

SSMENT

5

y e d 5

d e s s

n

e d e 5 6 e


*No signific

Tab

Vi

# o

Oc

No

De

Ja

Table 3 sstudy. As

Table

Bulb Typ

# of hom

# of soc

Incandes

CFLs

Halogen

LEDs

Fluoresc

LED Fixt

Empty So

Other/Do

*No signific

T

In additioplay in ex

cant difference

ble 2: Curr

sit Month

of homes

ctober 2016

ovember 201

ecember 201

anuary 2017

shows saturs in Massach

e 3: Curren

pe

mes

kets

scent

ent

ure

ocket

on’t know

cant difference

Table 4: Cu

Vi

# o

Oc

No

De

Ja

on to surveyxplaining LE

s at the 90% co

ent Panel V

201

65

9

16 26

16 24

6

ration in Newhusetts, ther

nt Panel anYea

2015

61

4,531

48%

19%

9%

7%

10%

2%

5%

1%

s at the 90% co

urrent Pan

sit Month

of homes

ctober 2016

ovember 201

ecember 201

anuary 2017

y timing, we ED saturation

onfidence leve

Visit Timin

13 20

5 8

9 5

6 4

4 2

6 9

w York in 20re were no s

nd New Visar—Unweig

Pane

201

44

2,6

42

20

8%

12

11

2%

3%

2%

onfidence leve

nel Visit Tim

201

6

8

16 40

16 11

2

also considen across pan

el

ng by First

Panelists

14 20

83 7

5 4

7 3

2 2

9 1

017 by the fsignificant dif

it Saturatioghted, New

elists

16 All

4

32 7

% 4

% 2

%

%

%

%

%

%

el.

ming by Fi

Panelists

15 20

1 4

8 7

0 2

1 7

2 3

ered the rolenel waves. A

2017 LIGH

Visit Year

015 20

72 9

4 1

36 3

20 3

2 1

first year a hfferences ac

on Compaw York

N

l Panel

105

7,163

46%

20%

9%

9%

11%

2%

4%

1%

rst Visit Ye

New

16 20

44 1

7

7 3

7 7

3 4

e that demoAs Table 5 ill

HTING MAR

r, Massach

New

016 20

95 1

10

36

31 8

18 5

home particcross the stu

arison by F

New Visits

2017

150

8,629

43%

21%

11%

10%

8%

2%

4%

1%

ear, New Y

Visits

017

50

0

34

75

41

ographic diffelustrates, pa

KET ASSES

husetts

w Visits

017

150

0

19

80

51

ipated in theudies.

First Visit

All

255

15,762

44%

21%

10%

9%

9%

2%

4%

1%

York

erences mayanel and new

SSMENT

6

e

y w


visit houseducatiothan ownnew houincluded weighting

D

All

Tenure

Own/B

Rent/L

Income

Low-in

Non-L

Home Ty

Multifa

Single

Educatio

High S

Some

Bache* Not includ** Not inclu***Not inclua Significan

Table 6 pprogram Income-SEnergy participaparticipatadditionainclude program.

6 In 2016, nrespectivel

seholds wern, with two en/buying panuseholds tha

in our weig.

Table 5

Demographi

Buying

Lease

ncome

Low-income

ype

amily

e family

on

School or Le

e College or A

elor's Degreeding 3 Tenure =ding 46 Incomeding 4 Educationtly different fro

provides an participation

Single FamServices, Rnt records, ted in at le

al 5% particabout 25% . While on-s

new and panel y) and rent/lea

re demograpexceptions: nel visit houan among ighting sche

5: Panel an

c Character

ess

Associates D

e or Higher = ‘Occupied wite = ‘DK/Refuseon = ‘DK/Refusom new visits a

overview ofn. Based onily Electric,Residential we estimat

east one procipated in 20

of househite technicia

visits had statase households

phically simiThere were

useholds (74panel visiteme, the im

nd New Vis

ristics

Degree

thout payment ed’. sed’. at the 90% conf

f direct-instan an examin Low-IncomLighting, a

e that abouogram each010 or 2011holds that hans asked ho

istically similar s (31% and 30%

lar in terms significantly

4% vs. 66%households

mpact of the

sit Demogr

New

Count

n

n

99

50

n

40

96

n

33

117

n

14

32

103 or rent’

fidence interva

ll program pnation of Home Single-Fand Resideut 4% of theh year from1. Given thihad previououseholds w

proportions of% respectively)

2017 LIGH

of tenure, iy fewer own/

%), and signi(34% vs.

ese differen

raphics Co

w Visits

Percent

= 150

= 149

66%

34%

= 136

30%

70%

= 150

22%

78%

= 149

9%

22%

69%

al

participation ome Energy Family Retrential Multifae household

m 2012 thros, we would

usly participwhether they

f own/buying ho)

HTING MAR

ncome, hom/buying newificantly mor26%). 6 Sinc

nces is min

omparison

Pan

Count

n

n

231

82

n

94

189

n

64

251

n

32

69

211

by visit typeServices E

rofit, Resideamily Retrods in PA seugh 2016, d expect ou

pated in a y had ever pa

ouseholds (69%

KET ASSES

me type, andw householdsre rent/leasece tenure is

nimized afte

nelists

Percent

= 315

= 313

74%a

26% a

= 283

32%

68%

= 315

20%

80%

= 312

10%

22%

68%

e and year oElectric, Lowential Homeofit programervice areasand that an

ur sample todirect-instal

articipated in

% and 70%,

SSMENT

7

d s e s

er

of w-e m s n o ll n


a prograwhen.

To controvisit and direct-insverified p18% congenerallycarefully

T

Year of ProgramParticipa

All Years

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Before 20

Unknown

Non-part

7 Analysis waccount nu

m where so

ol for possibpanelist ho

stall programparticipation nfirmed direy in line with monitor and

able 6: Dir

m ation

N

(

s

011

n year

ticipant

was limited to humbers for hou

meone cam

le response useholds fro

ms and low-in direct-ins

ect-install paexpectation

d investigate

rect-Install

ew Visits [Self-

Report] (n = 150)

29%

5%

5%

11%

5%

1%

1%

2%

1%

71%

households witseholds first vis

me to their ho

bias, we woom 2014, 20income andstall programarticipants ans. Still, thise.

Program P

New Visits

[Verified] (n = 150)

18%

--

8%

6%

3%

1%

0%

0%

--

82%

th first visits in sited in 2013.

omes to inst

orked with th015, and 20 multifamily

ms, we find and that indis an area th

Participatio

Panelists[Self-

Report] (n = 315)

38%

5%

6%

8%

4%

5%

3%

5%

2%

62%

either 2014, 20

2017 LIGH

tall energy-e

he PAs to ve016 against

direct-instathat the comdividual yeahat future st

on by Year

s

)

Panel[Verif(n = 3

18%

1%

4%

2%

2%

2%

<1%

6%

--

82%

015 or 2016 be

HTING MAR

efficient bulb

erify participathe program

all programsmbined samars of partiudies should

r (Unweigh

lists fied] 315)

C[(

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

ecause NMR d

KET ASSES

bs and, if so

ation for newm records fo.7 Looking a

mple includesicipation ared continue to

hted)

Combined [Verified] (n = 465)

18%

<1%

5%

3%

3%

2%

<1%

4%

--

82%

oes not have

SSMENT

8

o,

w or at s e o


1.3.1 E

To assescalculateparticipaparticipa

Sockets Sample STotal SocAvg. # ofIncandesCFLs LED FluorescHalogen Other/DoEmpty So

Effect of Di

ss the effeced overall sants. When nts has a ne

ContainingSize ckets

f Sockets scent

ent

on’t know ockets

rect-Instal

ct direct-instaturation by

rounded tegligible imp

Table 7: C

g (ex

l Participa

tall participabulb type w

o the nearact on the ke

Compariso

2017 xcluding DI)

382 20,384

53 35% 28% 17% 7% 8% 1% 4%

nts on Sat

ants had on with and witrest full peey saturation

on of Satur

2017(includ

DI)465

27,1458

33%29%18%7%8%1%4%

2017 LIGH

turation Es

overall satthout the 83ercent, remn estimates

ration Rate

7 ing Diff

48

% % %

HTING MAR

stimates

uration estim3 confirmed

moving the for CFLs or

es

ference

N/A N/A --

2% 1% 1% -- -- -- --

KET ASSES

mates, NMRdirect-instaldirect-instaLEDs.

2017 (DI Only)

83 6,764

81 25% 33% 24% 7% 7% 1% 2%

SSMENT

9

R ll ll


of New Yand roomawarene

In 20bulbs(41%

Examcomb2009ineffi

In 2combcomb

In Mnearl

New 20142017)

MassSTARincreLED Massdrivin

LED and threeon ho

Sinceremaincrestead

2York, includinm-by-room sass and famil

017, for the s (47%) has

%).

mining databined effici

9 to a highficient bulb

017, New bined efficbined ineffi

Massachusely one out o

York, a st4, also saw 7), although

sachusetts R® LEDs ceased satur

saturation sachusetts ng increase

saturation is highest

e of the fouours of use

e 2009, enained very eased LED sdy.

2 SectionSaturaThe Massapercentage 2003 and ftrends in song overall saaturation. Wliarity with E

first time ins surpasse

a over timeient (CFL, Lh of 54% insaturation (

York conticient saturicient satura

tts, LED saof every five

tate that dra significanot to the s

householdcompared ration of EN

between tprograms

ed adoption

by room tyin kitchens

ur room type, see Sectio

ergy-efficiehigh in m

saturation a

n 2 Ction Ov

achusetts PAof sockets

for all bulb ocket saturataturation, th

We also includNERGY STA

n Massachued that of in

e in MassacLED, and flun 2017) an(from a high

tinues to lration (32%ation (53% v

aturation he (18%) soc

ropped all pant increassame pace

ds had sigto New YoNERGY STAthe two sta

(which sun of LEDs in

ype is incres, dining ropes that havon 1.1.8 and

ent bulb samost room and buoyed

Changever TimAs have befilled with atypes sincetion in Masse saturationde findings fAR.

usetts, satunefficient (i

chusetts, wuorescent)

nd a corresh of 67% to

lag signific% vs. 47%)vs. 41%).

has increasckets was fil

program sue in LED sas that obs

gnificantly ork househAR LEDs coates. This upport onlyn Massachu

easing in boooms, and lve the highd Table 12).

aturation intypes iden

d by CFL sa

2017 LIGH

es in Some

een trackinga specific bue 2009. In tsachusetts an of ENERGYfrom the con

uration of eincandesce

we observesaturation

sponding d a low of 41

cantly behi%) and has

sed six-foldilled with an

upport for saturation (served in Ma

higher saholds (10% omprises this compell

y ENERGY usetts comp

oth Massacliving spac

hest hours o.

n Massachuntified. Thi

aturation rat

HTING MAR

ocket

g socket saulb type) forthis section,and the comY STAR-quansumer surv

efficient (CFnt and halo

e a steady (from a low

decrease in1% in 2017).

ind Massacs significan

d since 201n LED.

residential (7% in 2016assachuset

aturation ovs. 4%). I

the entire dling eviden

Y STAR propared to New

chusetts ances; notablyof use (for

usetts has is trend istes that hav

KET ASSES

turation (ther CFLs since we exploreparison areaalified LEDs

vey related to

FL and LED)ogen) bulbs

increase inw of 32% inn combined.

chusetts inntly highe

14; in 2017

lighting by6 to 10% intts.

of ENERGYIn fact, the

difference innce that theoducts) arew York.

d New Yorky, these aremore detai

doubled os driven byve remained

SSMENT

10

e e e a s, o

D) s

n n d

n r

7,

y n

Y e n e e

k e il

r y d


2.1 SA

Figure 1understawas not cincrease inefficienefficient halogen)over the LED satu2015 to 1

8 Given theprovide est

ATURATION

11 shows snding trendscompleted. Tin efficient

nt bulb satu(CFL and L

)8 bulbs (41%same timef

uration has i12% in 2016

e difficulty in distimates for eac

N BY HOUS

saturation fos, we have The figure cbulb saturaration (dotte

LED) bulbs (%). LED adframe, CFL ncreased si

6 to 18% in 2

Figure 11

stinguishing hach separately a

SEHOLD or all bulbsinterpolated

clearly showsation (dotteded orange l(47%) has soption drivesaturation

gnificantly e2017.

: MA Satur

alogen bulbs frond combined.

s types fromd data to reps that Massa

d green line)line). In 201surpassed thes the increadecreased s

each year sin

ration Rate

om regular inca

2017 LIGH

m 2009 thrpresent 201achusetts ha) and a cor17, for the hat of inefficase in efficislightly fromnce 2014, fr

es 2009-20

andescent bulb

HTING MAR

rough 20171, a year was experiencrresponding first time, s

cient (incanient bulb sa

m 33% to 29rom 3% in 20

017

bs, throughout

KET ASSES

7. To aid inwhen a studyced a steadydecrease in

saturation odescent and

aturation, as9%. Notably014 to 6% in

this report we

SSMENT

11

n y y n

of d s, y, n


Table 8 pfor efficiedifferencadditionasaturatioAppendix

Massach

• L2

• Csa2

• In3da

• Ls

• Hbidlikd

• CasaM

• Cfo

• Cfif

• S(atos

9 Specialtynon-A-line

provides theent and ineffes between

al highlights n broken dx B.

husetts

LED saturatio017 (3% to

CFL saturatioaturation ha9% in 2017.

ncandescen3%) betweeecreased repproximately

Linear fluorince 2015.

Halogen satuulbs are ver

dentify halogkely halogenata separate

Combined Cnd significaaturation a

Massachuset

Combined eor more than

Combined infths (41%) o

Specialty buany CFL thao 11% in 20pecialty, spe

bulbs include:LED, incandes

e same data icient bulb ty years and regarding sown by de

on has incre18%).

on increasedas steadily d

nt saturationen 2009 and elatively froy four perce

escent satu

uration remary similar in gen bulbs bun, and vice vely and com

CFL and LEantly higher accounted ftts, while in 2

fficient (CFn one-half (5

nefficient (iof all sockets

ulb saturatioat is not twis014 and hasecialty satura

three-way bulscent and halog

shown in Fypes, speciastates. It a

aturation bymographics

eased sharp

d steadily froeclined (rela

n has decre2017. The p

om 2016 tontage points

uration has

ained at 8%appearance

ut recognizeversa. Therebined.)

ED saturatiothan in 20

for more t2017 it acco

FL, LED, an4%) of all so

ncandesces in Massach

on has hovest/spiral) sats remained ation has rem

bs of any kind,gen bulbs, and

igure 11 as alty bulb satualso presentsy state are s

can be fou

ply since 201

om 2009 to 2atively but n

eased twentpercent of soo 2017, wits.

declined by

in 2017. (Ne. We makee that some efore, we pr

on in 2017 is015 (38%). than one-qunted for ne

d linear fluockets.

nt and halohusetts, dow

ered arounduration incresteady sinc

mained stea

dimmable CFLd non-twist/spira

2017 LIGH

well as comuration,9 ands data for Nummarized und in Tab

14, increasin

2014; after pnot significan

ty-nine percockets filled th an aver

y one perce

Note that hae every effo

bulbs labelresent all inc

s higher (47In 2009, c

quarter (26%early one-ha

uorescent) b

ogen) bulbswn 26 percen

d 40% sinceeased signifce. If we exady at around

Ls and fluorescal CFLs.

HTING MAR

mbined saturd notations foNew York. Sbelow. Furt

ble 60 and

ng six-fold f

peaking in 2ntly) each ye

centage poiwith incande

rage annua

entage poin

logen and inrt to train teled as incancandescent

7%) than in combined e%) of all lf (47%) of a

bulbs in 201

s in 2017 fillntage points

e 2009. Spficantly fromxclude A-lined 8%.

cents, circline f

KET ASSES

ration figuresfor significanSome of theher detail onTable 62 in

from 2014 to

2014 at 33%ear, down to

nts (62% toescent bulbsl decline o

nt each yea

ncandescenechnicians tondescent areand halogen

2016 (43%efficient bulb

sockets inall sockets.

7 accounted

ed only twosince 2009.

ecialty CFL 4% in 2009

e CFLs from

fluorescents,

SSMENT

12

s nt e n n

o

%, o

o s

of

ar

nt o e n

) b n

d

o-.

L 9

m


• SsL2

New Yor

• LslMso

• CCsdin

• InM

• C(3lith

• Ch

Specialty Lignificantly fEDs were re4% were glo

rk

LED saturatiolower rate t

Massachusetockets in Ne

CFL saturatioCFL saturatioignificantly ecrease in

ncentives in

ncandescenMassachuset

Combined C32%) than innear fluore

han in Massa

Combined iigher in New

ED saturatifrom 5% in eflectors (56obe shaped

on in New Ythan in Mastts during thew York in 2

on has diveon has remalower than New York the state.

nt saturationtts (33%).

CFL and LEn Massachusescent) satuachusetts (5

inefficient w York (42%

ion (LEDs 2016 to 8%

6%) and one(8%), three-

York has incssachusetts e same peri017 than the

erged betweained largely

CFL saturCFL satura

n in 2017 wa

ED saturatiosetts (47%);

uration in 2054%).

(incandesc%) than in Ma

that are n% in in 2017e-fifth (21%) -way A-line (

creased stea(1% to 10%

iod). Additioey did in Mas

een New Yoy stable in Nration in Mation is conc

as significan

n in 2017 w; likewise, co017 was sig

ent and hassachusetts

2017 LIGH

not A-line s7. In 2017, t

were candle(5%) and oth

adily since 2% in New Y

onally, LEDsssachusetts

ork and Masew York sinassachusettcurrent with

ntly higher i

was significaombined efnificantly low

halogen) sas (41%).

HTING MAR

shaped) hathe majority e shaped; thher (6%).

2013, thougYork vs. 2%

s filled signifs (10% vs 18

ssachusetts nce 2013 andts (29%) inh the phase

n New York

antly lower ifficient (CFLwer in New

aturation is

KET ASSES

s increased of specialtyhe remaining

h at a much% to 18% inicantly fewe

8%).

since 2013d, at 22%, is

n 2017. Thee-out of CFL

k (44%) than

in New YorkL, LED, and

w York (41%

significantly

SSMENT

13

d y g

h n

er

3. s e L

n

k d )

y


S

S

T

Ah

I

C

F

H

L

O

C

CF

IH

A

A

Ai

A*

*

*

ta

b

Sockets Contain

Sample Size

Total Sockets

Avg. Sockets pehousehold

Incandescent

CFLs

Fluorescent

Halogen

LEDs**

Other***

CFLs + LEDs

CFLs + LEDs + Fluorescents

Incandescents + Halogen

Any specialty bulb

Any specialty CFL

Any specialty CFLncluding A-line C

Any specialty LED* One household in ** The LED category***Other includes xetypes. a Significantly differb Significantly differ

ning 2009

100

3,709

er 46

62%

26%

6%

5%

<1%

<1%

26%

32%

67%

b 30%

L 4%

L (not CFLs)

-

D <1% NY with 62 bulbs iny includes both LED

enon bulbs, metal h

rent from MA 2009 rent from MA 2010

Table 8:

2010 2012

150 15

6,741 6,56

45 4

57% 53

26% 27

9% 8

7% 11%

<1% 1

1%

26% 28

35% 36

64% 64

31% 48%

7% 8

- 7

- 1nstalled was removD bulbs and integraalide, sodium, emp

at the 90% confideat the 90% confide

Comparison

Massach

2 2013 2

51 150

65 6,341 13

44 42

% 55% 45

% 28%

% 9%

%a 5%c

% 2%ab

- 2%ac 4

% 30% 3

% 39% 4

% 60%

%ab 38% 4

% 8%

% 6%

% 2%ved from the analysated LED fixtures.pty sockets, and un

ence level. ence level.

of Saturation

husetts

2014 2015

261 354

3,550 18,398

49 52

5%abd 43%abcd

33% 32%

9% 9%

6%c 6%c

3%ab 6%abcde

4%abc 4%abc

36%ab 38%abcd

45%ab 47%abcd

51% 49%

40%ab 42%ab

11%a 10%a

9% 8%

2% 4%sis.

known bulb

c

d

e

f g

h

2017 L

Rates, 2009-2

2016 2

420

24,219 2

54

37%abcdef 33

31%

8%

8%

12%abcdef 18%

4%b

43%abcde 47

51%abcd 54

45%abcd 41

42%ab

11%ab

8%

5% 8Significantly differeSignificantly differeSignificantly differeSignificantly differeSignificantly differeSignificantly differe

LIGHTING MAR

14

2017

2017 2013

465 127

27,148 6,181

58 49

%abcdef 53%gh

29% 26%

7% 11%

8% 4%gh

%abcdefg 1%gh

4%ab 5%

%abcdef 27%gh

%abcdef 38%gh

%abcdef 57%gh

44%ab 38%

10%a 6%g

8% 5%

%acdefg 1%h

ent from MA 2012 aent from MA 2013 aent form MA 2014 aent from MA 2015 aent from MA 2016 aent from MA 2017 a

RKET ASSESSM

New York

2015* 2016

101 15

6,171 9,85

62 5

51%gh 46%

22%fg 24%

12% 12%

8% 8

3%gh 7%

5% 5

25%fgh 30%

37%fgh 42%

59%gh 54%

37% 33%

5%fgh 5%

4%gh 4%

2%h 3%at the 90% confidenat the 90% confidenat the 90% confidenat the 90% confidenat the 90% confidenat the 90% confiden

MENT

6 2017

50 255

54 15,792

56 62

%gh 44%h

%g 22%h

%h 9%

8% 9%

%gh 10%h

5% 6%

%gh 32%h

%gh 41%h

%gh 53%h

%gh 39%

%gh 4%h

%gh 3%h

%h 3%h

nce level. nce level. nce level. nce level. nce level. nce level.


NarrowinsaturatiosaturatioFollowingcompare

Figure 132009 to 2CFLs andid inefficone-half (41%). Tsince 20are reversaturatioinefficien

ng our focun in Massan was signifg from thisd to New Yo

Fi

3 isolates M2017. In thisd LEDs, 201cient bulbs (of all socke

The figure als13. The figursed in 2017n in Massa

nt saturation

s to just 2achusetts cficantly highe, incandescork (33% vs.

gure 12: M

Massachusets figure, effic16 was the f(46%); in 20ts (54%), whso shows Nre shows th

7, with inefficchusetts (54in Massach

2017 (Figurecompared toer in Massaccent saturat 44%).

MA & NY Sa

tts inefficiencient includefirst year tha017, this trenhile inefficieew York ineat efficient acient saturat4%) and effusetts (41%

e 12), we o New Yorchusetts comion in Mas

aturation 2

t bulb and ees linear fluoat efficient bnd has contint bulbs fille

efficient bulband inefficiention in Newficient satur).

2017 LIGH

observed sk (18% vsmpared to Nsachusetts

2017 - Weig

efficient bulborescents. Wbulbs filled minued with e

ed only two ob and efficiennt saturationYork (53%)

ration in Ne

HTING MAR

significantly . 10%). Simew York (29was signifi

ghted

b saturationWhen these amore socketsefficient bulbout of every nt bulb satun between th nearly equa

ew York (41

KET ASSES

higher LEDmilarly, CFL9% vs. 22%)cantly lowe

trends fromare added tos (51%) thanbs filling ove

five socketsration trends

he two statesal to efficien%) equal to

SSMENT

15

D L ).

er

m o n

er s s s

nt o


F

Given thehas or mthis is ntechnologmarket fomarket aadopted adoptionnow.

Figure 1through 2increasedpercentaflattened

Given thCFLs (sstandard

igure 13: E

e rapid incremay soon reanot the firstgy. The Maor over a d

at a time whenow. The tim, it is a perio

4 compares2017. As thed at similarge points). . In contrast

e advantagee Section s for lightin

Efficient vs

ease in LEDach a point ot time evalussachusetts

decade, whicen CFLs weme series daod of rapid C

s CFL adope data showr average pHowever, a, so far the L

es of LEDs5: Familiar

ng—as well

s. Inefficien

D saturation, of transformauators haves PAs have ch gives usere being adata go back CFL adoptio

tion from 20w, in the resppaces (3.5%after 2007,LED saturati

s over CFLsrity and Saas changes

nt Bulb Sat

casual obseation. Howeve observed been carefu

s the ability dopted at a s

to 2003. Won—similar to

003 throughpective grow% per year)CFL saturaion growth h

s, customerstisfaction), ts to the EN

2017 LIGH

turation Ra

ervers may ver, it is imprapid adop

ully studyingto look bac

similar pacehile this is no what we a

h 2008 to Lwth periods, C) with ident

ation growth has shown n

s’ stated prethe increase

NERGY STA

HTING MAR

ates 2009-

assume thaportant to reption of a g the resideck at a snae to how LEDnot quite the are observin

ED adoptionCFL and LEtical overall

slowed ano signs of sl

eference fores in feder

AR specifica

KET ASSES

2017

at the markemember thanew lighting

ential lightingpshot of theDs are beingstart of CFL

ng with LEDs

n from 2012ED saturation

growth (17d eventuallylowing.

r LEDs overal efficiencyations, which

SSMENT

16

et at g g e g L s

2 n 7 y

er y h


effectivelmanufacsaturatiofollowed market is

It took 11may takesaturatioyet been

2.2 CO

Figure 152017, forshow no albeit at MassachMassachdecline inin 2017 iin both st

ly precludeturers—we n. When exby a leveli

s transforme

1 years (200e less timen in New Yotransformed

F

OMPARISO

5 shows Mar incandescegrowth in ea faster pa

husetts comphusetts comn incandescis significanttates in 2017

e CFL quaexpect that

xamining theng off sugg

ed.

03 to 2014) fo for LEDs

ork and 18%d.

Figure 14: C

N AREA assachusettsents, halogeither state sace in Masspared to Nepared to Nent saturatiotly higher th7.

alification aLEDs are p

e market, wegests some

or CFLs to ato reach th

% in Massach

Comparing

s and New Yns, CFLs, aince 2013, wsachusetts. ew York. Simew York inon since 201an in Massa

and the apoised evene think the caution in j

achieve a sahis level of husetts, we

g CFL and

York bulb sand LEDs. Wwhile LEDs 2017 LED

milarly, CFL 2015, 201

13, though inachusetts. H

2017 LIGH

bandonmenntually to suhistory of thjumping to

aturation of oadoption, bdo not belie

LED Adop

aturation for When looking

have increasaturation i

L saturation 6, and 201ncandescenHalogen satu

HTING MAR

nt of CFLsurpass CFLshe CFL’s rathe conclus

one-third of abut with onleve the mark

ption

2013, and 2g at efficient sed significas significanis significan7. Both stat saturation uration rema

KET ASSES

s by somes in terms opid adoption

sion that the

all sockets. Iy 10% LEDket has as o

2015 throughbulbs, CFLs

antly in bothtly higher in

ntly higher inates show ain New York

ained steady

SSMENT

17

e of n e

It D of

h s

h, n n a k y


2.2.1 E

For the 2screw-bafixtures, numbersLEDs obprovides saturatiointo three

• E

• N

• In

As the dhigher a4%). Intlevels for(3% in Mprovide MassachLEDs. N

Fi

ENERGY ST

2017 Market ase LED bu

CFLs, inca and the lis

bserved durithe results

n figures foe distinct cat

ENERGY STA

Non-ENERGY

ntegrated LE

data show, imong Massterestingly, fr non-ENERMassachuseincentives o

husetts progote that sta

igure 15: M

TAR® LED

Assessmenulbs (althougandescents, st of ENERng the 2017

s of this anar 2009 to 20tegories:

AR qualified

Y STAR qua

ED fixtures

n 2017, ENsachusetts hfor the seco

RGY STAR Letts and 2%only for ENEgrams are darting Janua

MA & NY B

D Saturatio

nt, while on sgh we did n

linear fluoGY STAR®7 on-site visalysis for M017 to help

d

alified

ERGY STAhouseholds nd year in a

LEDs (5%) a in New YoERGY STA

directly leadry 1, 2017,

ulb Satura

n

site, technicinot collect morescents, o

®-qualified Lsits were E

Massachusetprovide con

AR LED satucompared t

a row, the twand nearly thork). Since R LEDs, thing to increENERGY S

2017 LIGH

ation 2013-

ians collectemodel numbor halogens

LED bulbs, wNERGY STtts and Newntext. We se

uration contito New Yorwo states hahe same forthe Massac

his is compeeased adoptSTAR 2.0 o

HTING MAR

-2017

ed model nubers for intes). Using twe determin

TAR qualifiedw York as weparated LE

inued to be rk householdave the samr integrated chusetts PAelling evidention of ENEfficially wen

KET ASSES

mbers for aegrated LEDhese modened whethed. Figure 16well as LED

ED saturation

significantlyds (10% vs

me saturationLED fixtures

As’ programsnce that the

ERGY STARnt into effect

SSMENT

18

ll D el er 6 D n

y s. n s s e R t,


relaxing not reflecJanuary

2.2.2 L

To betteras part obulbs as earlier, lMassachfluoresceis signific

10 Recent cmajority of specificatio

some of thected in the r2017.10

Figu

Linear Fluo

r understandof the 2016T4, T5, T8,

inear fluorehusetts and ents in both Mcantly higher

changes to ENthe 2017 on-s

ons were allowe

e criteria for results of th

ure 16: MA with ENE

orescent Sa

d opportunit6 and 2017 or T12 basscents acco9% in New

Massachuser in Massach

ERGY STAR site visits do nowed to qualify as

LED bulbs. he site visits

& NY LEDERGY STAR

aturation

ies for increon-site effoed on a sim

ounted for aw York hometts and Newhusetts than

specifications mw qualify as of s ENERGY ST

The full effe, which took

D Bulb SatuR LEDs in

ased efficieorts, technic

mple measureabout 7% o

mes. As Tabw York were

in New Yor

mean that someJanuary 2, 201AR prior to the

2017 LIGH

ects of this sk place betw

uration 2002016 & 201

ncy among cians categoement of bu

of all bulbs ble 9 shows T12 in 2017k (8% vs 4%

e LEDs that did17, though LED

e new specifica

HTING MAR

specificationween Octob

09-2017 17

linear fluoreorized linearulb diameterin residenti

s, the major7. Notably, T

%).

d not qualify duDs that met the

ation’s effective

KET ASSES

n change areer 2016 and

escent bulbsr fluorescen. As detailedal homes inrity of lineaT5 saturation

uring the e new e date.

SSMENT

19

e d

s, nt d n

ar n


Still, thehousehoof this op7% in Mkits and associaterepresenballast re

2.2.3 S

Table 10incandesstatisticafindings o

• Ins

• EinDvs

• TsCsavs

ere appearslds to replacpportunity isassachusettreplacemened with T12

nts a higher eplacements

Size Sample Siz# of bulbs T4 T5 T8 T12 Don’t knowa Significantlyb Significantly

Saturation b

0 examinesscent and hlly significanon saturation

ncome – Lignificantly h

Education – ncandescentDegree or Hs. 12% for L

Tenure – Whignificantly l

CFLs; 10% aturation was. 41%).

s to be soce T12 lights small in cots—or aboutt bulbs are g

2 fluorescenlevel of eff

s, for which a

Table 9

ze

w y different fromy different from

by Demog

s saturation halogen bulbnt differencen across sel

ED saturatihigher than i

Massachust and haloge

Higher level LEDs; 42% v

hen comparower in Newvs. 20% fo

as significan

ome opporting with hig

omparison tot 4% of the generally no

nt lighting. Rfort and addan electrician

: Installed

Ma2042

1,5-

7%29622%

m correspondingm 2016 at the 90

raphics

across debs, focusing

e between Mect demogra

on among n New York

setts LED saen saturationof education

vs. 54% for c

red to Massw York amoor LEDs); sntly higher a

tunity to imher efficienco the overallmarket),. F

ot compatiblReplacing oditional costn must assis

Linear Flu

assachusett16 201

20 46593 1,63- --% 8%

9% 29%2% 57%% 6%g year in MA at0% confidence

emographicsg only on th

Massachusettaphic variab

low-incomelow-income

aturation wan was signifin than its co

combined inc

sachusetts, bong own/buyimilarly, com

among New

2017 LIGH

mprove efficcy alternativl residential inally, lineare with older

older linear ts since it ost.

uorescents

ts N17 201

65 15039 914- <1%% 3%% 26%% 67%

% b 4%t the 90% conf

e level.

s for CFLs,hose wherets and New

bles, see App

e householde households

as significanticantly lowerounterpart gcandescent

both CFL anying housembined incaYork own/b

HTING MAR

ciency by es. Howevelighting ma

r fluorescenr magnetic bfluorescentsoften require

s New York 6 2017

0 2554 4,130% <1%

a 4% a

% 33%% 59%

% 4% fidence level.

LEDs, ane LED satur

York. For mpendix B.

ds in Masss (13% vs. 4

tly higher anr among the

group in Newand halogen

nd LED satuholds (20% andescent abuying house

KET ASSES

encouraginger, the extenrket (57% o

nt conversionballasts oftens with LEDses fixture o

7 5 0

% a

% %

d combinedration had a

more detailed

achusetts is4%).

nd combinede Bachelor’sw York (21%ns).

uration werevs. 28% fo

and halogeneholds (55%

SSMENT

20

g nt of n n s

or

d a d

s

d s

%

e or n

%


Tabl

Demogr

Low-inco

BachelorHigher

Own/Buy

*Significan

2.3 SA

Table 11saturatiospecialtyshaped band incaLED satu

In compacategorie

Feature Bullet/ToCandle Globe ReflectorDimmabl3-way

Feature Bullet/ToCandle Globe ReflectorDimmabl3-way

e 10: Dem

raphics

ome

r’s Degree o

ying

tly different fro

ATURATION

shows satun in Massa

y applicationbulbs is loweandescent auration for al

arison, LEDes. This is no

Table

orpedo

r/Flood le

orpedo

r/Flood le

ographics

State MA NY

r MA NY MA NY

m Massachuse

N OF SPEC

uration by laachusetts wns. LED sater. This maylternatives il categories

D saturation ot surprising

11: Satura

# of bulbs 720

2,773 1,218 4,293 2,526 785

# of bulbs 453

1,502 801

2,243 725 241

with StatisSatu

Sample Siz134 64

314 191 330 188

etts at the 90%

IALTY SOC

amp shape awas highest

uration for y be a bypron these catexcept cand

in New Yog given the lo

ation of Sp

LEDs

12% 16% 13% 30% 24% 15%

LEDs

8% 8% 4%

11% 9% 7%

stically Siguration

ze CFL35%29%26%20%28%20%

% confidence lev

CKETS and specialtamong reflbullet (12%duct of greategories. CFdle, reflector

ork lags behower overall

ecialty Soc

Massac

CFLs

18%4%

22%19%10%39%New

CFLs

4%1%5%

11%9%

20%

2017 LIGH

gnificant D

Ls L% % % % % %*

vel

ty features. lector (30%

%), candle (1ater availabilFL saturationr, and dimma

hind Massacsaturation o

ckets by B

chusetts

s Halo

% 541

% 1% 23% 16% 5w York

s Halo

6212

% 2913

% 8

HTING MAR

Differences

LEDs 13% 4%*

21% 12%* 20% 10%*

As the data) and dimm16%), and glity of tradition remained able.

chusetts in of LEDs in N

Bulb Type

ogens Inc

4% % %

3% 6% %

ogens Inc

2% % %

9% 3% %

KET ASSES

s in LED

Incan+Halo38% 49% 42% 54%* 41% 55%*

a show, LEDmable (24%globe (13%onal halogen

higher than

all specialtyNew York.

candescents

16% 79% 64% 28% 50% 41%

candescents

26% 90% 89% 49% 69% 65%

SSMENT

21

o

D ) ) n n

y

s

s


2.4 RO

In this sconsiderapresent igenerallysomewha

As FigurCFLs anbulbs; aMassachcomprisehighest aenergy-espaces (specialty

As in 201the roomspecialty

Figur

OOM-BY-Rsection, we ation when ein each rooy significantlat limited.

re 17 showsnd fluorescend non-twis

husetts housed about thramong all roefficient bulb(51%), and y bulb satura

16, utility room types withy bulb satura

re 17: Spec

ROOM SATU

explore saexamining sm type. Thiy more expe

s, specialty snts; circline st/spiral CFLseholds in ee-fifths of a

oom types. Es, as shownfoyers (50%

ation.

oms (24%), h the lowestation increas

cialty Bulb

URATION Aaturation by aturation bys is importaensive, and

sockets—incfluorescent

Ls—compris2017, up sall sockets i

Exteriors andn in Figure 1%) are the

basements t saturation ed significan

b Saturatio

ANALYSIS

room categroom type i

ant becausethe selectio

cluding threes; non-A-lin

sed just oveslightly from n dining roo

d dining room18 and discuonly other r

(24%), garaof specialty

ntly since 20

n by Room

2017 LIGH

gory and bs the propor

e CFL and Lon of efficien

e-way bulbse LED, incaer two-fifths

2016. In 2oms (61%) ams also hadussed belowroom types

ages (18%), y bulbs in 2016 for each

m Type, Ma

HTING MAR

bulb type. Artion of specLED specialnt specialty b

s of any kinandescent, as (44%) of 2017, speciand exterior

d the lowest w. Kitchens

with greate

and closets2017; howevof these roo

assachuse

KET ASSES

An importancialty socketslty bulbs arebulbs can be

d; dimmableand halogenall bulbs in

ialty socketsrs (59%), thesaturation o(56%), livinger than 50%

s (16%) werever, notablyom types.

etts 2017

SSMENT

22

nt s e e

e n n s e of g

%

e y,


Figure 1and lineaand 201Massachinterpola

In Massahas steasaturatio(54%), onearly qubulb satufrom kitcfoyer [47in LED sefficient b2017, thsaturatiobasis.13

Massach

• L(1ntyro(2(1rothTra

• CeoLhin

11 Linear flu12 Note: so13 InconsisMassachus

8 provides aar fluorescen3 to 2017

husetts andtion.12

achusetts, sadily increasn has doub

offices (61%uadrupled inuration overachens. As of7%], and othsaturation inbulb saturatie uptick in n, as CFL s

husetts – Tr

LEDs. Prior t1-2%) or nonearly every

ype except coom types: 26%), exteri17%), and “ooms, and lihe highest h

Table 13). Giate of burn o

CFLs. Althounergy-efficieutpaced CFED, 18% Cas increased

n the other n

uorescent satuocket counts bytencies in datasetts.

an overviewnt11) bulb sat

for New Yd 2014 in

imilar to trened in most bled—or mo), dining roo bathrooms all (Figure 1f 2017, all bher [49%]) ha these roomion were ledoverall satuaturation rat

rends by Te

to 2014, satunexistent. Inroom type.

closets (9%)bedrooms

ors (18%), d“other” roomving spaces

hours of useven the high

out.

ugh LED usent bulb typFL saturationFL) and kitcd slightly in nine room ty

ration not incluy room type area collection prio

w of CFL, LEturation by roYork. For y

New Yor

nds at the hroom types ore—in garoms (39%), (54%). In 207) had not yut four of thad crossed

ms (Figure 1d primarily byuration ratestes have rem

echnology

uration ratesn the years s

As of 2017). LED satur(16%), bathdining room

ms (17%). Ls; notably, the (for more her HOUs, it

se has sharppe installed n for the firschens (26%five of 14 roypes studied

uded in figure. e available in Tor to 2014 may

ED, and comoom type froyears with k), estimat

household lesince 2009

rages (60%hallways (5

016, nine of yet reached hese rooms the 50% thr

18). Prior to y CFLs. Stars has primamained cons

s for LEDs insince, LED s7, LED saturration rates hrooms (20s (21%), ha

LED saturatihese are thrdetail on ho

t is likely tha

ply increasein most roost time in tw

% LED, 24% oom types, bd. In kitchen

able 61, which in part explain

2017 LIGH

mbined eneom 2009 to 2missing da

tes were b

evel, energy-9. In particul), bedrooms

55%), and eten rooms w50% efficie(exterior [43

reshold, due 2013, increrting in 2013

arily been dustant or decl

n all room tysaturation haration is aboare 15% or

0%), living sallways (19%on was hig

ree of the foours of use

at these room

ed, CFLs remom types. Inwo room typ CFL). Sinc

but has declns (24%) an

can be found some of the u

HTING MAR

ergy-efficient2017 for Ma

ata (2010 abased on

-efficient bular, energy-es (53%), liv

exteriors (43with the highnt bulb satu3%], dining e to significaeases in ove3 and continue to increained on a ro

pes were eitas doubled ove 10% inr higher in tspaces (21%%), offices (2hest in kitcur room typ, see Sectio

ms also have

main the mn 2017, LEpes: dining ce 2016, CFined or staynd “other” ro

in Appendix Cneven trend lin

KET ASSES

t (CFL, LEDssachusetts

and 2011 instraight-line

lb saturationefficient bulbving spaces%), and has

hest specialtyuration, aside

room [39%]ant increaseserall energyuing throughases in LEDoom-by-room

ther very loweach year in every roomen out of 14%), kitchens20%), foyershens, dininges that have

on 1.1.8 ande the highes

ost commonD saturationrooms (21%

FL saturationed the sameooms (22%)

. nes in

SSMENT

23

D, s, n e

n b s s y e ], s

y-h D m

w n

m 4 s s g e d st

n n

% n e ),


2w

A compaMassachEnergy-eoutpacingenergy-eYork. Deexplain tAppendix

017 CFL satwas conducte

arison of 2husetts and efficient bulbg New York

efficient bulbeclining CFLhe lower effx F.

turation droped.

2013 saturatNew York

b saturation k energy-eff saturation iL saturationficient bulb s

pped below

tion rates bhad very

in Massachficient bulb is higher for and smallesaturation in

levels obser

by room resimilar ene

husetts contsaturation ineach room

er per-year New York.

2017 LIGH

rved in 2009

eveals that, ergy-efficienttinued to incn nearly evtype in Masincreases iFor more d

HTING MAR

9, the first ye

for most t bulb satucrease from

very room tyssachusetts in LED satu

details, see F

KET ASSES

ear this study

room typesration rates

m 2013-2017ype. Overallthan in New

uration ratesFigure 50 in

SSMENT

24

y

s, s. 7, l, w s n


Figure 18: Energy-Efficiient Bulb SMassa

Saturation achusetts

2017 LIGH

by Room T

HTING MAR

Type, 2009

KET ASSES

9-2017,

SSMENT

25


2017 LIGHHTING MARKET ASSES

SSMENT

26


extremelthe markpurchaseinstalled,with LED

LED to 61at 48

LED (47%garag

Incanto 96arou

ExterhourwereMass

Ineffigenepeneto 52

CFL droppointdeclimark

The mbulbscurreprogenerg

3y important ket and thae LEDs and, higher satu

Ds are import

penetration1%; New Yo8%, has not

penetration%), living sp

ges (23%), u

ndescent p6% in 2017nd 95%.

riors, kitchers of use be among sachusetts

ficient bulberal decreasetration sinc2%) and hall

penetratioped the mots) and kitcine in CFL ket.

most comms in main ently instal

gram could gy-efficient

3 SectioIn this sectihomes usintypes, incluwell as famsaturation, indicator of

at the progrd expand thuration ratestant market

n in Massacork LED pen

reached th

n is increaspaces (46%)utility room

enetration 7. In Massa

ens, and livbased on th

the four in 2017.

b (incandesse over the ce 2009 obslways (76%

n in all roost (nine phens (five psaturation

mon reason living spa

lled bulbs engage thi

t bulbs but h

n 3 Pon, we explo

ng at least ouding a roo

miliarity and sat this stagLED progra

ram is gettihe number s will followindicators fo

chusetts innetration lae Massachu

sing across), bathroom

ms (20%), an

in New Yorachusetts,

ving spaceshe Northeasroom type

scent and past few ye

served in of% to 52%).

oom types ercentage ppercentagesand is expe

for not repaces was t

with CFLsis segment has not yet

Penetraore trends inone of a pam-by-room satisfaction ge of LED mam success. ng people and divers

w suit. Similaor LED progr

ncreased siggs behind Musetts 2016

s all room tyms (46%) annd closets (

rk decreaseincandesce

s, the three st Residentes with L

halogen bears, with thffices (81%

declined ipoints), folls points). Tected to co

placing ineffthat the hos or LEDs

of the popt.

2017 LIGH

ation n penetrationarticular bulbpenetration with LEDs amarket adoPenetrationto try LEDsity of sockearly, awarenrams.

gnificantly Massachus

6 penetratio

types, but isnd kitchens(17%).

ed significaent penetra

room typestial LightingLED penet

bulbs) penehe biggest dto 53%), fo

in 2017; pllowed by o

This finding ontinue as C

fficient bulbomeowner

in the futpulation tha

HTING MAR

n (i.e., the pb type) for analysis ov

and CFLs. Iption, penet

n shows advs; as more ets in whicness of and

since 2016—setts signifion rate.

s highest ins (42%), an

antly from 9ation remai

s that have g Hours-oftration ove

etration hadrop in inef

ollowed by f

enetration offices (six is in line w

CFLs begin

bs with enerhad plans ture. A buat is open t

KET ASSES

ercentage ovarious bulbver time, asn addition totration is an

vancement inhouseholds

h LEDs ared satisfaction

6—from 51%icantly, and

n bedroomsnd lowest in

99% in 2016ined steady

the highesf-Use studyer 40% in

s shown afficient bulbfoyers (77%

in garagespercentage

with a steadyn to exit the

rgy-efficiento replace

ulb buybackto installing

SSMENT

27

of b s o n n s e n

% d,

s n

6 y

st y, n

a b

%

s e y e

nt e k g


3.1 BU

Figure 19study in shown as

• L2eh(f

• Chto

• IninIn9

• HNa

14 In 2016, data collec

ULB PENET

9 shows pe2014, penets faded.

LED penetrat013 in both ach year, womes, up frofrom 30% to

o Even more LED; exper

CFL penetrataving remai

o 93% in 201

ncandescenncandescentncandescent6% in 2017.

Halogens weNew York in 2

significant j

we increased ction screening

TRATION netration bytration for th

tion, not surstates. In M

with at least om 51% in 248%), but w

though penthan one-ththerefore, thience.

tion decreasned steady a17.

nt penetratit penetratiot penetration

ere found in 2017, halogeump from 56

our efforts to dprocesses.

y bulb type fhat year is e

prisingly, haMassachuset

one LED p2016. LED p

was still sign

netration hashird of househe quality of

sed by one pat 96% since

ion remaineon increasen in New Yo

two-thirds (6ens were fou6% in 2016.1

differentiate hal

from 2013 toestimated us

as increasedtts, LED penresent in mopenetration iificantly lowe

s increased eholds in Mf LEDs is sti

percentage pe 2013; CFL

ed high ind slightly

ork decrease

67%) of all hund in nearly14

ogen bulbs fro

2017 LIGH

o 2017; as sing straight-

d the most onetration haore than sixin New Yorker than in M

rapidly, it isassachusettill important

point in MasL penetration

n both statto 95% of

ed significan

homes in May three-quar

om incandescen

HTING MAR

there was n-line interpo

ut of all bulbas increasedx out of ten k also increaassachusett

s important ts have yet to avoid a n

ssachusetts n in New Yo

tes. In Maf householdntly from 99%

assachusettrters (72%) o

nt bulbs, includ

KET ASSES

no New Yorkolation and is

b types since significantly(61%) of a

ased in 2017ts.

to note thato install an

negative firs

in 2017 afteork increased

ssachusettsds in 2017% in 2016 to

ts in 2017. Inof all homes

ding some post

SSMENT

28

k s

e y ll 7

at n st

er d

s, 7. o

n s,

t-


3.1.1 R

In additiincandesWhen catype. Forone LED

LED Pen

As Figurepenetratimost com(46%), ba

Hours ofstudy,15 ithree roo

15 NMR, No

Room-by-R

ion to housscent and haalculating per example, i installed in

netration

e 20 shows,on in all roommon placeathrooms (4

f use by rois presentedom types tha

ortheast Reside

Figur

Room Analy

sehold-levelalogen penenetration byn 2017, 148garages, wh

, LED penetm types has

e to install a46%), and kit

om type, bad in Table 8at have the h

ential Lighting

e 19: MA a

ysis

penetratioetration by roy room type, 8 homes hadhich calculat

tration has ins at least doat least one tchens (42%

ased on the8. Importanhighest hour

Hours-of-Use S

and NY Pen

n, we exaoom type frowe included

d garages, ates to a 23%

ncreased in ubled since LED (47%)

%).

e Northeasttly, exteriorsrs of use, we

Study, 2014. h

2017 LIGH

netration

mined LEDom 2009 to d only homeand 34 of th

% penetration

all room typthe 2015 stu), followed c

t Residentias, kitchens, ere among t

ttp://tinyurl.com

HTING MAR

D, CFL, an2017 in Ma

es that had rhose homes n rate.

pes since 20udy. Bedrooclosely by li

al Lighting H and living the four room

m/TimelessHOU

KET ASSES

d combinedssachusetts

rooms of thahad at leas

009; notablyoms were theiving spaces

Hours-of-Usespaces, the

m types with

U

SSMENT

29

d s. at st

y, e s

e e h


LED penthese roo

Table

CFL Pen

CFL penmost (ninpercenta(72%), acommon decline in

Incandes

Inefficienthe past biggest dfollowed anomaly garages declined

netration oveoms types a

12: HOU V

Room T

Exterior

Kitchen

Living S

Dining R

Bedroom

Bathroom

Other

netration

netration in ane percentagge points).

and living splace to fin

n CFL satura

scent + Hal

nt bulb (incanfew years, wdrop in ineffby foyers (for inefficieincreased bin 2017 to 7

er 40% in Mlso have the

Values for E

Type

pace

Room

m

m

all room typge points), foCFL penetr

spaces (66%nd a CFL (Fation and is

logen Penet

ndescent anwhich is in linficient bulb p(77% to 52%ent bulb penby seven per70% (Figure

assachusette highest rate

Efficient an

Inef

pes declinedollowed by oration was a

%). As with Figure 21). Texpected to

tration

nd halogen) ne with the dpenetration %) and hallwetration; aftrcentage po22).

ts in 2017. Ae of burnout

nd Inefficie

fficient

5.3

3.7

3.0

2.5

1.8

1.4

1.4

d in 2017; poffices (six pagain highesaturation,

This drop in continue as

penetration decrease in isince 2009 ways (76% er a dip in 2ints betwee

2017 LIGH

As mentionet.

ent Bulb Ty

Efficient

5.7

4.3

3.3

2.9

2.4

2.1

2.0

penetration percentage pest in bedro

dining roopenetration

s CFLs begin

has shown aincandescenhas been into 52%). G

2013, inefficn 2009 and

HTING MAR

ed above, it

ypes by Ro

All Bulb

5.6

4.1

3.3

2.8

2.1

1.7

1.7

in garages points) and kooms (76%),oms remainen is in line wn to exit the

a general dent socket satn offices (81

Garages seecient bulb pe2016 (74%

KET ASSES

is likely tha

oom Type

dropped thekitchens (five, basementsed the leas

with a steadymarket.

ecrease oveturation. The1% to 53%)em to be anenetration in to 81%) bu

SSMENT

30

at

e e s st y

er e ), n n ut


Figurre 20: LED Peenetration by Room Type, 2

2017 L

2009-2017 (Ma

LIGHTING MAR

31

assachusetts

RKET ASSESSM

s)

MENT


Figurre 21: CFL Peenetration by Room Type, 2

2017 L

2009-2017 (Ma

LIGHTING MAR

32

assachusetts

RKET ASSESSM

s)

MENT


Fiigure 22: Incaandescent + HHalogen Penettration by Roo

2017 L

om Type, 200

LIGHTING MAR

33

09-2017 (Mass

RKET ASSESSM

sachusetts)

MENT


3.1.2 R

While onbedroomprovides room of installed figures athose in room waNew Yor

InterestinMassachlighting whousehoThe grealighting, w

(Base: Re

Room Ty

HousehoCFL/LEDleast 1 ro

Sample S

Dining R

Kitchen

Bathroom

Living Sp

Bedroom

*Significan

For roomdid not hroom typand New

16 Since dinappears hi

Rooms Wit

n site, technms, bathroom

an overvieweach type. in at least o

are down sigNew York h

as the most k).16

ngly, the phusetts and was down inlds had signatest shift inwhere the pe

Tespondents w

ype

olds w/o D in at oom type

Size

oom

m

pace

m

tly different fro

ms where no have any effpe. The reasw York respo

ning rooms wegher than the p

hout Energ

nicians idenms, and dininw of the proIn Massach

one of the fivgnificantly froad at least ocommon roo

ercentage oNew York

n all other ronificantly lown room typeercent witho

Table 13: Rwithout CFLs/

M

All

465

147 4

136 3

103 2

87 1

68 1

m all Massach

LEDs or CFficient bulbssons providenses in Tab

re not present percentage of h

gy-Efficien

tified if any ng rooms) doportion of hhusetts, 171ve room typeom last yeaone room wiom without a

of dining rfrom 2016,

oom types inwer rates of es with effic

out CFLs or L

Rooms Wit/LEDs installe

ro

Massachuse

171

%Pan

31

47% 45

30% 29

22% 21

17% 16

14% 16

usetts visits at

FLs were inss installed. Red by Massale 15.

at all sites, thehouses with no

nt Bulbs

of five madid not havehouseholds 1 householdes, comparer, when 65%ithout any efan LED or C

rooms with while this

n both statesLED/CFL p

cient lightingLEDs droppe

hout Energed in certain rooom type)

etts

% nel

% New

15 150

% 51%

% 32%

% 24%

% 19%

% 11%

the 90% confid

stalled, techRespondentsachusetts ho

e percentage ofo CFLs/LEDs in

2017 L

in room type any LEDs without an

ds (36%) dided to 122 (48% of Massacfficient lightiCFL (47% in

no CFLs percentage

s. Across alpenetration cg in Massaed from 30%

gy-Efficienooms, exclud

w A

2

% 158

% 101

% 108

% 71

% 57

dence level.

nicians askes could indiouseholds a

f visits without n at least one ro

LIGHTING M

pes (kitchenor CFLs insLED or CFLd not have 8%) in New chusetts hong. In both s

n Massachus

or LEDs we of rooms ll five room compared tochusetts ca

% in 2016 to

nt Bulbs ding homes w

New Y

122

All

55

70%*

42%*

43%*

31%*

26%*

ed the houseicate multiplare summari

CFLs/LEDs in oom type.

MARKET AS

ns, living spastalled. TabL in at leasan LED or York. Both tmes and 82states, the dsetts and 71

was up in with no efftypes, New

o Massachusame in bath

22% this ye

without that sp

York

2

% Panel

%

105

71% 6

36% 4

44% 4

31% 3

23% 3

eholder whyle responseized in Tabl

the dining room

SSESSMEN

34

aces, ble 13 t one CFL

these 2% of dining 1% in

both ficient

York setts.

hroom ear.

pecific

New

150

69%

48%

40%

31%

30%

y they s per e 14,

m

NT


The moscurrent bresponsepractices

In Massato install CFLs/LEfrom respnot fit” (inkitchen (were a wliving roobecause other resspecific ranging f

In contraA third ofat least 1types wamore popfuture. Thresidents

17 Percenta(34%), BedBedroom (

st common bulbs in a rooes that bettes in terms of

achusetts, tCFLs or LEDs (from 14pondents refn a fixture) w36%), bathr

worry mostlyom often pothey did no

sponses accspace. Notafrom 5% (din

st, in New Yf responden14% of the ras most compular in livinghis was the s to indicate

ages by state fodroom (41%), B77%), Bathroo

response gom had not

er characterizlikelihood to

the most comDs (ranging

4% to 33%). ferring only twas commoroom (28%),y in the dininointed to thot have thescounted for ably, price wning room an

York, price wnts without Cresponses in

mmonly citedg room fixturonly room typlans to inst

or “current bulbBathroom (36%m (65%), Kitch

given for notyet burned oze respondeo install effic

mmon respofrom 19% toIt should beto CFLs whonly cited in r and dining ng room (13e fact that

se bulb typeless than 10was noted and kitchen) t

was more ofCFLs or LEDn each roomd in the dininres where 28ype in whichtall efficient

bs have not bu%), Kitchen (30%hen (65%)

t yet havingout.17 Theseents’ bulb prient lighting

onses given o 39% per roe noted somo did not havrooms that troom (24%)

3%), while cthese bulbss installed a0% of reasoas a barriero 9% (living

ften cited as Ds in the bedm following thng room and8% of consu

h New Yorkelighting.

rned out” - Mas%); New York:

2017 L

g installed Ce tables exclreferences atypes.

were that thoom type), o

me of these “ve familiaritytended to ha). Brightnessconsumers ws were not anywhere inons for not ir relatively ispace).

the reason droom blamehat same logd bedroom umers plan ters were mo

ssachusetts: DDining Room

LIGHTING M

CFLs or LEude that res

and indicatio

he consumeror that they s“do not like” y with LEDs.ave more sps/quality/aeswithout CFL

installed inn the househnstalling CFinfrequently,

for a lack ofed the cost ogic. A dislike(19%). Thesto install CFLore likely tha

Dining Room (4(76%), Living S

MARKET AS

Ds was thasponse in favons of their f

r has future simply do noresponses c. “CFLs/LED

pecialty fixtusthetics concs or LEDs i the living

hold (18%). FLs or LEDs, with respo

f efficient lighof the bulbse of efficientse bulbs seeLs or LEDs in Massachu

4%), Living SpSpace (69%),

SSESSMEN

35

at the vor of future

plans ot like came

Ds did res—cerns n the room Most

s in a onses

hting. , with t bulb emed in the usetts

pace

NT


Reason

Rooms ofCFLs/LED

I have notbut plan to

CFLs/LED

BrightnesConcerns

I do not lik

I do not ha

LEDs/CFL

Maintenan

Other

Don't know

Reason

Rooms ofCFLs/LED

I have notbut plan to

CFLs/LED

BrightnesConcerns

I do not lik

I do not ha

LEDs/CFL

Maintenan

Other

Don't know

18 Sample 19 Sample

Table 14(Base: R

f this type withDs18

t installed CFo

Ds did not fit

s/Quality/Aess

ke CFLs/LED

ave any CFLs

Ls too expens

nce/landlord i

w

Table (Base: R

f this type withDs19

t installed CFo

Ds did not fit

s/Quality/Aess

ke CFLs/LED

ave any CFLs

Ls too expens

nce/landlord i

w

count, n, exclucount, n, exclu

4: ReasonsRespondents

h no

Ls/LEDs

sthetics

s

s/LEDs

sive

installs

15: ReasonRespondents

h no

Ls/LEDs

sthetics

s

s/LEDs

sive

installs

des respondendes responden

s for Not In without LEDs

Dining Rooms

101

23%

24%

13%

22%

11%

5%

3%

3%

3%

ns for Not without LEDs

Dining Rooms

43

17%

9%

22%

19%

12%

21%

7%

1%

0%

nts who gave “cnts who gave “c

nstalling Es/CFLs instal

Living Spaces

60

22%

12%

2%

28%

18%

9%

5%

9%

2%

Installing s/CFLs instal

Living Spaces

22

28%

2%

19%

15%

19%

16%

0%

2%

0%

current bulbs hcurrent bulbs h

2017 L

EE bulbs - Mled in Certain

Bedroom

43

39%

9%

7%

30%

6%

6%

4%

6%

5%

CFLs/LEDled in Certain

Bedroom

18

11%

0%

15%

19%

28%

33%

0%

0%

4%

have not burnehave not burne

LIGHTING M

Massachusn Rooms; n=1

ms Bathro

72

19%

28%

6%

33%

4%

7%

7%

2%

5%

Ds – New Yn Rooms; n=1

ms Bathro

35

12%

28%

9%

16%

13%

14%

8%

1%

0%

d out” as only rd out” as only r

MARKET AS

setts 171)

oms Kitch

10

% 23

% 36

% 9

% 14

% 8

% 5

% 5

% 3

% 6

York 150)

oms Kitch

3

% 8

% 31

% 6

% 10

% 13

% 22

% 8

% 3

% 0

response. response.

SSESSMEN

36

hens

02

3%

6%

%

4%

%

%

%

%

%

hens

37

%

1%

%

0%

3%

2%

%

%

%

NT


the panelighting imarkingseach bulbulbs thatechnicia

In Mfollowcomm

Nearstorain Matwo-f

CFL replasock

MassLEDsreplaone-hstoraincan

We housreplaof CF

Repldemowerepron

o

4el visits, tecnventories t

s inscribed ob as New (foat were inc

an also desig

Massachusewed by incmon replac

rly one-quarage (23%); nassachusetfifths of rep

replacemenacement bukets in both

sachusetts s (44%) thaacement buhalf (47%) age in 201ndescents c

observed bseholds in baced with a FLs were re

lacement beographic ch

e observed ounced:

Non-low-replacemincome h

4 SectioBulb TIn this sectivisits (repeafour waves two waves

chnicians coto the bulb

on the bulbs or bulbs thatcluded in thgnated fixtur

tts, LEDs aandescent ement bulb

rter (23%) onotably, netts came fro

placement in

nt rates deculb type, and

Massachus

householdan New Youlbs in Masof replacem7, an increcame from s

backslidingboth states.

halogen oreplaced with

ehavior in Mharacteristiin New Yo

-income homent bulbs households

n 4 PTypes O

ion, we explat visits to thof panel visof panel vis

ompared therecorded foduring the 2

t had been ie 2016 on-es in the sam

are the mobulbs (22%

b type (34%)

of all replaearly one-harom storagencandescen

clined in bod we obsersetts (-14%)

ds replaced ork househossachusettsment incandease from storage.

g (efficient . In Massacr an incandh a halogen

Massachusics of inco

York. Differe

ouseholds (52%) than

s in New Yo

Panel VOver Tim

lore bulb rephe same homsits have beesits have bee bulb in eaor the 20162015 and 20nstalled sinc-site data ame manner.

ost commo%). In New Y), followed b

cement bulalf (47%) of e in 2017, ants came fro

oth states. rved net de) and New Y

significantolds (24%).s came fromdescent bu2016 when

bulbs beihusetts, 21

descent. In n or an incan

setts differeme, home ences in LE

in Massachn low-incomork installed

2017 LIGH

Visits –me placement bmes over a en completeeen completach socket

6 lighting inv016 visits, thce the last oand were th

on replacemYork, incanby LEDs (28

lbs in Massf replacemean increaserom storage

CFLs are thecreases in York (-9%).

tly more inc. Nearly onm storage

ulbs in Massn only two

ing replace% of LEDs New York, ndescent.

ed significatype, and ED replace

husetts insme househd replacem

HTING MAR

Chang

behavior basperiod of tim

ed in Massacted in New Y

found durinventories. Bahe technicianon-site visit) he same in

ment bulb descents a8%).

sachusetts ent incandese from 2016e.

he third moCFLs amon

candescentne-quarter ((23%); notasachusetts -fifths of r

ed with ineand 12% of25% of LED

antly based tenure. Sim

ement were

stalled morholds (40%

ment LEDs a

KET ASSES

ges in

sed on paneme). To datechusetts andYork. Duringng the 2017ased on then designatedor Same (fo2017). The

type (47%)are the mos

came fromscent bulbs

6 when only

ost commonng replaced

t bulbs with(23%) of alably, nearlycame from

replacemen

efficient) inf CFLs wereDs and 20%

d on the keymilar trendse especially

re LEDs as%). Non-low

at the same

SSMENT

37

el e, d g 7 e d

or e

), st

m s y

n d

h ll y

m nt

n e

%

y s y

s w-e


o

o

Desprepla

o

o

o

4.1 BU

Sockets socket) sstems lawhat type

As Tablebulbs or panelists(15,413).total obssockets, panelistsand the differenconly fivereplacemNew Yorpanelists

20 This is thgroups in a

rate as replacem

Househoreplacem

HomeowMassach

pite differenacement tre

In 2017,LEDs, coto non-significan

Multifaminstalled

Renters i(11%).

ULB CHANG

where the csince the pr

argely from es of bulbs C

e 16 shows,12% of tota

s included i. In Wave 2served sockor 13% of t

s replaced ro2016 and

e in bulbs re months, w

ments from trk panelists s (7.3 bulbs p

he first year thea meaningful w

low-incomement bulbs i

olds in sinment LEDs (

wners installhusetts, as w

nces in repends in Mas

, low-incomompared to -low-incomently in 2017

ily homes in 2017 com

installed tw

GES 2016-customer harevious visitthe desire tCFLs and LE

the 315 Maal observed n Wave 3 , 203 panel

kets (10,930the total obsoughly 0.9 b

2017 visitseplaced per

whereas Wavthe fall over replaced 4.

per househo

e New York panway. There is no

e househoin New York

ngle-family(49%) than t

led more rewell as in N

placement bsachusetts

me househo16% in 201

e househo7 (52%).

had signmpared to 2

wice as man

-2017 ad replaced t were of spto understanEDs are bein

assachusettsockets (19

replaced 2,ists replace

0), and in Wserved sockeulbs per hom

s, panelists month may

ve 1 coverea short per

.7 bulbs perold).

nel was large eo 2016 bulb rep

olds in Mask low-incom

homes inthose in mu

eplacement New York (32

behavior am20 are incre

olds replac16. The 201olds in 2

nificantly m2016 (22%).

ny replacem

the bulb (opecial interend customeng used to re

s panelists 9,231). In c004 bulbs d bulbs in a

Wave 1, 11ets (6,200). me per mon

replaced roy be due in ped slightly mriod likely acr household

enough to complacement com

2017 LIGH

ssachusettme househo

n Massachuultifamily ho

LEDs (54%2% and 15%

mong demoasing propo

ced 40% of7 rate of re2016 (38%

more repla

ment LEDs

or had instaest in the paer replacemeeplace.

included in omparison, or 13% of

a total of 941 panelists Between thth, and betw

roughly 0.6 part to the famore than accounts for , less than

pare differencemparison for Ne

HTING MAR

ts (40%). Oolds were LE

usetts instomes (33%)

%) than rente%, respectiv

ographic gortionally:

f removed eplacement %), which

acement L

in 2017 (22

lled a bulb anel visits. Tent behavio

Wave 4 repthe 270 Matotal obser

41 sockets, oreplaced b

he 2014 andween the 20

bulbs per act that Wava full year. the differenMassachus

es across demew York demog

KET ASSES

Only 8% oEDs.

talled more).

ers (22%) invely).

groups, LED

bulbs withwas simila

increased

LEDs (34%)

2%) as 2016

in an emptyThis interes

or, especially

placed 2,375assachusettsrved socketsor 9% of thebulbs in 834d 2015 visits15 and 2016month. The

ve 2 coveredDividing the

nce. In 2017etts Wave 4

ographic graphic groups

SSMENT

38

of

e

n

D

h r d

%)

6

y st y

5 s s e 4 s, 6 e d e 7, 4

.


PaH

Ba

MSoSoSoH

anel Year Homes

aseline

Months ockets ockets/Homockets/Montomes

a. S

Table 17counts inMassachunable toand non-we wouparticipatreplaceminstall phousehohouseho

Replace

Panel Ho

Househo

Overall

Incandes

CFL

Fluoresc

Halogen

LED

Empty So

Table 16

MA 20(Wave

111May 20

– Jun2014

13 834

e 7.5th 0.6

103 (93ignificantly diffe

7 delves furtn this table husetts may o confirm pa-program hold expect tted in a dire

ments, we woparticipants. olds instalolds, primar

ment Bulbs

ouseholds

olds replacin

scent

ent

ocket

6: Panel Re

014 e 1)

MA 2(Wav

1 20014 ne 4

DeJan.

54 945 4.6 03%) 169 (erent from MA

her into aveare weightebe driven

articipation ouseholds sethat only aect-install prould expect

Even aftel 1.9 morily due to hig

Table 17:

s DI

g bulbs

eplacemen

2015 ve 2)

MA(W

03

c. – 2015

DecFeb

5 41 2.6a .9 (83%) 245Wave 1 and W

erage bulb reed. The higin part by din 2016, weeparately. Aabout one-hrogram in 20a much hig

er accountie replacemgher rates of

: 2017 Pan(Base: All pa

(Self-Repo

18

18

20.5

--

2.2

--

--

18.3

--

nt Bulb Su

A 2016 Wave 3)

M(W

270

. 2015 –b. 2016

O–

12 2,003

7.4 0.6

5 (90%) 28Wave 3 at the 9

eplacement her per-hodirect-instae look at seAs we detail half of self-016. Indeedher number ing for dirment bulbsf LED and C

el Replaceanel household

Massachu

orted) No

2

2017 LIGH

mmary (Un

MA 2017 Wave 4)

315

Oct. 2016 Jan 2017

J

12 2,375

7.3 0.6

85 (90%) 90% confidence

by househousehold re

all participaelf-reported d

in Section f-reported d, looking at

r of replacemrect-install s on aver

CFL replacem

ement Bulbds)

usetts

on-DI

--

282

5.5

1.4

1.1

0.1

0.5

2.1

0.3

HTING MAR

nweighted

NY 2016 (Wave 1)

80

Jan. – Feb. 2015

12 434 5.4

0.45 65 (81%)a

e level.

old. Unlike Teplacement ants. Althoudirect-install1, based on

direct-install the averag

ments from abulbs, Masrage than ment.

bs

Overall

315

285

6.7

1.4

1.3

0.1

0.5

3.1

0.3

KET ASSES

)

NY 2017(Wave 2)

105 Oct. 2016

– Jan 2017

12 439 4.7 0.4

79 (75%)a

Table 16, theaverages ingh we were households

n experienceparticipants

e number oactual directssachusetts

New York

New York

Overall

105

79

3.6

1.2

0.6

0.1

0.2

1.0

0.5

SSMENT

39

6

a

e n e s e s

of t-s k

k


4.1.1 N

Table 18househothe bulbsa bulb wcolumn cTotal exareplacemsignifican

When loomore effhalogen, significan

Compare(LED andincreasedreplacemthan in 2and CFLamount owas alsodecliningpersisten

Trends b

LED

• ReplareplaMassLEDs

• In Ma(45%

CFL

• ReplaCFL CFLsthan

• Panethan

Newly Insta

8 shows bulds since ths that were nwas removedcomprises buamines repl

ment bulb bent difference

oking only aficient bulbs

33%) than nt at the 90%

ed to 2016, d CFL, 68%d efficient b

ment bulbs, N2016 (34%), Ls) installed of CFLs insto significantg in both statnce of rebate

by Technolo

acement LEcement bu

sachusetts ts in Massach

assachusett%) than in Ne

acement CF(20% in M

s were newlin Massachu

el household2016 (28% a

alled Bulbs

ulbs in 2017e previous vnewly installd but had nulbs in fixturacement buhavior (excl

e between M

at bulbs inst(LED and New York

% confidence

Massachus) overall in 2

bulb installatNew York hoand as a cin New Yor

talled to reptly smaller tes, but mores for CFLs

ogy

EDs: In Masulb (49%); han they wehusetts were

s, significanew York (25%

FLs: In both sassachusettly obtained usetts (53%

ds in both staand 34%, re

s

7 that had visit in 2016ed in socketnot yet beeres (and soculbs and buuding emptyassachusett

talled in newCFL, 64%) (38% and 5e level.

setts househ2017 than intion by 1% souseholds inonsequencerk is slightly place removein 2017 (20re slowly in Min Massachu

ssachusetts, LEDs wer

ere in New e new to the

ntly more LE%), as well a

states, apprts, 18% in in New Yor).

ates installeespectively).

been newly6. The Replats since the n replacedkets) that arlbs in new

y sockets), ats and New Y

w fixtures, Mand fewer

52%, respec

holds installen 2016 (60%since last ynstalled signe the overall

lower in 20ed bulbs (re0%) comparMassachuseusetts throug

LED bulbsre chosenYork (32%)home (94%

EDs were inas compared

oximately onNew York). rk (75%)—ra

d significant

2017 LIGH

y installed ilacement (no2016 visit, e(empty soc

re new to pafixtures tog

at the 90% cYork was LE

Massachuseinefficient b

ctively), but

ed significan%), while Neyear (47% tonificantly fewl proportion

017 (52%) theplacement bred to 2016etts, which cgh the end o

s were the msignificantl

). Significant%), compared

nstalled in fixd to Massach

ne in five ne Significantather than i

tly fewer rep

HTING MAR

n Massachuo empty) coexcluding sockets). The anel househogether. Wheconfidence leED bulb repl

etts househobulbs (incand

this differen

ntly more efew York houso 48%). Loower CFLs in of efficient

han in 2016bulbs) in Ma6 (28%). CFcould be attrof 2016.

most commly more frtly more ned to 88% in N

xtures new husetts in 20

ewly installedly more newinstalled fro

placement C

KET ASSES

usetts paneolumn showsockets wherenew fixturesolds in 2017n examining

evel, the onlylacement.

olds installeddescent andnce was no

fficient bulbsseholds only

oking only a2017 (20%

bulbs (LEDs6 (55%). TheassachusettsFL usage isributed to the

only chosenrequently in

ewly installedNew York.

to the home016 (25%).

d bulbs werewly installedm storage—

CFLs in 2017

SSMENT

40

el s e s

7. g y

d d

ot

s y

at ) s e s s e

n n d

e

e d

—

7


Incandes

• ReplanewlySignicomp

• The nnumbMasscomp

Halogen

• ReplaMassYork,replaYork

scent

acement incy installed bficantly mor

pared to Mas

number of inber of incansachusetts, pared to New

n

acement halsachusetts a, 8% of new cement halo(86%).

candescent bulbs were re replacemssachusetts

ncandescendescent repsignificantly

w York (40%

logen bulbs:and New Yor

bulbs instalogens instal

bulbs: In Maincandescen

ment incand(50%).

t bulbs instaplacement by fewer new

%).

: Halogen inrk, and fromled in the palled in Mass

assachusettnt, significanescent bulb

alled in new bulbs in bothwly installed

nstallation ra 2016 to 201ast year wersachusetts w

2017 LIGH

ts, approximntly greater bs in New

fixtures is sh Massachud bulbs we

ates were st17. In both Mre halogen bwere new (6

HTING MAR

mately one inthan New York were

statistically susetts and Nere incandes

tatistically siMassachusebulbs. Signif67%) compa

KET ASSES

n four (23%York (40%)new (79%

similar to theNew York. Inscent (23%

milar in bothetts and Newficantly feweared to New

SSMENT

41

) ). )

e n )

h w er w


Bulb Typ

Bulbs

Sample S

Bulb Cou

LED or C

LED

CFL

Incandesor Halog Incande

Halogen

Linear fluoresce

Bulbs

Sample S

Bulb Cou

LED or C

LED

CFL

Incandesor Halog Incande

Halogen

Linear fluoresce

a. Sb. Sc. Sd. Se. S

Table 19from storYork, therespectiv(23%) thMassachinstalled 2017, wh

pe

Re(N

Size

unt

CFL

scent gen scent

n

ent

Re(N

Size

unt

CFL

scent gen scent

n

ent ignificantly diffeignificantly diffeignificantly diffeignificantly diffeignificantly diffe

9 provides arage, or frome majority

vely). Signifihan in New husetts cam

incandescehile significa

Tabl

Mass

eplacement No Empty)

281

2,303

69%bc

49%bc

20%c

30%b

22%b

7%

1%

eplacement No Empty)

240

1,862

62%ad

34%ad

28%a

35%d

27%

8%

3%

erent from Maserent from Newerent from Maserent from Newerent from Rep

n overview m another fiof all replacantly moreYork (15%)e from stornts that cam

antly more in

le 18: New

sachusetts

2New

Fixtures

168

549

64%bc

45%bc

19%c

33%bc

25%b

8%

3%bce

2

New Fixtures

139

518

51%ade

25%ae

26%a

43%ade

31%d

12%

6%ae

ssachusetts 20w York 2017 at ssachusetts 20w York 2016 at placement Bulb

of where reixture. As th

acement bule replaceme. Nearly harage, compame from storncandescen

ly Installed

2017

Total

294

2,852

68%b

48%bc

20%c

30%b

23%b

8%

2%

2016

Total

251

2,380

60%ad

32%ad

28%a

31%d

28%d

9%

3%

17 at the 90% the 90% confid16 at the 90% the 90% confid

bs (No Empty) a

placement bhe data showlbs were nent bulbs in lf (47%) of ared to 18%rage in Newnt bulbs inst

2017 LIGH

d Bulbs

Replacemen(No Empty)

75

385

52%a

32%a

20%d

46%a

40%a

6%

2%

Replacemen(No Empty)

61

356

55%c

21%c

34%b

44%c

35%

9%

1%

confidence levdence level. confidence levdence level. at the 90% con

bulbs came w, in both Mew to the Massachusreplacemen

% in New Yw York was u

alled in Mas

HTING MAR

New York

nt )

New Fixtures

56

166

38%ae

25%a

13%

52%a

40%a

12%

10%ae

nt )

New Fixtures

34

141

29%c

13%

16%

65%c

60%c

5%

6%

vel.

vel.

nfidence level.

from: new tMassachusehome (73%

setts came fnt incandescYork. The punchanged fssachusetts

KET ASSES

k

s Total

88

551 e 48%a

30%a

18%

48%a

40%a

8%

e 4%

s Total

66

497

48%ce

19%c

29%e

50%ce

43%ce

7%

2%

to the homeetts and New% and 82%from storagecent bulbs inproportion ofrom 2016 to

s households

SSMENT

42

e, w

%, e n of o s


came froinstallingbulbs orig

(Base:

Bulb Type

Bulbs

All replacebulbs Incandesc

CFL

Fluorescen

Halogen

LED

Bulbs

All replacebulbs Incandesc

CFL

Fluorescen

Halogen

LED a. Signifib. Signifi

4.1.2 B

Significa(14%) threplaced incandescompareanalysesanalysis.

om storage fewer replaginate in sto

TBulbs installed

e

# bu

ement 2,8

cent 6

4

nt 5

1

1,4

ement 1,8

cent 4

5

nt 3

1

6cantly differentcantly different

Bulb Replac

ntly more bhan in Mass

by and rescent bulbs d to Massa

s, we chose

in 2017 coacement incaorage and ar

Table 19: Rd in MA (n=294

Mass

of ulbs

New

852 73%a

12 50%a

94 53%a

51 80%a

98 67%a

497 94%a

New

862 74%

99 57%a

04 57%a

34 92%a

46 90%a

79 96%t from New Yort from 2016.

cement Be

ulbs removeachusetts (4eplacing emwere instal

achusetts (2e not to ex

ompared to andescent bre not new to

Replacemen4) and NY (n=8

sachusetts

Storage

a 23%a

ab 47%ab a 36%a ab 16%ab ab 31%ab a 4%

Storage

% 22%

a 40%a a 34%a a 3%a a 8%a

2% rk at the 90% c

ehavior

ed in 2017 4%). Table mpty socketled this yea

27%). In ordxclude emp

2016 (40%ulbs overall,

o the home.

nt Bulbs b8) panel house

201Another Fixture

4%

3%

11%a

4%a

2%a

2%

201Another Fixture

4%

3%

9%

5%a

1%

1% confidence leve

were replac13 providests in 2017. ar in socketder to mainty sockets

2017 LIGH

%). Massach, and an incr

by Bulb Soueholds in 2017,

17 # of

bulbs Ne

551 82

189 79

86 75

28 92

44 86

204 88

16

Ne

356 82

114 75

133 81

2 -

27 81

80 98el.

ced by emps an overvie In New Yts that weretain compafrom the p

HTING MAR

husetts houreasing num

urce , empty socket

New York

ew Stora

2% 15%

9% 18%

5% 20%

%b 8%

6% 14%

%b 8%

ew Stora

2% 17%

5% 23%

1% 19%

-- 100%

1% 19%

8% --

ty sockets iew of the typYork, signifie empty in rability with

panel replac

KET ASSES

useholds arember of these

ts excluded)

k

age AnotheFixtur

% 2%b

% 1%

% 4%b

%b 0%

% 0%

%b 3%b

age AnotheFixtur

% 1%

% 2%

% --

% --

% --

2%

in New Yorkpes of bulbscantly more2016 (71%past years

cement bulb

SSMENT

43

e e

er re

b

b

b

er re

k s e )

s’ b


Panel HoBulbs repBulbs tha

Total em% of totaIncandesCFL FluorescHalogen LED In 2017, Total em% of totaIncandesCFL FluorescHalogen LED a. Signi

Table 21the net c2016 andstates, th(26%). Nchanges

Bulb Typ

ouseholds placed 2016at replaced s

mpty sockets al replaced bscent

ent

empty sockempty sockets al replaced bscent

ent

ficantly diffe

provides anchange in sad 2017. As he net gain

Net gains forfor linear flu

Table

pe

6-2017 sockets that

2016 bulbs

ets replaced2017

bulbs

erent than Ma

n overview oaturation amthe table s in Massac

r CFLs and uorescents a

20: Empty

M

were empty

d the followin

assachusett

of saturation mong only th

hows, whilechusetts (45incandescen

and halogens

Sockets 2

assachuset

2852,375

y in 2016:

1186%

27%33%1%5%

34%ng removed

704%

50%28%12%3%7%

ts at the 90%

before and e sockets w

e LED bulbs%) was signt bulbs wers were negli

2017 LIGH

2016-2017

tts

bulbs:

% confidence

after bulbs wwhere bulbs s had the hinificantly hire negative igible.

HTING MAR

New

1043

348%

71%12%2%6%9%

5414%59335%2%1%

e level.

were replacewere replac

ighest net ggher than iin both state

KET ASSES

York

05 39

4 % %a %a % % %a

4 %a

9% 3% %a % %a

ed as well asced betweengains in bothn New Yorkes, while ne

SSMENT

44

s n h k

et


Bulb Typ

Sample S

LED or C

LED

CFL

Incandesor Haloge Incandes

Halogen

Linear fluorescenEmpty soca Significantb 1% of repla

Figure 2Replacedfrom the those buhighlight replacem

For eachmost comhad faileparticipatremovedcompare

Trends b

LED

• ReplaNew 2016repla38% light q

• ReplareplaNew

Table 21:

e

Size

Bef(Repl

FL 38

5

33

scent en

55

scent 47

8

nt 2

cket 5tly different fromaced bulbs wer

23 shows ovd bulbs (“be

sockets whlbs installedreplaceme

ment behavio

h bulb a panemmon reaso

ed (burned otion, we obs because td to 8% of re

by Technolo

aced LEDs: York (2%). , which maced LEDs inwere removquality of the

acement LEcement bulbYork (28%).

: Bulb Rep(Bas

Massa

2

fore laced)

A(Repl

8% 6

% 4

3%

5% 2

7% 2

%

%

% m Massachusere don’t know/o

verall bulb fore”) are bu

hen techs re in sockets int trends fo

or was simila

elist replaceon panelists out or brokeserved that the househeplaced bulb

ogy

LED bulbsIn Massach

ay be due tn Massachuved becausee bulb.

EDs: In Massb (47%), sig.

placement se: Replacem

achusetts

2,375

After lacement) C

66%

47%

19%

29%

22%

7%

1%

4% etts at the 90% other bulb type

replacemenulbs that weeturned for tin 2017 fromor LED, CFar both betw

ed, we askedgave for re

n). After excone in five

holder wantebs in New Y

representehusetts, 5% to an increasetts were re the house

sachusetts, gnificantly dif

in Massacent bulbs 201

Net Change (R

+28%

+42%

-14%

-26%

-25%

-1%

-1%

-1% confidence levs.

t behavior fere recordedthe 2017 vis

m which the FL, and inceen states a

d them why eplacing bulbcluding self-(20%) repl

ed to replaork.

d the smallof replaced

ase in LEDremoved froholder did n

LED bulbs fferent than

2017 LIGH

husetts an16-2017)

Before Replaced)b

28%

2%

26%

61%

54%

7%

2%

8% vel.

for Massacd in the 2016sit. Replace“replaced bucandescent and to patter

they replacebs in both s-reported enaced bulbs

ace it with

est proportid bulbs wer

D saturationm their sock

not like the f

were the mtheir use a

HTING MAR

nd New Yo

New York

After (Replacement

45%

28%a

17%

39%

34%a

5%

2%

14%a

husetts and6 visit but weement bulbs ulbs” were re

bulbs belorns observed

ed that bulb.states was tnergy efficien

in Massacha more ef

on of bulbsre LEDs, up. One-quartkets due to ffunction, app

mostly comms a replacem

KET ASSES

rk

t) Net

Change

+17%a

+26%a

-9%

-22%

-20%

-2%

0%a

+6%a

d New Yorkere removed(“after”) are

emoved. Weow. Halogend in 2016.

. Overall, thethat the bulbncy programhusetts werefficient bulb

s replaced inp from 2% inter (26%) ofailure, whilepearance, o

monly chosenment bulb in

SSMENT

45

e

k. d e e n

e b m e

b,

n n

of e

or

n n


CFL

• Replareplahouswith a(9%).

• Replathe th(17%

Incandes

• Replawere

• Replacommseconthird CFL

aced CFLs: ced by houeholders wea more ener.

acement CFhird most co

%).

scent

aced incandthe most co

acement incmonly chosend most commost commreplacement

Unlike 201seholds in M

ere much morgy-efficient

FLs: CFLs aommon repla

descent bulbommonly rep

candescent ben replacemmmon replaon replacemt.

16, there waMassachuseore likely to bulb (31% o

ppear to beacement bu

bs: In both placed bulb (

bulbs: In Nement bulb (3cement bulb

ment bulb (26

as no differetts (33%) osay they we

of removed C

e suffering a lb in both M

Massachus(47% and 54

w York, inca34%), whileb (22%). In 6%) behind

2017 LIGH

rence in theor New Yorkere removinCFLs) than h

decrease inMassachuset

etts and Ne4%, respecti

andescent be in Massac2016, incanCFLs, but 2

HTING MAR

e number ok (26%). Mang CFLs to rhouseholds

n popularitytts (19%) an

ew York, inively).

bulbs were achusetts the

ndescent bu2017 saw a s

KET ASSES

f CFL bulbsassachusettsreplace themin New York

. CFLs werend New York

candescents

also the mosey were thelbs were thestagnation in

SSMENT

46

s s

m k

e k

s

st e e n


Figure 23:: Overall BBulb Replaccements, M

2

Massachus

2017 LIGHT

setts & New

ING MARKE

w York

ET ASSESS

47

SMENT


As incanand NewMassachincandesof incandsignificanYork houMassach

Replace

SampleIncandeLED or LED CFL Incande Incand HalogeLinear fEmpty s a Sign

b Sign

In Figureeach buhousehoinefficien2016 in halogen Massachthat manplaceme

If a bulb their dec

Table 23or halogehalogen the housinstalled availabiliMassach

descent bulw York, we hihusetts housscent bulbs, descent bulbntly more LEuseholds alshusetts hous

Ta

ement Bulb

e Size escent bulbsCFL

escent or Hescent

en fluorescent socket ificantly differeificantly differe

e 24, we brelb type. Imlds in both s

nt halogen oMassachusor an incand

husetts and y householdnt.

was replaceision. In

, we look at en) with LEbulbs. In boeholder wanto replace ty in storag

husetts hous

bs were theighlight the rseholds instan increase

bs replaced EDs (44%) rso replaced seholds (4%)

able 22: Bu

b

s replaced

Halogen

nt from New Yoent from 2017 a

eak down theportantly, th

states. Backor incandescetts (21%) descent. Ba20% in New

ds are just n

ed by a bulb

the reasonsDs and CFLoth states, onted to use ainefficient bue, compare

seholders w

most commreplacementtalled energe from 2016

by LEDs oreplaced inca

more incan).

ulbs Repla

Massa

2016

270

1,111 47%b 29%b 18%b 46%b 37% 9% --

7% ork at the 90%

at the 90% conf

e replacemehe figure shsliding occu

cent bulbs. Jand one-qucksliding wa

w York). Higow trying LE

of a differen

s panelists gLs, and efficover four in a more energulbs in Masd to 9% of ho replaced

monly replact activity justgy-efficient b (47%) and r CFLs in Nandescent b

ndescent bu

acing Incan

achusetts

2017

315

1,18457%a

44%a

13%39%31%8%--

4%a

confidence levfidence level.

ent behaviorhows somers when hou

Just under oarter in New

as less commher LED ba

EDs for the f

nt technology

ave for replacient bulbs (five replacegy-efficient bsachusetts, CFLs repla

d efficient bu

2017 LIGH

ced bulb typet for incandebulbs to resignificantly

New York (3bulbs than inlbs with em

ndescent B

7 20

8

4 2a 4a 19

% 2% 4% 4

6

1vel.

r by proportie indicationsuseholds repone-quarter w York (25mon among

acksliding mafirst time and

y type, we a

acing ineffic(LED or CF

ement LEDs bulb. One inand this wa

acing inefficiulbs with inc

HTING MAR

e in both Maescent bulbsplace 57% y more than37%). In Man New York

mpty sockets

Bulbs

New Yor

016

80

248 41% 9%a

22% 47% 41% 6% -- 2%

on of bulbs s of backsliplace efficieof LEDs rep%) were re

g replaced Cay be drivend are experi

asked panelis

ient bulbs (inFL) with inca

were instaln three CFLsas primarily ient bulbs incandescents

KET ASSES

assachusettss in Table 22

of removed the numbessachusetts(24%). New

s (15%) than

rk

2017

105

222 37% 24% 14% 47% 40% 7% --

15%

replaced foding amongnt bulbs withplaced since

eplaced by aCFLs (12% inn by the facmenting with

sts about

ncandescenandescent oled because

s (30%) weredue to thei

n New Yorks were mos

SSMENT

48

s 2. d

er s, w n

or g h e a n ct h

nt or e e r

k. st


likely to ready av

Trends b

LED • What

visit, LEDswere

• Whatbulb socke(59%incan

CFL • What

unlikeCFL. with L

• WhatCFLsfour r

Incandes• What

incanNew were

• Whatincanincanhalog

attribute disailability of i

by Technolo

t replaced LLEDs were

s were the mfollowed clo

o Backsan inincandswitch

t LEDs replfor removedets (34%). I

%) and one-thndescent bul

t replaced Ce 2016 wheThis trend w

LEDs and 28

o Backshalogepronoincandswitch

t CFLs repls replaced oremoved LE

scent t replaced ndescents w

York (40%)replaced by

t incandescndescents indescents regen (11%) b

ssatisfactionncandescen

ogy

EDs: Lookine overwhelmmost commoosely by CFL

sliding: In Mancandescentdescent. Thh back to les

laced: In Mad CFLs (53%In New Yorhird of CFLslbs (23%).

CFLs: In Masen householwas reflected8% by anoth

sliding: In Men or an

ounced, as descent. Thh back to les

laced: In Maone-third (33Ds (25%) an

incandescewere replace). In Massacy efficient bu

cents replain Massach

eplaced one bulbs. In Ne

n with functint bulbs in st

ng at the fewmingly replaon replacemeL (25%) and

assachusettt. In New is is an imp

ss efficient a

assachusett%), halogensrk, LEDs reps (34%), but

ssachusetts,ds most cod in New Yo

her CFL.

Massachuseincandesce20% of C

is is an impss efficient a

assachusett3%) of emptnd CFLs (28

ents: In Md by other ichusetts, ov

ulb types (CF

aced: Incanhusetts anin five remo

ew York, ove

ion, light quorage (25%

w LEDs thatced by LEDent (38%) fo incandesce

ts, 21% of LYork, 25%

portant indiclternatives.

s, LEDs wes (47%), incaplaced neardropped to

, CFLs weremmonly rep

ork as well, w

tts, 12% ofent. In NeCFLs were portant indiclternatives.

ts, in additioy sockets. I

8%).

Massachusetncandescenver half (57%FLs and LED

ndescent bud 40% in

oved LEDs (1er two-thirds

2017 LIGH

uality, or ap).

t had been rDs in Massor removed ent bulbs (25

LEDs were re% of LEDs

ation that h

ere the mosandescents rly two-thirdsecond amo

e replaced pplaced remowith 34% of

f CFLs werew York, replaced ation that h

on to replacn New York

tts, one-thirnts, a figure %) of remov

Ds), compare

ulbs replac New Yo19%) and on

s (69%) of p

HTING MAR

ppearance (

replaced sinachusetts (6LEDs in New

5%).

eplaced by awere repla

ouseholds a

st common (44%), ands of removeong bulb typ

primarily by Loved CFLs wremoved CF

re replaced backsliding by a halo

ouseholds a

cing other Ck, CFLs rep

rd (32%) that is sligh

ved incandeed to 37% in

ced 32% ork. In Mane in ten CFreviously em

KET ASSES

35%) or the

nce the 201668%). Whilew York, they

a halogen oaced by anare willing to

replacemen even emptyed halogens

pes replacing

LEDs (53%)with anotheFLs replaced

by either awas more

ogen or anare willing to

CFLs (32%)laced one in

of replacedhtly higher inescent bulbsn New York.

of removedssachusetts

FL (10%) andmpty sockets

SSMENT

49

e

6 e y

or n o

nt y s g

), er d

a e n o

), n

d n s

d s, d s


were LEDs

replaced bys (25%) were

y incandescee replaced b

ent bulbs. Oby incandesc

One in five recent bulbs.

2017 LIGH

emoved CFL

HTING MAR

Ls (19%) and

KET ASSES

d one in fou

SSMENT

50

r


Figuure 24: Whaat Replace

2017 LIGH

ed What

HTING MARKET ASSES

SSMENT

51


(Base: R

R

ReasonsHousehol

Replaced

Wanted toefficient b

Did not likappearanAvailable

Wanted nfixtures to

Don’t kno

R

ReasonsHousehol

Replaced

Wanted toefficient b

Did not likappearan

Available

Wanted nfixtures to

Don’t kno

a. Sb. U

Replacement bu

Reasons why…

s for replacinlds (n)

d bulb countb

o use a more bulb

ke function ance of previouin storage

ew bulbs/bulbo match

w/Other

Reasons why…

s for replacinlds (n)

d bulb countb

o use a more bulb ke function ance of previou

in storage

ew bulbs/bulbo match w/Other ignificantly diffenweighted cou

Table 23:ulbs in panel ho

…

ng

energy-

nd/or s bulb

bs in

…

ng

energy-

nd/or s bulb

bs in

erent from Masunt; weighted co

: Reasons omes that were

reported to

MassaInefficient bu

LED

82

340

86%

3%

2%

--

8% New

Inefficient bu

LED

32

99

80%

5%

2%

--

13% ssachusetts at ount for column

for Bulb Te a different typbe DI excluded

achusetts lbs replaced

CFL

59

111

37%

15%

30%

4%

15%w York

lbs replaced

CFL

19

29

67%a

10%

9%a

--

12%the 90% confidn values.

2017 LIGH

Type Changpe than the buld)

with: Effi

Inca

%

%

%

%

with: Effi

Inca

a

%

a

% dence level.

HTING MAR

ge lb they replace

icient bulbs re

andescent

52

92

3%

35%

25%

4%

28%

icient bulbs re

andescent 15

27

1

2

9

4

6

KET ASSES

ed; bulbs self-

eplaced with:

Halogen

16

20

2

5

5

1

3

eplaced with:

Halogen 2

2

--

1

1

--

--

SSMENT

52


4.1.3 B

Using thhome typvaried bybehavior househothan otheNew Yorlow-incocounterpreplacem

We comMassachstates, Mbulbs tdifferencMA hous

Bulb Replac

e panel datpe, tenure, y demograp

among delders, homeers to installrk. Furthermome houseparts, indicment no ma

Fi

mpared buhusetts and Massachusethan New ces. Not surseholders wh

cement Be

ta, we furthand numbehic characte

emographic eowners, andl replacemen

more, Massaholds) inst

cating that Matter how yo

gure 25: R(Base

lb replacemNew York. W

etts househYork hou

rprisingly, givho have at le

ehavior by

her exploreder of bulbs reristics. Whi

groups, higd householdnt LEDs. Th

achusetts htalled moreMassachusou parse the

Replacemen: Massachuse

ment behaWhile the di

holds instaluseholds, even the oveeast some co

Demograp

d replacemereplaced to le there wasghly educatders in singlhis pattern hhouseholdere replacemetts is outpe data.

nt Bulbs betts Panel Ho

avior acrossifferences bled significeven whenrall higher raollege educa

2017 LIGH

phic Variab

ent behaviordetermine

s no differented househle-family dw

held true in brs in these

ment LEDs pacing New

y Demograouseholds)

s demograetween grou

cantly moren accountiate of LED uation, are no

HTING MAR

bles

r by educatif replacemence in CFL

holders, nonwellings wereboth Massace groups (fo

than theirw York in ef

aphic

aphic groupups were sime efficient ring for deusage in Maon-low-incom

KET ASSES

ion, incomeent behavioreplacemen

n-low-incomee more likelychusetts andor exampler New Yorkfficient bulb

ps in bothmilar in bothreplacemenemographicssachusetts

me, own thei

SSMENT

53

e, or nt e y d e, k b

h h t c s, r


homes, replacemreplacemhousehoincome degree osame stahigh schhousehohousehonumber bachelo

In MassaCFLs, inefficient within Maof LED b

• Rs

• R

Trends b

Educatio

• Rsba

• Rsd

Income

• R(1re5

• R(4

Home Ty

or live in ment bulbs (Lment rates olders in Mhouseholde

or higher insate with a hhool educatilders with

olders with of LEDs (3r’s degree o

achusetts, ndicating thabulb type (Tassachusettulbs as repla

Replaced bulince the last

Replacement

by Demogra

on

Replaced buignificantly fachelor’s dessociate’s d

Replacementignificantly megree (38%

Replaced bul10%) than emoved sig8%) to repla

Replacement40%) compa

ype

single-familLEDs or CFLfor CFLs d

Massachuseers in New stalled signifhigh school on or less a high scha high sc

39%) to repor higher (4

households at two-thirdsTable 21). Hots as describacements. T

lbs (Table 24t visit (the bu

t bulbs (Tabl

aphic

ulbs: Housefewer incandegree or highegree (47%

t bulbs: Homore LEDs () or a high s

lbs: Low-incnon-low-in

nificantly mace with ano

t bulbs: Lowared to non-l

ly units areLs). This diffdo not diffeetts installe

York (8%).ficantly moreducation oinstalled si

hool educathool educalace remov

41%). Detaile

replaced 47s (66%) ofowever, repbed below, wThe data bel

4) are thoseulb recorded

le 25) are th

eholds with descent bulbher (53%) or).

ouseholds w(55%) than hchool educa

ome househncome hou

more inefficiether bulb tha

w-income how-income h

e significanference apper significand significa In both stae replaceme

or less. In Mgnificantly mtion or lessation or lesved bulbs aed findings fo

7% of remoremoved bulacement rawith differenow are pres

e bulbs that h as installed

ose installed

a high scbs (29%) fror households

with a bachhouseholds ation or less

holds replacseholds (4

ent bulbs (ian low-incom

households households

2017 LIGH

tly more lipears to be dntly betweently more

ates, househent LEDs th

Massachusetmore LEDs s (11%). Inss installedas New Yorfor each stat

ved bulbs wulbs were r

ates fluctuatences particulsented in two

have been rd in the 2016

d in the sock

chool educaom sockets s with some

helor’s degrwith some c(39%).

ced significan4%). Non-loincandescenme househo

installed si(52%).

HTING MAR

kely to insdriven by LEen states. LLEDs (40%

holders with han househotts, househo

(39%) thann fact, Masd a statistick householte are explor

with LEDs areplaced byed across dearly apparen

o different ta

removed from6 visit),

ket in the 20

ation or lesthan house

e college edu

ree or highcollege or an

ntly more emow-income nt bulbs anlds (46%).

ignificantly

KET ASSES

stall efficienED usage, asLow-income

%) than lowa bachelor’solders in theolders with an New Yorkssachusettscally similalders with ared below.

nd 19% withy an energyemographicsnt in the use

ables:

m the socke

017 visit.

ss removedeholds with aucation or an

her installedn associate’s

mpty socketshouseholds

nd halogens

fewer LEDs

SSMENT

54

nt s e

w-s e a k s r a

h y-s e

et

d a n

d s

s s

s,

s


• Rinfa

• RLsm(iC

Tenure

• Rh

• Rth(1rere

Primary

• Rsala

• Rhp

Demogra

It is likelyabove mgroups o

• Rshhb

• RreHrem

Replaced buncandescentamily houses

ReplacementEDs (33%) ingle-family

multifamily ncandescen

CFLs, 52%) t

Replaced buomeowners

Replacementhan owners 14% compaeplacement eplacement

Language

Replaced bupoken repland significan

anguage. Replacement

ouseholds trimarily a lan

aphic Comb

y that the bight be relat

of characteris

Replaced buignificantly mouseholds oouseholds aulbs (44%) t

Replacementeplacement

Homeownersegardless of

multifamily u

ulbs: Houset bulbs (58%s (46% and

t bulbs: Hoand significahouseholds

units instants and halogthan single-f

ulbs: Renter(4%).

t bulbs: Ren(54%). Renred to 5%). bulbs (72%bulbs (23%)

ulbs: Househaced significntly more CF

t bulbs: Repthat speak nguage othe

binations

ulb replacemted; here, westics (e.g., lo

lbs: We obsmore CFLs of any incomalso replacethan other ho

t bulbs: HoLEDs than

s also instaf unit type (nits, howev

eholds in m%) and signif34%, respec

useholds inantly more hs (49% anlled signifigens, 41%) family house

rs replaced

nters installeters also insOverall, ho

) than did re) than renter

holds in whiantly fewer FLs (54%) t

placement bprimarily E

er than Engli

ment patterne explore whow-income re

served that (42%) than

me categoryd significantouseholds.

useholds inhouseholds

lled signific(single-famil

ver, installed

multifamily ficantly fewectively).

n multifamilyhalogens (2d 5%, rescantly morand signific

eholds (27%

significantly

ed significanstalled signifomeownersenters (44%rs (47%).

ich a languaincandescehan househ

behavior wasEnglish at hish.

ns we obserhether theseenters versu

low-incomen non-low-iny in multifamtly fewer ine

n multifamilys in single-f

cantly more ly or multifad the lowes

2017 LIGH

units replaer CFLs (22

y units insta1%) to replapectively). re inefficie

cantly fewer and 68%, re

y more emp

ntly fewer reficantly moreinstalled sig

%), and sign

age other thent bulbs (31olds in whic

s not significhome and

rved in deme patterns hous non-low-in

e single-famncome singmily units. Loefficient (inca

y units instafamily unitsLEDs to r

amily), than st proportion

HTING MAR

aced signific%) than tho

alled significace removedOverall, hont replacemefficient bulespectively)

pty sockets

eplacement e replacemegnificantly mificantly few

han English1%) and hach English is

cantly differhouseholds

mographic chold up whenncome rente

ily househole-family hoow-income andescent a

alled signific, regardlessreplace rem

did rentersn of replace

KET ASSES

cantly moreose in single

cantly fewed bulbs than

ouseholds inment bulbsbs (LED and.

(11%) than

LEDs (22%ent halogens

more efficienwer inefficien

h is primarilyalogens (1%s the primary

rent betweenthat speak

haracteristicsn consideringers).

lds replacedouseholds osingle-family

and halogen

cantly fewes of income

moved bulbss. Renters inement LEDs

SSMENT

55

e e-

er n n s d

n

) s

nt nt

y ) y

n k

s g

d or y )

er e. s, n s


(1fa

In New Y26) was s

• Rsh

• Rinre

13%) compaamily and mu

York, differesimilar to Ma

Replaced buignificantly fouseholders

Replacementncome houseplacement

ared to renteultifamily un

ences in bulbassachusett

ulbs: Housefewer incans with some t bulbs: Households, anLEDs.

ers in singleits (54% and

b replacemes:

eholders widescent bulcollege eduuseholders

nd homeown

e-family unitsd 63%, respe

ent behavior

th a bachelbs and signcation or anwith a bacners were

2017 LIGH

s (25%) andectively).

among dem

elor’s degrenificantly mo associate’shelor’s degrsignificantly

HTING MAR

d homeowne

mographic gr

ee or highore halogen

s degree. ree or highy more like

KET ASSES

ers in single

roups (Table

her replacedn bulbs than

er, non-lowely to insta

SSMENT

56

e-

e

d n

w-ll


Bache(n=214Some Degre

HS Ed

Non-L(n=189Low-In(n=94)

Single(n=251Multifa(n=64)

Own/B(n=231Rent/L(n=82)

Englis

Langu(n=16

INon-L(n=31)Non-LSingleLow-InMultifaLow-InSingle

HMultifa(n=24)Single(n=207Multifa(n=40)Single(n=42)Signifia. Bd. Sg. Nj. Lm. M

Demogra

Education elor’s Degree or H4) College/ Associae (n=69)

ducation or Less

Income ow-Income 9) ncome )

Home Type

e Family 1) amily )

Tenure Buying 1) Lease ) Primary Languag

h (n=299)

age other than E) ncome/Home Tyow-Income – Mu) ow-Income –

e Family (n=158) ncome – amily (n=30) ncome – e Family (n=64) Home Type/Tenuamily – Own/Buy)

e Family – Own/B7) amily – Rent/Lea)

e Family – Rent/L) cantly different fr

Bachelor’s DegreSingle Family Non-Low-income Low-Income SingMulti-family – Ren

Table 24

aphic

BulbCou

Higher 1,77

ate’s 424

(n=32) 178

1,63

515

2,11

265

2,04

329

ge

2,28

English 88

ype

ultifamily 138

1,49

63

452

ure

ying 150

Buying 1,89

se 115

Lease 207

rom [demographee or Higher

Multi-Family gle Family nt/Lease

4: Replace(Base

b nt

Incandesce

%

73 53%

4 47%†

8 29%ab %

30 49%

5 39%†

%

10 46%

5 58%d

%

46 48%

9 43%

%

87 48%

8 31%f

%

8 52%

92 49%j

3 49%

2 37%h

%

0 62%

96 47%

5 54%

7 40%

hic category] at thb. Se. Oh. Nk. Mn. S

d Bulbs by: Massachuse

Repla

ent CFL

%

29%

35%

41% %

30%

40%

%

34%

22%d

%

34%

28%

%

32%

54%f

%

28%

30%j

27%

42%h

%

21%

35%

24%

30%

he 90% confidenSome College/AsOwn/Buying Non-Low-IncomeMulti-family – OwSingle Family – R

y Demograetts Panel Ho

aced Bulbs (

Fluorescent

%

1%

2%

2% %

2%

2%

%

2%

2%

%

2%

2%

%

2%

0%f

%

1%

2%

5%

2%

%

1%

2%

3%

2%

ce level. ssociate’s Degre

e Single Family wn/Buying Rent/Lease

2017 LIGH

aphic, Masouseholds)

(Before)

Halogen L

%

7% 5

6% 5

12% 6%

9% 6

7%† 2

%

8% 5

8% 3

%

7% 5

12% 4

%

8% 5

1%f 0

%

10% 3

9% 6

6% 3

7% 2

%

8% 5

7% 5%

8% 2

13% 5

ee c.f.i.l.† New

HTING MAR

sachusetts

LED Empty

Socket % %

5% 5%

5% 5%

6% 10% % %

6% 4%

2%† 10%c

% %

5% 5%

3% 7%

% %

5% 4%

4%† 11%e

% %

5% 5%

0%f 14%

% %

3% 6%

6% 4%

3% 10%

2% 10%

% %

5% 3%

%mn 4%

2%l 9%

5%l 10%

Non-Low-IncomEnglish as PrimaLow-Income MuSingle Family – w York

KET ASSES

s

Incandescent

+ Halogen

%

60%

53%

41%a %

58%

46%c

%

54%

66%d

%

55%

54%

%

56%

33%f

%

62%j

57%j

55%

44%gh

%

69%

54%

62%

53%

e ary Language

ulti-family Own/Buying

SSMENT

57

CFL +

LED

%

34%

40%†

47% %

36%

43%†

%

39%†

25%d

%

39%†

32%

%

37%

54%

%

31%

36%

30%

44%

%

26%

40%mn

25%l

35%l


Bache(n=214Some Degre

HS Ed

Non-L(n=189Low-In(n=94)

Single(n=251Multifa(n=64)

Own/B(n=231Rent/L(n=82)

P

Englis

Langu(n=16)

InNon-LMultifaNon-LSingleLow-InMulti-fLow-InSingle

HMultifa(n=24)Single(n=207Multifa(n=40)Single(n=42)Signifia. Bd. Sg. Nj. Lm. M

Demogra

Education elor’s Degree or H4) College/Associae (n=69)

ducation or Less

Income ow-Income 9) ncome )

Home Type

e Family 1) amily )

Tenure Buying 1) Lease ) Primary Languag

h (n=299)

age other than E) ncome/Home Typow-Income –

amily (n=31) ow-Income –

e Family (n=158) ncome – family (n=30) ncome – e Family (n=64) Home Type/Tenuamily – Own/Buy)

e Family – Own/B7) amily – Rent/Lea)

e Family – Rent/L) cantly different th

Bachelor’s DegreSingle Family Non-Low-income Low-Income SingMulti-family – Ren

Table 25:

aphic

Bulb Coun

Higher 1,773

ate’s 424

(n=32) 178

1,630

515

2,110

265

2,046

329

ge

2,287

English 88

pe

138

1,492

63

452

re

ying 150

Buying 1,896

se 115

Lease 207

han [demographee or Higher

Multi-Family gle Family nt/Lease

Table 26: R

Replacem(Base

t

Incandesce

%

3 20%

22%†

24%

0 19%

22%

0 22%†

20%

6 18%†

33%

7 22%

13%

25%

2 19%

21%

22%

7%lmn

6 19%k

29%k

35%k

ic category] at thb. e. h. k. n.

Replaced/R(

ent Bulbs : Massachuse

Replac

nt CFL

%

15%

24%

24%

17%

24%

20%

18%

19%

22%

19%

37%

19%

17%

24%

24%

11%

19%

22%

22%

he 90% confidencSome College/AOwn/BuyingNon-Low-IncomeMulti-family – OwSingle Family –

ReplacemeBase: New Y

by Demogetts Panel Ho

cement Bulb

Fluorescent H

%

1%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

0%f

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

ce level.Associate’s Degre

e Single Familywn/BuyingRent/Lease

ent Bulbs bork Panel Ho

2017 LIGH

graphic, Maouseholds)

bs (After)

Halogen LE

% %

7% 55

9% 38%

6% 39%

8% 52

7% 40%

5% 49

21%d 33

5% 54

14%e 22

7% 47

4% 42

23%hj 28%

6%gi 54

26%j 11%

4%gi 45

14% 63%

4%m 54

25%ln 13

10%km 25

ee c.f.i.l.† Ne

by Demogouseholds)

HTING MAR

assachuse

ED Empty

Socket % %

5%b 2%

%a† 5%

%a† 6%†

2%† 3%†

%c† 5%†

9%† 3%†

3%d 7%

4%† 3%†

2%e 7%

7% 4%

2% 4%

%hij 4%

%gi 3%i

%ghj 16%hj

%gi 4%i

%mn 4%

%m 3%

%kl 10%

5% 6%

Non-Low-IncomEnglish as PrimLow-Income MuSingle Family –

ew York

raphic, Ne

KET ASSES

etts

Incandescent

+ Halogen

%

26%

30%†

30%

27%

29%

27%†

41%d

23%†

47%e

29%

17%

48%hj

25%gi

47%hj

26%gi

21%mn

23%m

54%kl

45%k

me mary Languageulti-family

– Own/Buying

ew York

SSMENT

58

CFL +

LED

%

70%

62%†

63%

69%†

64%†

68%†

52%d

72%†

44%e

65%

79%

46%hj

71%gi

35%hj

69%gi

74%mn

73%m

35%kl

47%k


Bachel(n=60) Some Degree

HS Ed

Non-Lo(n=66) Low-In(n=30)

Single (n=96) Multifa(n=9)22

Own/B(n=79) Rent/L(n=26)

Bachel(n=60) Some Degree

HS Ed

Non-Lo(n=66) Low-In(n=30)

Single (n=96) Multifa(n=9)21

Own/B(n=79) Rent/L(n=26) Significa. Bd. S

Demogr

Education lor’s Degree or H College/Associae (n=26)

ucation or Less (

Income ow-Income

ncome

Home Type

Family mily

2 Tenure

Buying ease

Demograph

Education lor’s Degree or H College/ Associae (n=26)

ucation or Less (

Income ow-Income

ncome

Home Type Family mily

1 Tenure

Buying ease cantly different frachelor’s Degreeingle Family

21 1-2% of 22 Not enou

raphic

BuCo

Higher 3

te’s 7

(n=19) 4

3

9

42

1

36

7

ic

Bu

Co

Higher 3

ate’s 7

(n=19) 4

3

9

4

1

36

7

rom [demographie or Higher

replaced bulbsugh bulbs to re

ulb ount

Incandes

%

11 47%

79 66%

49 49%

10 49%

94 61%

21 54%

18 7

66 51%

73 59%

ulb

ount

Incandes

%

11 30%

79 41%

49 30%

10 26%

94 45%

18 35%

18 3

66 32%

73 40%

ic category] at thb. e.

s in each categeport % in this c

Re

scent CFL

%

%b 24%

a† 20%

% 39%

% 24%

% 25%

% 26%

2

% 25%

% 25%

Replace

scent CFL

%

% 10%

%† 19%

% 33%a

% 14%

%† 19%

%† 17%

1

%† 17%

% 17%

e 90% confidencSome College/AOwn/Buying

ory were unkncategory.

placed Bulbs

Fluorescent

%

2%

2%

0%

2%

3%

2%

3

2%

3%

ement Bulbs

Fluorescent

%

3%

2%

0%

1%

3%

1%

3

2%

3%

ce level. Associate’s Deg

own type (“don

2017 L

s (Before)21

t Halogen

%

13%b

2%a

3%a

11%

1%c†

7%

-

8%

6%

s (After)

t Halogen

%

6%

8%

1%

7%

5%

6%

-

5%

6%

ree c†

n’t know”); rows

LIGHTING M

LED Em

Soc

% %

4% 8%

2% 7%

0% 8%

4% 8%

0%c† 8%

2% 8%

- -

3% 9%

0%† 6%

LED Em

Soc% %

41%† 10

16%a† 14

11%a† 25

40%† 11

8%c† 20

27%† 14

6 1

32%† 12

15%e 19

c. Non-Low-Inc† Massachusetts

s do not sum to

MARKET AS

Incande

+ Halompty

cket % %

% 60%

% 68%

% 52%

% 60%

% 62%

% 61%

- 7

% 59%

% 65%

Incande

+ Halompty

cket % %

%† 35%

4% 49%

5%† 12%

%† 33%

%† 49%

%† 41%

1 3

%† 37%

9% 46%

come

o 100%.

SSESSMEN

59

scent

gen

CFL +

LED

%

% 28%

% 22%†

% 39%

% 28%

% 25%†

% 28%†

2

% 29%†

% 25%

scent

gen

CFL +

LED

%

% 51%†

%† 35%†

%ab 43%

% 54%†

%† 27%c

%† 44%†

7

%† 49%†

% 32%

NT

+

†

†

†

†

+

†

†

†

†

†

†


4.1.4 N

As signigroups win which are laggiand 2017and Tablcategoryremovedhouseho2016 for some caremovedwhile soreplacemuse and/

Bulb Typ

Bulb Type

Sample S

Bulb Cou

LED or C

LED

CFL

IncandesHalogen Incande

Halogen

Linear flu

Empty So

Newly Insta

ficant differwere similar t

this analysising when it 7 replacemee 28), it is a. While ove bulb) are lolds, rental, oalmost eve

ases; for ex bulbs with

ome demogment rates ar

or make the

Table

pe

e

Size

unt

CFL

scent or n scent

n

uorescent

ocket

*Significant

alled Repla

rences in reto those fous was conducomes to e

ent bulb dataapparent thaerall rates ofower for LEDor multifamilyry demograxample, lowLEDs in 20

graphic groure increasing

em more affo

27: Replac

Bachelo

2016

163

1,383

61%*

36%*

25*

33%

26%

7%

0%

6%* tly different from

acement Bu

eplacement nd in the 20ucted), one

efficient bulba are placed t LED usagef replacemeDs in housey units, LEDphic catego

w-income pa016, comparups are leg across theordable are i

cement Bu

or’s or Highe

2017

214

1,773

70%

55%

15%

27%

20%

7%

1%

2% m 2017 at the 9

ulbs by De

behaviors 016 Massachmight assum

b replacemeside by side

e is growing ent (the bulbeholds witho replacemenry comparedanel housered to 40% ss likely to

e board, indicndeed work

ulbs by Dem

Education

r Some

Ass2016

72

496

56

28%

28%

32%

25%

7%

5%

7% 90% confidenc

2017 LIGH

emographi

among thehusetts Lighme that certant behaviorse for each of proportiona

b installed inout a bachelont is significad. The increholders onlin 2017. Th

o install LEcating that eing and sho

mographic

nal Attainmee College/ sociate’s

2017

69

424

62%

38%

24%

31%

22%

9%

2%

5% ce level.

HTING MAR

cs

e different dting report (ain demogras. However,f these groually in each dn a socket or’s degree,antly higher ease is quitey replaced

his analysis EDs than oefforts to enculd be contin

c, 2016-17

ent

High Sc

2016

31

133

46%

21%

25%

36%

30%

6%

2%

16%

KET ASSES

demographicthe first yeaaphic groups, when 2016ps (Table 27demographicto replace a, low-incomein 2017 than

e dramatic in16% of areveals tha

others, LEDcourage LEDnued.

hool or Less

2017

32

178

63%

39%

24%

30%

24%

6%

1%

6%

SSMENT

60

c r s 6 7 c a e n n ll

at D D

s


Bulb Type

Sample S

Bulb Cou

LED or C

LED

CFL

Incandes

Incande

Halogen

Linear flu

Empty So

Bulb Type

Sample S

Bulb Cou

LED or C

LED

CFL

Incandes

Incande

Halogen

Linear flu

Empty So

Bulb Type

Sample S

Bulb Cou

LED or C

LED

CFL

Incandes

Incande

Halogen

Linear flu

Empty So*Significan

Table 28:

e

Size

unt

CFL

scent or Ha

scent

n

uorescent

ocket

e

Size

unt

CFL

scent or Ha

scent

n

uorescent

ocket

e

Size

unt

CFL

scent or Ha

scent

n

uorescent

ocket ntly different fro

Replaceme

alogen

alogen

alogen

om 2017 at the

ent Bulbs

Non2016

168

1,467

61%

38%

23%

33%

25%

8%

1%

5%

Si2016

143

1,341

60%

37%

23%

31%

26%

5%

2%

7%*

O2016

188

1,701

60%*

37%

23%

32%*

25%

7%

2%

6%90% confidenc

By Demog

n-low-income6 20

18

7 1,6

% 69

* 52

% 17

% 27

% 19

8

1

3

ngle Family6 20

25

1 2,1

% 69

* 49

% 20

% 27

% 22

5

1

* 3

Own/Buying 6 20

23

1 2,0

* 73

* 54

% 19

* 23

* 18

5

1

3ce level.

2017 LIGH

graphic, 20Income

e 017

89

630

9%

2%

7%

7%

9%

8%

%

3% Home Typ

017

51

110

9%

9%

0%

7%

2%

5%

%

3% Tenure

017

31

046

3%

4%

9%

3%

8%

5%

%

3%

HTING MAR

016-17, con

Low-inc2016

80

427

48%*

16%*

32%

33%

25%

8%

5%

14% pe

Multi-Fa2016

127

690

52%

22%*

30%*

31%

26%

11%*

3%

8%

Rent/Le2016

79

317

47%

11%*

36%*

37%

28%

9%

3%

13%

KET ASSES

nt’d

come 2017

94

515

64%

40%

24%

29%

22%

7%

2%

6%

amily 2017

64

265

52%

34%

18%

41%

22%

21%

1%

7%

ease 2017

82

329

44%

22%

22%

44%

33%

14%

2%

7%

SSMENT

61


4.1.5 D

New CFMassachcalculatedelta watand LEDincandesbut the dmeant toestimatesshow whmarket inwithout th

Bulb TypTotal ReIncandesHalogen CFL LED

4.2 TR

Massachbegan tothe numbsection ucontinuedunderstaAdoptionfuture of progress

Figure 2shipmentobservedsupporte

Delta Watts

FLs or LEDhusetts samed the estimttage of new

Ds replacedscent bulbs wdrop in deltao supplant ts presented hat was insntelligence dhe program.

Ta

ne

pe Replacedplaced Bulbsscent

RACKING Chusetts has o report trendber of CFLsupdates this d tracking and the CFL

n Model provthe lighting

ses.

26 shows thts and mard from natied bulbs follo

s

Ds were inmple during mated delta wwly installed , it is clearwith CFLs or watts was the delta where do not

stalled prior data from se

ble 29: Del(Base: CFL

ew fixtures an

d n s

134 15

207 6

CFLS OVER

been trackinds in CFL u

s that may hanalysis ba

and presentaL market anvides an expg market and

he continuerket-level saional shipmowed their o

nstalled in the year p

watts for neLEDs to be

r that most r LEDs. CFLminimal. Noatts developt reflect the

to replaceeveral studie

lta Watts bLs and LEDs tnd empty soc

CFLsNew CFLs

363 37% 4%

57% 2%

R TIME ng the CFL se, storage,

have burnedsed on the 2ation of the

nd where it plicit tool to hd their poss

ed mirroring ales. In 201

ments and own trend, w

a combinerior to the

ewly installede 29. Lookin

of the dropLs were replaote that the dped throughentirety of cment. The es to develo

by Bulb Typthat replaced kets excluded

Newly Insts

Avg. DeltWatts

19 48 34 0.2 -4

market for n purchases, out or been2017 on-site

e trends helpmay be gohelp the PAssible role in

of two of 16, programmarket-leve

which was dr

2017 LIGH

ed total of study. Usin

d CFLs to bng closely atp in wattagaced mostlydelta watts ph the Markeconsumer op

Market Adoop market sh

pe for Pasinstalled bulb

d; panel visits

talled Bulbs

ta n

1,599 80

422 84

numerous ye, and shipmen removed o

e saturation ps the PAs ing in the ns and EEACinfluencing

the threem-supported l sales. Pr

riven by prog

HTING MAR

1,557 socng panel sibe 19, and t the types oge came froy by other CFpresented aet Adoption ptions but inoption Modehare estima

t Year bs; s only)

s - MA LEDs

New LEDs

,194 50% 7%

35% 7%

ears, and inents as wellover the pasdata. NMR band EEAC

near future. C consultants

program sa

trends show bulbs mirrrior to 201gram design

KET ASSES

ckets in theite data, wethe average

of bulb CFLsom replacingFLs or LEDsre in no wayModel. The

stead simplyel considerstes with and

Avg. DeltaWatts

29 47 50 6

0.3

n 2013, NMRl as estimatest year. Thisbelieves tha

C consultantsThe Marke

s assess theales as EISA

wn: nationarored trends5, program

n, objectives

SSMENT

62

e e e s g s, y e y s d

a

R e s

at s

et e A

al s -

s,


and the shipment

F

Sources: Msales in 20compiled fr

BeginninCFLs puTable 30installatioMeasurefor the sempiricaare shadCFL purcinstallatio

23 NMR a

Lightin

nature of ts of CFLs h

Figure 26: C

Market-level sa011 through 2rom the Depart

g with the 2rchased in a0 summarizeon rates and

e Life Study, eventh throlly observed

ded gray).23 chases in Mons allows u

and RLW. Resng Program Sp

agreementshalved when

CFL Use, S

les for 2011 th016 provided tment of Comm

2012 on-sitea given yeares this appd the failure covering theugh sixteen

d or derived Moreover, th

Massachuseus to estima

idential Lightinponsors, June 1

s between tcomparing

Sales, and

rough 2016 froby the PAs or

merce.

e report, NMr that could broach for porates of CFLe first six yeath years badata are sh

his approachtts betweenate the burn

g Measure Life10, 2008.

the PAs an2016 to 201

Shipment

om the on-site vr their data tra

MR also begbe replacingossible CFLLs as estimaars of a CFLsed on the

hown in whih takes into

n 1998 and nouts per ye

e Study. Delive

2017 LIGH

nd the prog5.

Estimates

visits discusseacking vendors

an tracking g CFLs that hL failures inated in the 2L’s life and e

previous rate, and cells account the2016. Apply

ear. This ap

ered to the New

HTING MAR

gram partne

s, 2005 to 2

d in this reports. National shi

the possiblhad recently

n 2016. It co2008 Residenextrapolatingates of failurs with extrae history of ying the faipproach est

w England Res

KET ASSES

ers. Nationa

2016

t. Program-leveipment data as

e number oy burned outonsiders thential Lighting

g failure ratesre (cells withpolated datamarket-levelure rates toimates 2016

idential

SSMENT

63

al

el s

of t. e g s h a el o 6


CFL burnCFLs hav

The panethat burn(53%). Sreplaced point of upstream

Year aPurch

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eight Ninth Tenth EleventhTwelfth ThirteentFourteenFifteenthSixteenthSeventeeEighteenNineteenCumulati* Derived correlate wthe failure ** Sum of 7level purch*** Sum of simple exaof the CFL

nouts to be ave burned o

el study desned out this Specifically,

with other comparison

m program.

Tab

after hase

F

th nth

h enth nth nth ive from NMR an

with the columnrates in this tab

77% of the currhases. f the burnouts oample, the nums obtained in 1

about 6.7 mut since the

scribed abovyear may hwe estimatCFLs, and

n, in 2016,

ble 30: Est

Failure Rate*

Y

4% 19% 18% 2

15% 210% 2

8% 210% 2

5% 25% 24% 23% 23% 22% 22% 22% 22% 21% 21% 21% 2

nd RLW, Resins to the right oble in order to hent year marke

occurring in thamber of burned

999 and 8% of

illion. Moreostart of the

ve allows ushave been ted that 2.1another 3.5the PAs su

timating CF

Year MarPu

199819992000200120022003200420052006 12007 1200820092010 1201120122013 1201420152016

10idential Lightinof the table, buhave all the coet-level purchas

at year based oout CFLs in 20f the CFLs obta

over, this mePAs’ lighting

s to estimatereplaced wi

1 million of 5 million weupported ab

FLs Replac

ket-Level rchases

305,216554,077530,006979,811892,859

3,565,4954,565,8626,308,4020,426,4663,330,7714,248,7618,447,3820,870,314 6,611,870 7,370,7321,697,6507,533,5664,441,0162,284,650

04,964,906ng Measure Liut factors into tmponents of thses and 10% o

on all installatio000 includes 4ained in 1998.

2017 LIGH

ethod suggeg programs i

e how manyth other CFthe burned

ere likely repbout 2.5 mi

cing otherNewly

InstalledGiven Ye

235457494862838

2,9323,9615,6709,115

11,9385,6478,2629,6397,0227,423

10,4057,7075,3422,956

100,914ife Study, 200the burn-out rahe calculations of each of the tw

ons occurring 4% of the CFLs

HTING MAR

ests that aboin 1998.

y of the 6.7 FLs (32%) od out CFLsplaced with illion CFLs

r CFLs y d in ear**

Burna Y

5,0167,1614,0342,8638,4832,698

,5490,6055,8058,1807,2702,4379,7562,9093,6825,4517,6842,7046,6394,926 508. This columate for each ye

in one place. wo previous ye

prior to that yes obtained in 2

KET ASSES

out 58 million

million CFLsor with LEDss were likely

LEDs. As athrough the

ned out in Given

Year***

9,039 38,674 79,202

149,326 241,637 397,649 715,159

1,110,896 1,842,610 2,815,756 3,675,034 4,385,247 5,292,905 5,483,572 5,827,452 6,347,7266,609,4496,673,0556,730,601

58,424,989mn does not ear; we show

ears’ market-

ear. To use a 000 plus 9%

SSMENT

64

n

s s y a e


techniciaLED bulfamiliarityrespondesection spossible,note thatresponseyears pr2014. Hig

The some

Masslevelincre

Consseem

MassCFLsLEDs

BULB F

The 201their famfamiliar” asked anabout Lawarene

Results CFLs anYork, resin both sdecline. comparisand New

5ans asked fob that they y and satisfents’ knowlesummarizes, we compart this was thes from eachior, while oghlights from

majority oewhat satis

sachusetts led off aftereased in bot

sumers’ samed slightly

sachusetts s preferreds was signif

FAMILIARIT

7 Massachumiliarity with

or “very famn LED awarED familiarss, which m

from the 20nd LEDs hasspondents ststates report

The followsons to 2015

w York in the

5 SectioThe 2017 cconsumers’asked durinyears, on-sreport their

or customerscurrently h

faction quesedge of, an

s findings inre the resulthe first yearh state. In Nnline respon

m this year’s

of on-site sfied with th

and New Yr several yeth states.

tisfaction wy less happy

and New d the formeficantly gre

Y

usetts and NLEDs, CFL

miliar” responreness quesrity. The 20ay cause sli

017 survey s mostly levtill showed ied slightly in

wing analysis5 and 2016current surv

n 5 Fconsumer su’ familiarity wng the on-sitsite technicir overall sas to report thhad installedstions provind experienn these ares from 2017r that the co

New York, thnses from Mstudy includ

participantshe LEDs ins

York consuears of sign

with all typy with cand

York consuer, though eater than th

New York cLs, and halonses. It is imstion, which 017 survey ght differenc

revealed thveled off aftencreasing lencreased levs examines in New Yovey.

Familiaurvey asseswith energyte visits assans asked atisfaction wheir satisfactd, allowing ded the ne

nce with, das from the

7 to those froonsumer sue survey wa

Massachusede the follow

ts in both talled in the

umers’ famnificant inc

es of LED dle and bulle

umers whoMassachus

hat of New Y

onsumer suogens. This

mportant to nserved to sasked onl

ces from pre

hat Massacer increasinevels of famvels of halogs 1) trendsrk, and 3) d

2017 LIGH

arity andssed Massay-saving lighessed LED consumers

with all LEtion level fofor more in

ecessary coifferent lighe survey anom previousrvey includeas administeetts residentwing:

states repeir homes.

miliarity withcreases, wh

bulbs waset/torpedo s

o reported setts consuYork respon

urveys askedanalysis pr

note that the screen consly about L

evious years

husetts conng over the iliarity with tgen familiari

s over timedifferences b

HTING MAR

d Satisachusetts an

t bulbs, whisatisfactionwith LEDs

EDs. This yr each spec

n-depth anantext for un

hting technond on-site vs years. It is ed both webered by phonts were first

ported bein

h CFLs andhile halogen

s high, but shaped bulb

using bothumers’ prendents.

d respondenresents only2015 and 2

sumers who ED familiar

s’ results.

nsumers’ fampast few yethese bulbs.ity after seve

e in Massabetween Ma

KET ASSES

factionnd New Yorkile questions. In previous installed to

year, on-sitecific model oalysis. Thesenderstandingologies. Thisvisits. Whenimportant to

b and phonene only in alt included in

ng very o

d LEDs hasn familiarity

consumersbs.

h LEDs andeference fo

nts to repory “somewha2016 surveys

were askedrity and no

miliarity withears. In New. Consumerseral years ochusetts, 2assachusetts

SSMENT

65

n k s s o e

of e g s n o e ll n

r

s y

s

d r

rt at s d

ot

h w s

of ) s


Althoughstatisticarespondefor the 20was a staeither staNew Yor

LED Fam

• Mass2016secon41%

• In Ne67%

• In 20levels

CFL Fam

• Mass85%—seconthan

• Nearfamiliand is

• Consdifferwith repordiscresurveMasswere Mass

24 It shouldmajority of generally sthe phone

h most of thelly significan

ents’, which 017 survey. atistically sigate. A detailk is available

miliarity

sachusetts r study, withnd highest level when f

ew York, 73in 2016, alth

017, Massacs of familiarit

miliarity

sachusetts c—down fromnd highest lwhen the qu

ly all New iarity level iss up signific

sumers in Nrence in repothe greatesrted 92% Cepancy in faey takers wesachusetts (F

significantsachusetts (8

d be noted that survey respon

show higher famgroup (Figure

e differencesnt, web respmay explainThe team a

gnificant diffeed comparise in Table 6

espondents h a very sligreported LEfirst asked in

% of responhough this in

chusetts anty with LEDs

consumers am 87% in 2evel since t

uestion was

York conss the highestantly from th

New York aorted familiast discrepanCFL familiaramiliarity maere significaFigure 45). Ftly more lik81%; Figure

earlier survey ndents over themiliarity, althou).

s between Npondents’ famn some increadded a phoerence in 20son of web 3.

to the 2017ght decreaseED familiarityn 2011. 24

ndents reponcrease is no

nd New Yors (68% and

also reported2016. As whe survey hfirst asked in

sumers repot reported fahe 82% of re

re more famrity betweency coming frity against ay be causeantly more lFurthermorekely to be

e 49).

results were lae past two yearsugh LED familia

New York phmiliarity tendeases in rep

one-only line017 betweenand phone

7 survey repe from 69% y of any ye

rted being fot statisticall

rk responde73%, respec

d similar but ith LED fam

has been adn 2009 (71%

orted someamiliarity in eespondents f

miliar with n the two stafrom phoneonly 78%

d by the ageikely to be

e, respondene familiar w

argely limited tos responded to

arity in the 2017

2017 LIGH

hone and weded to be sliported familie to any famn phone and results for b

ported LED to 68%. Th

ar, and is u

familiar with ly significant

ents reportedctively).

slightly decrmiliarity, 201dministered, %).

e familiarity either state ifamiliar with

CFLs than ates (93% vee responden

from Masse of survey under the a

nts below thewith CFLs

o phone-only reo the web surve7 survey was n

HTING MAR

eb respondeightly higheriarity levels iliarity chart web responboth Massac

familiarity she 2017 levup significan

LEDs in 20t.

d relatively

reased CFL 17 still reprand familia

with CFLsn any year o the technol

in Massachersus 85%) ints, where Nsachusetts.

respondentage of 45 the age of 45 (94%) tha

espondents, whey. The web renot significantly

KET ASSES

ents were nor than phonein New Yorkwhere there

ndents withinchusetts and

similar to theel is still thently from the

017, up from

comparable

familiarity aresented therity is highe

s. The 93%of the surveyogy in 2016

husetts. Theis significantNew YorkersPart of this

ts. New Yorkhan those inin New York

an those in

hile the espondents y different from

SSMENT

66

ot e k e n d

e e e

m

e

at e

er

% y .

e t, s s k n k n


FigureLe

Halogen

• M6

• Nb8rep

• Ninfa

These fawith somseemed between MassachCFLs ov

e 27: Masseveled Off

n Familiarity

Massachuset8% in 2017,

New York coetween 2018% of webespondents hone-only s

New York con 2017 (80%amiliarity wa

amiliarity resme caution. S

unable to athe two. T

husetts resper LEDs (e.

sachusetts after Stead

y

tts consume the highest

onsumers re6 and 2017b respondefamiliar wit

urvey.

nsumers’ ha% versus 68s slightly hig

sults rely soSome respoaccurately dTwenty of tpondents usg., claiming

Consumedy Increas

(Base: All

ers’ familiarityt point since

eported a s7—from 55%ents indicatih halogens

alogen famil8%), a noticegher than Ne

lely on self-ondents whoistinguish bthirty-five reed inaccura LEDs took

ers’ Familiases, while N

respondents

y with halog2011 (Figur

significant in% to 80%. Thing familiaris still a s

iarity is signeable changew York.

-reported dao reported faboth technoloespondents ate informat

time to wa

2017 LIGH

arity with CNY Continus)

gens increasre 28).

ncrease in fahis increaserity, althougignificant in

nificantly higge from 201

ata and shoamiliarity witogies when in New Yo

tion to explarm up or we

HTING MAR

CFLs and Lues to Incr

sed from 61%

familiarity we was partiagh the 76%crease from

her than Ma16 when Ma

uld thereforth both LED asked theiork and tenain their prere less ene

KET ASSES

LEDs has rease

% in 2016 to

ith halogensally driven by% of phonem last year’s

assachusettsassachusetts

e be treatedDs and CFLsr preferencen of sixteeneference foergy-efficien

SSMENT

67

o

s y e s

s s

d s e n

or nt


than CFLFigure 2Massach

Fig

While LEof consu(Figure 2used an remainedAlthoughpenetratiunder-re

Ls), indicatin7 and Figur

husetts and N

gure 28: Ma

ED and CFL mers familia

29). In 2016,LED bulb. Td the same, h 79% of Maon in 95% oported.

ng that thesere 28 show New York.

assachuseH

familiarity rear with LEDs 68% of con

That number with 79% o

assachusettsof Massachu

e self-reportechanges in

etts and NeHalogens h

(Base: All

emained rels who reportnsumers fam

rose to 77%of consumers consumersusetts home

ed familiarityn familiarity

ew York Cohas Increarespondents

atively levelted using th

miliar with LE% in 2017, wrs both usings report fams (Figure 19

2017 LIGH

y figures mawith LEDs,

onsumers’sed

s)

from 2016 e technolog

EDs also rephile CFL useg, and famil

miliarity with 9), suggestin

HTING MAR

ay be somewCFLs, and

’ Familiarit

to 2017, thegy increasedported that the compared iar with, theCFLs, we o

ng that CFL

KET ASSES

what inflatedhalogens in

ty with

e percentaged significantlyhey had eveto familiarity

e technologyobserve CFLfamiliarity is

SSMENT

68

d. n

e y

er y

y. L s


Fig

gure 29: Massachuse(Base: Resp

etts Consupondents fam

umers’ Usemiliar with LED

2017 LIGH

e of FamiliaDs and/or CFL

HTING MAR

ar TechnolLs)

KET ASSES

logies

SSMENT

69


5.1 FA

In all hosatisfactiYork resia total osatisfied.were verYork, res

SatisfactENERGYwas 93%Similarlymore thaLEDs habetween satisfactiMassachmany ENpercentabut no re

Level of SatisfactHouseholVery satisSomewhaNeither sadissatisfieSomewhadissatisfieVery dissaDon't know

A-line bufollowed in both Msatisfactireported fell just s

AMILIARITY

useholds thon with eachidents reporof 93% of .” Of the overy satisfied wsidents were

ion with ENY STAR lab%, very simi, in New Yo

an the 94% save not been

LEDs that hon with EN

husetts, theirNERGY STAge reported

espondents s

(Bas

ion lds sfied at satisfied atisfied nor ed at ed atisfied w

ulbs were thby reflectors

Massachuseon with refllevels of sat

short of 90%

Y AND SATI

at had at leh installed mrted very higrespondentser 4,000 LEwith 84%. S

e very satisfie

NERGY STAeled bulbs. lar to the 9rk, residents

satisfied withn installed lhave the ENNERGY STr popularity AR LEDs inthat they w

said they we

Tase: Responde

M

ENERGY STAR LEDs

E

227 83% 10%

2%

4%

0% 1%

he most coms (Table 32)

etts and Newectors over tisfaction in

%, indicating

SFACTION

east one LEmodel. Tablegh levels of ss reported tD bulbs ourimilarly, fored with 83%

AR LEDs wIn Massach

95% reporteds were satisfh non-ENERong enough

NERGY STATAR LEDs

is demonstrstalled comere somewh

ere “very diss

able 31: LEents with at lea

MassachusettNon-

ENERGY STAR LEDs

Dkn

208 186% 89% 6

3% 3

2% 3

0% 01% 2

mmon LEDs). LED satisfw York. ConA-line bulbboth states.

g that smalle

WITH BUL

D installed, e 31 indicatesatisfaction wthat they wr techniciansthe roughly

%.

as not signhusetts, satisd satisfactiofied with 96%

RGY STAR bh for users tR qualificatiis similar

rated by thepared to tho

hat dissatisfisatisfied” in

ED Satisfacast one LED

ts

Don't now

All LEDs

125 301 86% 84%6% 9%

3% 3%

3% 3%

0% 0% 2% 1%

s found in bfaction for eansumers in s. Bullet/tor Candle-bul

er LED bulbs

2017 LIGH

LB TYPES

participantses that both Mwith their LE

were “very ss found in M

1,500 LED

ificantly diffsfaction withon with non-% of ENERG

bulbs. It is likto realize thons and thoto non-ENE

e fact that wose without ed with certeither state.

ction installed in th

ENERGY STAR LEDs

57 79% 17%

1%

0%

0% 3%

both Massacach of thoseboth states

rpedo shapeb satisfactios may be s

HTING MAR

s indicated tMassachuseED bulbs. Insatisfied” or

Massachuset bulbs obse

ferent from h ENERGY -ENERGY SGY STAR L

kely that ENEhe differenceose that do nERGY STA

we found neathe label. A

tain models .

he home)

New YorkNon-

ENERGY STAR LEDs

88 87% 7%

2%

0%

0% 4%

chusetts ande bulb types

reported sled bulbs hadon in Massaclightly less p

KET ASSES

their level oetts and New both statesr “somewhatts, residentserved in New

that of nonSTAR bulbs

STAR bulbsEDs, slightlyERGY STARe in bulb lifenot. AlthoughAR LEDs inarly twice asA very smaof LED bulb

k

Don't know

All LEDs

84 13581% 83%8% 10%

1% 1%

5% 2%

0% 0%5% 4%

d New Yorktopped 93%ightly highed the loweschusetts alsopopular than

SSMENT

70

of w s, at s w

-s

s. y R e h n s ll

b,

s

5 % %

k, % er st o n


LED A-linused. Malight levedissatisfa

Level of

HouseholVery satis

Somewha

Neither sadissatisfie

Somewha

Very dissa

Don't know

HouseholVery satis

Somewha

Neither sadissatisfie

Somewha

Very dissa

Don't know

NMR alsand repoboth statwere som

Table 33there sehousehoinstalled the highe(97% sator more residents

nes and refleany househoels were deaction with th

(Bas

Satisfaction

lds sfied

at satisfied

atisfied nor ed

at dissatisfied

atisfied

w

lds sfied

at satisfied

atisfied nor ed

at dissatisfied

atisfied

w

so took the aorted averagtes, with 91mewhat or ve

3 also examieems to be ld and satisindicated thest overall tisfaction), sLEDs instal

s with over 2

ectors. This olders used esired, and he LED bulb

Table 32:se: Responde

A-Line

260 82%

11%

2%

3%

1%

1%

116 83%

10%

2%

2%

0%

3%

average of cge customer% of both Mery satisfied

ines reportesome corr

faction. In Mhat they wersatisfaction

slightly higheled. Althoug

20 LEDs inst

may be expcandle bulbssome attrib

b (Figure 31)

LED Satisents with at lea

Spot/ Reflector/ Flood

171 87%

9%

2%

0%

0%

2%

51 80%

14%

0%

1%

0%

5%

customers’ rr satisfactionMassachuse with their L

ed satisfactiorelation betwMassachusere very or so

comes fromer than the 9gh this may talled reporte

plained by ths in specialt

buted poor ).

sfaction byast one LED

Massac

Candle Gl

79 83% 9

6% 6

4% 1

4% 1

1% 1

2% 0

New

31 84% 8

8% 1

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

8% 7

reported satn (Table 33)etts and NewED bulbs, on

on by numbeween the ntts, 95% of omewhat sam househol90% of thosebe a somewed any level

2017 LIGH

he fixtures inty fixtures whdimming an

y Bulb Typinstalled in th

chusetts

lobe Slimstyle

46 2591% 92%

6% 2%

1% 1%

1% 5%

1% 0%

0% 0%

w York

9 382% 44%

1% 56%

0% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0%

7% 0%

tisfaction lev). Again, saw York respn average.

er of installenumber of Lrespondents

atisfied with ds with 11-e reporting what surprisof dissatisfa

HTING MAR

which thesehere dimminnd light qua

es he home)

m-e

Bullet/Torped

15 % 74%

6%

0%

21%

0%

0%

10 % 75%

% 4%

0%

14%

0%

7%

vels with eacatisfaction wpondents re

ed LEDs. UnLEDs beings with 20 orthe bulbs. I

-20 LED buhigh satisfac

sing result, naction.

KET ASSES

e bulbs wereng or specificality for thei

/ do

Other

15 84%

0%

9%

7%

0%

0%

16 93%

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

ch LED bulbwas similar ineporting they

nsurprisinglyg used in ar more LEDsn New York

ulbs installedction with 20no New York

SSMENT

71

e c r

b n y

y, a s

k, d 0 k


L

H

V

S

Nd

S

V

D

Tab

Level of Satisf

Households

Very satisfied

Somewhat sati

Neither satisfiedissatisfied

Somewhat diss

Very dissatisfie

Don't know

Comparisresponsehave remsomewha“very satresponsesatisfactisatisfactian otherw85% lastwith their

ble 33: LED(Bas

faction CusAve

3

7

sfied 1

ed nor 6

satisfied 2

ed 1

0

sons with 20es were collmained conat or very satisfied” with e in 2016. It on using aon, as dissawise satisfiet year. Threer LEDs this y

D Satisfactise: Responde

Mas

stomer erage

1-1LED

Insta

301 15

78% 73%

3% 18%

6% 5%

2% 1%

1% 2%

0% 1%

016 LED saected and tasistent. Las

atisfied with their LEDs is also poss

average scoatisfaction wed customere-quarters ofyear, up from

ion by Cusents with at lea

ssachusetts

10 Ds alled

11-20 LEDs

Installe

51 56

% 79%

% 8%

% 6%

% 4%

% 2%

% 1%

tisfaction maabulated, bu

st year, 92%their LEDs (on averagesible that thiores for eacwith a single r. In New Yf New York m 52% in 20

stomer Aveast one LED

ed

20+ LEDs

Installed

94

87%

8%

1%

2%

0%

2%

ay not be peut in Massac% of respon(Figure 30).in 2017 is

is year’s mech bulb mabulb could h

York, the overesidents ind16.

2017 LIGH

erage and installed in th

Customer Average

135

75%

16%

2%

2%

0%

5%

erfect due tochusetts LEndents declThe 78% o

higher than ethod in calcay underesthave draggeerall satisfacdicated that

HTING MAR

Number ohe home)

New Yor

1-10 LEDs

Installed In

77

71%

19%

3%

2%

0%

5%

o the changED satisfactiolared themsf respondenthe 70% w

culating overtimate overaed down the ction of 91%they were v

KET ASSES

f LEDs

rk

11-20 LEDs

nstalled

2LE

Inst

33 2

86% 80

11% 10

0% 3

3% 0

0% 0

0% 8

e in the wayon seems toselves to bents who wereho gave thisrall customeall customeresponse o

% is up fromvery satisfied

SSMENT

72

0+ EDs talled

25

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

8%

y o e e s

er er of m d


Figu

(Base: C

To furthegave lowMassachwhile thrdisplayedwere limliking theand Newand a te“stoppedindividuaand watta

25 Due to thsignificanc

ure 30: Ma

Consumers wit

er assess cow satisfactionhusetts residree New Yod in Figure ited, compla

e light qualitw York. Masendency to working af

al, who madeages.

he different mee of the change

assachuset

th at least on

onsumers’ en ratings to dents gave rork resident

31 below. aints about Ly emerged sachusetts flicker as re

fter a short e this compl

ethods of colleces between ye

tts and Newinstalled

e LED bulb inRes

experiences LED bulbs fesponses fots explainedAlthough d

LEDs not lasas the mainresidents aleasons for period” resaint across

cting this overaars.

w York CoLED Bulbs

nstalled [2017sponse])

with LEDs,for their reaor dissatisfacd their dissadissatisfactiosting as longn reasons foso cited LEdissatisfactiponses in Ma wide rang

ll satisfaction d

2017 LIGH

onsumers’ s25 7-Average of

, the team asoning in thction with a atisfaction won and corrg as adverti

or frustrationD bulbs notion. It shouMassachusege of LED m

data, we did no

HTING MAR

Satisfactio

bulb ratings;

asked respohat decision.total of 50 L

with 10 modresponding eised and con in both Mat working wild be noted

etts came frmodels in var

ot test the statis

KET ASSES

on with

2016-Overall

ondents who. Twenty-twoLED modelsdels. This isexplanationsnsumers noassachusettsith a dimmed that all 18rom a singlerying shapes

stical

SSMENT

73

o o s, s s

ot s

er 8 e s


Figure

(Base: C

5.2 BU

The 2017for respoMassachthan in Npercentalevels orespondeattributedand LEDpreferencPhone aexceptionLEDs ove

e 31: Mass

onsumers wh

ULB PREFE

7 survey expondents whohusetts respoNew York, wge of Massabserved in ents (from d to the smaDs in 2016. ces was sim

and web resn in Massaer CFLs tha

achusetts

ho rated LED

ERENCES (plored consuo reported thondents repwhere 37% achusetts co

2016. Newzero in 201all sample sThe propor

milar in both Mspondents gchusetts whn phone res

and New YSatis

satisfaction asmall sa

CONSUME

umers’ bulb hat they use

ported preferof consum

onsumers ww York saw16 to 18% size of New rtion of consMassachusegenerally hahere significpondents (3

York Conssfaction as somewhat ample sizes.)

ER SURVEY

preferencesed both CFLrring LEDs ters prefer L

who preferredw a statisti

in 2017), York respo

sumers whoetts and Newd statistical

cantly more 39%).

2017 LIGH

umers’ Re

or very dissa

Y) s further throLs and LEDto CFLs (52LEDs. As sd CFLs to Lically signifialthough th

ondents repoo reported uw York (17%ly similar reweb respo

HTING MAR

easons for

atisfied; unwe

ough targeteDs. Just ove2%), significashown in FigEDs remainicant increahis differencortedly usinguncertainty

% and 18%, responses, wndents (63%

KET ASSES

Low LED

ighted due to

ed questionsr one-half oantly greategure 32, the

ned similar toase in suchce might beg both CFLsin their bulb

respectively)with the only%) preferred

SSMENT

74

o

s of er e o h e s b ). y d


Figur

Interviewpreferencmost likeCFLs (36(19). Newthe light preferenclighting ntechnolog

It is wortmade thMassach

26 Note: Reto prefer ligsettings.”

re 32: PrefeB

wers asked ces or lack ely to prefer 6 out of 84),w York respo

that LEDs ce for one needs and gies (Figure

th noting thahis decisionhusetts and

espondents whght from CFLs

erences beBase: Respon

respondenthereof betLEDs beca

, were moreondents’ preproduce (5bulb type olight output 33).26

at a high pen based on19 of 35 in

o listed reasonbut like that LE

etween CFLndents curren

nts in Masstween CFLsuse they fou

e energy effieferences als1 out of 89over the otht as well a

ercentage on inaccurat New York

ns for liking botEDs turn on ins

Ls and LEDtly using both

sachusetts s and LEDsund that thecient (33), aso were mos

9). Respondher set theias not notic

of respondente informatichose CFLs

th technologiesstantly) were cla

2017 LIGH

Ds by Stath CFLs and L

and New . Massachu

ey producedand reachedst often driveents that dir preference

cing a differ

nts who preion. Eight s because t

s for reasons otassified as “De

HTING MAR

te in 2016 aEDs)

York to esetts respo better light

d full brightnen by their pid not havees based urence betwe

eferred CFLsof 28 resp

they believe

ther than price epends on light

KET ASSES

and 2017

explain theindents weret quality thaness instantlypreference in a steadfaspon specificeen the two

s over LEDspondents in

e them to be

(e.g., claimed ting needs or

SSMENT

75

r e n y n st c o

s n e


more enthought Cconsumequalities

Note: Counby less tha

Based ostronger and non-low-incom

27 The consincome houHeating As

ergy efficienCFLs last loers may preand charact

Figure (B

nts of responsean 10% of the re

n the consuconnections

-low-incomeme respond

sumer survey auseholds reliesssistance Progr

nt than LEDnger than Lefer LEDs oteristics of th

33: ReasoBase: Respon

es are unweighespondents.

umer surveys with LEDs

e27 respondeents, respe

asked individuas on self-reportram (LIHEAP).

Ds; similarlyEDs. Theseover CFLs hese bulbs.

ons for LEDndents curren

hted due to sma

y analysis, ws than other nts had stroctively. In p

als to report theted income bas

y, seven rese results sug

if they wer

D or CFL Pntly using both

all sample size

we found thdemograph

onger conneparticular, ho

eir household ised on eligibility

2017 LIGH

spondents inggest that anre more kn

Preferencesh CFLs and L

es. The chart ex

hat some dehic groups (Tections with omeowners

ncome in two wy for the Massa

HTING MAR

n New Yorkn even largenowledgeable

s by State LEDs)

xcludes respon

emographic Table 34). HLEDs than were signif

ways. Analysisachusetts Low-

KET ASSES

k mistakenlyer majority oe about the

nses mentioned

groups hadHomeowners

renters andficantly more

s for low--income

SSMENT

76

y of e

d

d s d e


likely thalow-incomlow-incomsurvey, wpeople omore detWeb respurchase

Tab

LED Ind

Sample s

Familiar w

Recently

Prefer LE* Significan

an renters tome consumeme respondewe did not oof different atail. Respon

spondents wed LEDs (44

ble 34: LED(Base

icator

size

with LEDs

y purchased

EDs to CFLsntly different be

o have receners were sigents, they wobserve a siges. Appenddents were

were signific4% to 31%),

D Indicator: Varies depe

t

LEDs

s etween demogr

ntly purchasnificantly mo

were not morgnificant diffdix C exploralso dividedantly more and to prefe

rs by Massending on surv

Age Less

han 454o

167

70% 6

36% 3

48% 5raphic categori

sed LEDs anore likely to e likely to prference in Lres these and by survey likely than

er them over

sachusettsvey items – m

45 or older

Ow

397 4

67% 73

34% 43

51% 58es at the 90%

2017 LIGH

nd prefer thehave recentrefer LEDs tLED preferennd other demmode in LEthose surve

r CFLs (63%

s Consumemaximum bas

Tenure

wn Ren

15 17

3% 60%

3%* 20%

8%* 32%confidence lev

HTING MAR

em to CFLstly purchaseto CFLs. Unlnce or familmographic dD and CFL eyed by pho

% to 39%).

er Demograes shown)

I

nt Low

75 125

% 60%

% 22%*

% 50%vel.

KET ASSES

s. While noned LEDs thanlike the 2016iarity among

differences inpreferencesone to have

aphics

ncome

w Non-low

5 365

% 72%

* 38%

% 49%

SSMENT

77

-n 6 g n s. e


they purpresencefindings f

Homand varie

Whenwerereporlume

The Massobtai

6.1 SO

NMR tecfound in had acquthat whilesource o

Table 35bulbs incthrough participatavailablethrough househo

28 This findall store chshelves tha

6rchased ande of marketinfrom this sec

e improvemCFLs in bo

ety of store

n asked whe most likelrted seekin

ens were mo

percentagsachusetts ined in New

OURCES OF

chnicians notheir homes

uired within te the numbef bulbs is ba

5 and Table clude all puenergy effition in direc

e at the time a direct-ins

lds.

ding is supportehannels but supan New York st

6 SectionThis sectionfindings froconsumer srecall whenconsumer sd factors thng materialsction include

ment storesoth states. L

types than

hat informaly to be dr

ng informatiore likely to

ge of ENE(65%) is n

w York (37%

F NEWLY Aot only askeds, we also asthe past yeaer of newly aased entirely

36 refer to urchased buciency prog

ct-install proof writing. Fstall progra

ed by the MA Rpermarkets, Matores.

n 6 Rn provides aom the on-ssurvey. Whi and from w

survey askedhat might i

s and informae the followin

s were the LEDs in Mathose repo

tion they soriven by prion on ENERo purchase

ERGY STAnearly doub%).

ACQUIRED

d respondensked them toar. This sectacquired bu

y on self-repo

all bulbs pulbs, as wel

grams. In pograms. DataFor referenceam in 2016

RLPNC 16-6 Ligassachusetts s

Recent an analysis site visits ale on site,

where specifd respondenfluence thation soughtng:

most commssachusettrted in the N

ought whenrice, wattagRGY STAR,an LED or C

R LEDs oble the perc

BULBS nts when theo recall whetion looks at lbs is basedorted data.

rchased or l as bulbs i

previous yeaa on prograe, 70% of bu6 were ver

ghting Shelf Sttores had the s

2017 LIGH

Purchaof recent buand consumtechnicians

fic bulbs hants to repor

heir purchast when shop

mon sourcets were purNew York s

n shoppingge, and lum, the lightinCFL over an

obtained icentage of

ey had bougere they had t recent purcd on observa

obtained in installed by ars, we ve

am participaulbs reportedrified as in

tocking report, same number o

HTING MAR

ases ulb purchasemers’ respos asked resad been purcrt on the typsing patternpping for ligh

es of purchrchased frosite visits.28

g for bulbs, mens. Custng facts labnother type

in the pasENERGY S

ght the LEDobtained th

chases by chation by tech

the past ye a landlord

erified houseation for 201d to have be

nstalled in

in which we obof, or more, LE

KET ASSES

es based onnses to the

spondents tochased. Thepes of bulbsns, includinght bulbs. Key

hased LEDsom a greate

consumerstomers whoel, and bulb

e of bulb.

st year inSTAR LEDs

Ds and CFLshe bulbs theyhannel. Notehnicians, the

ar. Obtainedor received

eholds’ self16 is not yeeen obtainedparticipating

bserved that in EDs on the

SSMENT

78

n e o e s g y

s r

s o b

n s

s y e e

d d f-et d g


Bulb S

Sample

Bulbs

Avg. #

Home

MassS

Online

Mass M

Membe

Lightin

Hardwa

Grocer

Discou

Free/G

Other E

Other

Don’t kLegend

*Signific

In both scommon spread asignificanMassachindicate thave begrocery ssignifican(9%).

29 At time oMass Save

Source

e Size

Obtained

# Obtained

Improvemen

Save (DI unc

Merchandise

ership Club

g and Electr

are

ry

unt

Gift

Efficiency Pr

know

cantly different

states, homsource of

across a widntly more husetts (51%that efforts b

een successstores (16%ntly more C

of writing, data e bulb purchase

T

nt

onfirmed)29

e

ronics

rogram

t from New Yor

e improvempurchased er variety ofLEDs at h

%), but signifby PAs in Msful. Massac

%) than New FLs at hard

on 2016 progres were from c

Table 35: B

MA

465

2,032

4.4

36%*

28%*

8%

7%*

4%*

4%

3%*

1%*

1%*

1%*

1%

4%*

2%* Mo

rk at the 90% c

ment stores CFLs and Lf stores thanhome improficantly fewe

Massachusetchusetts hoYork houseware stores

am participantsconfirmed direc

Bulbs Obta

LED

NY

25

69

2.7

57%

--

10%

10%

4%

0%

9%

--

1%

--

2%

1%

6%ost common so

confidence leve

(e.g., HomeLEDs. LED n in New Yoovement ster at lightingtts to maintaouseholds beholds (3%),s (24%) than

s were not avact-install progra

2017 LIGH

ined

Y M

55 4

93 3

7 0

% 2

- 1

%

% 1

% 3

% 0

% 7

- 14

% 9

- 3

%

% 4

% 8ource

el.

e Depot or purchases rk. Househotores (58%

g and electroain a diversebought sign, and New Yn did house

ailable. In 2016am participants

HTING MAR

CFL

MA

465

394

0.8

9%*

1%*

1%

1%*

3%*

0%

7%*

4%*

9%*

3%*

--

4%*

8% 2nd most com

Lowe’s) wein Massach

olds in New %) than hoonics retailee set of retaificantly moYork househeholds in Ma

, we verified th.

KET ASSES

NY

255

305

1.2

41%

--

2%

16%

0%

--

24%

3%

5%

1%

--

1%

7% mmon source

ere the moshusetts wereYork boughuseholds inrs. This may

ailer partnersore CFLs aholds boughassachusetts

hat 70% of

SSMENT

79

st e

ht n y s

at ht s


Bulb

Samp

Bulb

Avg.

Hom

Onlin

Mass

Mem

Light

Hard

Groc

Disco

Othe

Don’t

Legen

*Signific

6.1.1 S

Non-low-low-incomhousehohousehowas homwas stathardwarestatisticasignificanGrocery most comwere mohouseho

b Source

ple Size

bs Purchase

# Purchase

e Improvem

ne

s Merchandi

mbership Clu

ting and Elec

ware

cery

ount

r

t know

nd

cantly different

Sources of

-income andme and mullds purchaslds (3.2). Th

me improvemtistically diffe, and lightlly similar, w

ntly more likestores were mmon sourcore commolds.

Ta

ed

ed

ent

se

b

ctronics

t from New Yor

Bulbs by I

d single-famtifamily houssed slightlyhe most comment stores,ferent betweing and elewith the exely to buy Cnot very co

ce of CFL on than CF

able 36: Pu

MA

465

1,441

9.2

51%*

11%

10%

6%

6%*

5%*

2%

1%

5%*

3%* Mo

rk at the 90% c

Income an

mily househoseholds, as

y more CFmmon sourc, across all een demogectronics retception of h

CFLs at thesemmon sourcpurchases f

FL purchase

urchase So

LED

NY

255

1 679

8.4

* 58%

10%

10%

4%

0%

9%

1%

1%

1%

6%ost common so

confidence leve

d Home Ty

olds purchasshown in T

Ls (3.8), oce of LED ademograph

raphic groutailers. CFL hardware ste types of reces of LED for low-inco

es for both

2017 LIGH

ource

Y M

5 4

9 3

4 3

% 34

% 1

% 1

% 4

% 0

% 9

% 16

% 10

% 4

% 9ource 2

el.

ype

sed more LTable 37 andon averageand CFL buhic groups. ups at hom purchase tores: singleetailers thanbulb purcha

ome househh low-incom

HTING MAR

CFL

MA

465

342

3.6

4%*

1%

3%

4%*

0%

9%*

6%*

0%*

4%*

9% 2nd most comm

LEDs, on avd Table 38. , then nonlbs purchasLED purchae improvembehavior wa

e-family hou multifamily

ases, but areholders. LED

me and non

KET ASSES

NY

255

303

5.1

42%

2%

16%

0%

0%

24%

3%

5%

1%

7% mon source

verage, thanLow-income

n-low-incomesed last yeaase behavioment, onlineas generally

useholds arehouseholds

e the secondD purchasesn-low-income

SSMENT

80

n e e

ar or e, y e s. d s e


Tab(Ba

Bulb So

Sample S

Bulbs Pu

Avg # Pu

Home Im

Online

Mass Me

Members

Lighting

Hardware

Grocery

Discount

Other

Don’t knoLegend

*Significan

ble 37: Selfase: All LED/C

urce

Size

urchased

urchased

mprovement

erchandise

ship Club

and Electron

e

t

ow

ntly different fro

f-ReportedCFL bulbs pur

All

157

144

9.2

51%

11%

10%

6%

nics 6%

5%

2%

1%

5%

3%

om Non-Low-inc

d Purchaserchased withi

LED

l Low-

incom

7 29

41 210

2 7.2

% 40%*

% 0%*

% 24%*

% 5%

% 20%*

% 0%*

% 3%

% 1%

% 5%

% 2%Most c

come at the 90

e Source byn the past ye

D

-me

Non-Low-

incom

111

1138

10.3

* 53%

15%

* 7%

6%

* 3%

6%

1%

2%

5%

3%common sourc

0% confidence

2017 LIGH

y Income –ear by panel &

--

me All

96

8 342

3 3.6

% 34%

% 1%

13%

4%

0%

9%

16%

10%

4%

9%ce

level.

HTING MAR

– Massach& new househ

CFL

Low-income

27

104

3.8

25%*

0%*

10%

6%

0%

1%*

24%*

14%

5%

15%* 2nd most c

KET ASSES

husetts holders)

e Non-Low

income

58

183

3.2

37%

2%

6%

3%

0%

19%

12%

10%

5%

6% common source

SSMENT

81

w-

e


(Ba

Bulb So

Sample S

Bulbs Pu

Avg # Pu

Home Im

Online

Mass Me

Members

Lighting

Hardware

Grocery

Discount

Other

Don’t knoLegend

*Significan

We also see if puwere the2016, meIn 2017, LEDs an

30 The 201purchases

Table 38ase: All LED/C

urce

Size

urchased

urchased

mprovement

erchandise

ship Club

and Electron

e

t

ow

ntly different fro

compared thurchasing tr

e most commembership c

the secondd grocery st

6 data are diffeonly.

8: PurchasCFL bulbs pur

All

157

144

9.2

51%

11%

10%

6%

nics 6%

5%

2%

1%

5%

3%

om Single Fami

he sources orends were mon source clubs were thd most comores for CFL

erent than data

e Source brchased withi

LED

l MultiFamil

7 19

41 106

2 5.6

% 43%

% 15%

% 19%*

% 4%

% 0%*

% 3%

% 11%*

% 0%

% 1%*

% 4%Most c

ily at the 90% c

of 2016 purcchanging inof purchase

he second mmmon sourceLs.

a presented in t

by Home Tn the past ye

D

i-ly

SinglFamil

138

1335

9.7

% 51%

% 11%

* 10%

6%

6%

5%

* 1%

1%

6%

3%common sourc

confidence leve

chased bulbsn Massachued LEDs an

most commone of bulb pu

the 2016 report

2017 LIGH

Type – Masear by panel &

e ly All

96

5 342

3.6

% 34%

% 1%

% 13%

4%

0%

9%

16%

10%

4%

9%ce

el.

s with resultusetts.30 Homnd CFLs in n source of eurchases wa

t, as those tabl

HTING MAR

ssachusett& new househ

CFL

Multi-Family

19

54

2.8

33%

0%

1%*

11%*

1%

5%

23%

7%

11%*

8% 2nd most c

ts from the 2me improveboth 2016 aefficient bulbas online pu

les focused on

KET ASSES

ts holders)

Single Family

77

282

3.7

34%

1%

15%

3%

0%

9%

15%

11%

3%

9% common source

2017 study toement storesand 2017. Inb purchasesurchases fo

panelist

SSMENT

82

e

o s n s. or


Bulb

Samp

Bulb

Avg.

Hom

Onlin

Mass

Mem

Light

Hard

Groc

Disco

Othe

Don’t

Legen

*Signific

6.2 PU

We first homes, purchase(37%) ofYork.

We also charts in past yeawere ENinstalled stored LE

The bottoincome ainstalled low-incomsimilar raNew Yorhomes w

b Source

ple Size

bs Purchase

# Purchase

e Improvem

ne

s Merchandi

mbership Clu

ting and Elec

ware

cery

ount

r

t know

nd

cantly different

URCHASES

looked only shown in thed within thef all LEDs o

examined EFigure 34.

ar), nearly twNERGY STA

LEDs wereEDs were EN

om two charand home tyLEDs were

me househoates across rk, two out

were ENERG

Table 39: (Bas

ed

ed

ent

se

b

ctronics

t from 2017 at t

BY ENERat LEDs pu

he top left e past year

obtained with

ENERGY STOut of all LEwo-thirds (6AR. The reve ENERGY SNERGY STA

rts show the ype. In low-i

ENERGY Solds were Emultifamily

of five LEDGY STAR (40

Purchase se: All Massac

2016

420

996

7.0

48%

6%*

7%

11%*

2%*

8%*

1%

2%

4%

11%* Mo

the 90% confid

RGY STARrchased witchart in Figwere ENER

hin the past

TAR LEDs iEDs found in4%) of both

verse is fouSTAR in NeAR.

percentagencome hous

STAR, whileENERGY ST

and single-Ds installed 0% NLI and

Source, 20chusetts hous

LED

6 201

465

1,44

9.2

51%

11%

10%

* 6%

6%

5%

2%

1%

5%

* 3%ost common so

dence level.

R STATUS

hin the pastgure 34. In RGY STAR

year that w

n other wayn the home h installed and in New ew York in 2

e of installed seholds in M more than TAR. ENER-family housin non-low-i41% SF).

2017 LIGH

016 and 20seholds)

7 20

5 4

41 5

2 4

% 3

% 0

% 1

% 14

% 1

% 8

% 9

% 6

% 3

% 1ource 2

t year from bMassachusLEDs, high

were ENERG

ys, as shown(not just thoand stored LYork LEDs2017 and ju

LEDs that wMassachusetwo-thirds o

RGY STAR seholds (64%income hom

HTING MAR

017

CFL

016

420

584

4.2

5%

0%

3%

4%*

%*

8%

9%*

6%*

3%

1% 2nd most comm

both panel asetts, 65% her than theGY STAR L

n in the remose purchaseLEDs in Ma; two out oust under on

were ENERGtts, just ove

of installed LLEDs were

% MF and mes and in

KET ASSES

2017

465

342

3.6

34%

1%

13%

4%

0%

9%

16%

10%

4%

9% mon source

and new visiof all LEDs

e percentageLEDs in New

maining threeed within theassachusettsof five (41%ne-half of a

GY STAR byer one half oLEDs in none installed a64% SF). Insingle-family

SSMENT

83

it s e w

e e s ) ll

y of -

at n y


6.3 CO

The 2017types of Massachprior to t

ONSUMERS

7 Massachuf bulbs theyhusetts consthe survey.

Figu

S’ PURCHA

usetts and Ny had purchumers (73%This propor

ure 34: ENE

ASING BEHA

New York cohased in th

%) said they tion is up s

ERGY STA

AVIOR onsumer surhe past six had purchasignificantly f

2017 LIGH

AR LEDs

rveys askedmonths. N

sed light bulfrom last ye

HTING MAR

d respondenNearly threebs within the

ear (58%), b

KET ASSES

nts about thee-quarters oe six months

but still lowe

SSMENT

84

e of s

er


than that2017 wejust as likwhen Maas LEDsconsumewith “CFLother purpast six Massach

Figure

In compaboth instadata—asThe paneyear of thlabeled a

If a newlyand whethe pane

31 Due to adirectly com

t of New Yore just as likkely to purchassachusettss (28%) anders (28% veLs, LEDs, archases. Whmonths (ex

husetts cons

35: Type o

arison, we loalled and sto

sking responel visit purchhe study; if tas a newly o

y obtained bre they had

el household

a skip logic errompared across

ork (82%). Akely to have hase LEDs s consumerssignificantly

rsus 44%). nd/or other t

hen looking ocluding the umers purch

of Light Bu

ooked at all ored—since ndents to rehase data wthe bulb wasbtained bulb

bulb was a Cobtained thin which the

or in the 2016 N years

As illustraterecalled pu

as New Yors were abouy less likely It should betypes of bulbonly at the csurvey resp

hased LEDs

ulbs PurchaSu

(Base: All r

bulbs in on-the 2016 vis

ecall purchaswas based os not listed ab.

CFL or LED,e bulb. In Te household

NY survey whic

d in Figure rchasing LE

rk consumerut equally lik

to have rece noted that bs,” and res

consumers wpondents wh compared t

ased in theurvey respondents)

-site panel hsit. The consses during tn the data w

as stored or

, on-site techable 40, weer recalled p

ch limited the n

2017 LIGH

35, MassacEDs as CFLsrs. This reflekely to have called buyininterviewers

spondents wwho reportedho reported to 45% in Ne

e Last Six

)31

homes that wsumer survethe six monwe had frominstalled in t

hnicians aske look at LEDpurchasing t

number of NY r

HTING MAR

chusetts ress (37%). Theects changes

purchased ng LEDs thas prompted

were not asked purchasing

no purchasew York.

Months – C

were newly pey relied on snths prior to

m each homethe previous

ked the partD and CFL bthe bulb in th

responses, resu

KET ASSES

spondents iney were alsos from 2016CFLs (30%

an New Yorkrespondentsed to specify

g bulbs in theses), 50% o

Consumer

purchased—self-reported

o the surveye in the prios year, it was

icipant whenbulbs new tohe six-month

ults are not

SSMENT

85

n o

6, ) k s y e

of

r

—d y. or s

n o h


period berespondemore MaDecembesignificanCFLs in respondeparticipa

Table(Base: Pa

Bulb Typ

Total

LED

CFL

Neither *Significan† Significan

In both Mobtained and 19%past yeaefficiencyrecall.

The selfsurvey rerespondipast yeaconsidereMassachof on-sitereported the numbin the papurchasiLEDs in purchasi

32 Based o

etween Julyents in the assachusettser 2016 (16%ntly lower th

the past sients reportents (16%).

e 40: LEDsanel sites only

pe Purchas

tly different frontly different fro

MassachuseLED or CF

%, respectivear by panel y program)32

f-reported pespondents ng to the su

ar in Massaed, but thes

husetts conse householdpurchasing

ber of on-siteast year. In Nng LEDs (37the past yeang CFLs (46

n self-reported

y and Decemconsumer s

s panel hous%) than panhan consumix months;

ed purchasin

s and CFLsy; installed an

to have

ed # of

5

4

7

m New York atom consumer s

etts and NewFL bulbs couly). In Tablehouseholds

2 for an anal

ercentages in Massach

urvey, while achusetts. Tse numbers umer survey

ds. The numLEDs (37%

e householdNew York, t7%) was simar (34%), bu6%) than on-

participation in

mber 2016, survey wereseholders reel household

mer survey rein Massachng LEDs in

s Purchasend stored LEDbeen purchas

Massachu

bulbs

570

497

73

- t the 90% confi

survey at the 90

w York, abould not reca

e 41, we looks (excludinglysis of bulb

differ from usetts said 83% of on-

The differencare more s

y respondenmber of Mas%) or CFLs (3ds observed the number milar to the put significant-site panelis

n an energy eff

which rouge asked to rcalled purchders in New espondents

husetts, ove the past s

ed July-DecDs and CFLs sed in the pas

usetts

% of HHs

n=315

16%*†

9%†

76%* idence level. 0% confidence

out one in fll when they

k at all instalg those bulpurchases

the on-sitethey had pusite househce may be imilar than

nts reported sachusetts 37%) in the to have purof consumepercentage ly more conts (23%).

ficiency progra

2017 LIGH

ghly corresporecall their hasing at leaYork (10%)who report

r twice as six months

c 2016 – Pnew to the sitst 6 months)

# of b

11

8

2

-

level.

five panel hy had purchled and storbs directly that is not d

e data. Oveurchased buolds had obdue, in pa

observed inpurchasing consumer spast year w

rchased LEDer survey resof on-site hsumer surve

am.

HTING MAR

onds to thepurchases.

ast one LED). But these ted purchasmany consu(37%) than

anel On-site since the 2

New Yo

bulbs

14

87

27

-

householdershased thosered bulbs obinstalled by

dependent o

erall, 73% oulbs within sbtained a buart, to the tn 2016, in wbulbs, comp

survey respowas statisticaDs (41%) or spondents wouseholds tey responde

KET ASSES

e time periodSignificantly

D from July tonumbers areing LEDs oumer surveyn did on-site

ite Visits 2016 visit said

rk

% of HHs

n=105

10%†

7%†

84%

s with newlye bulbs (23%btained in they an energy

on participan

of consumeix months o

ulb within thetime periods

which 58% opared to 93%ondents whoally similar toCFLs (32%

who reportedhat obtained

ents reported

SSMENT

86

d y o e

or y e

d

y % e y

nt

er of e s

of % o o ) d d d


Unlike thpurchaseincandesreported bulbs”) ihouseho

Table

Bulb TypObtained

Total

CFL

LED

Other bu

Incandes

Halogen

Fluoresc

DK/Othe

None *Significan†Significan

6.4 INF

The 201factors tpresence

6.4.1 P

Nearly oCFLs or materialsthey sawmaterials(16%). Wlighting t(26% andclosely indisplays largest dsigns de

he 2016 coed bulbs othscent, fluore

purchasing n the past lds in the pa

e 41: Type (Base: Pane

pe d

ulb types

scent

ent

r

tly different frotly different fro

FORMING C7 Massach

that might ie of marketin

Presence o

ne-third of MLEDs in th

s near the ligw, they most s comparingWhile 14% terms, an ind 4%, respen line with tof different

differences oefining lightin

onsumer suher than LEescent, halo

significantlysix months

ast year.

of Light Buel sites only; in

M

# of bulbs

%b

2,479

274 1

1,209 4

996 4

641 2

278 1

63

14 1

-- m New York atm consumer su

CONSUMER

usetts and nform their

ng materials

f Marketin

Massachusehe past six ght bulbs woften recall

g energy useof respond

ncrease fromectively). Figthe 2016 sutypes of bu

observed beng terms (1

urvey, the 2Ds or CFLs

ogen). This y fewer bulbs than were

ulbs Obtainstalled and s

Massachuse

% of ulbs

% HH

-- n=3

14% 32%

45%* 41

42% 58%

26%* 46%

12% 21

3% 8%

1%* 3%

-- 17t the 90% confiurvey at the 90

R BULB PU

New Yorkdecisions and informa

g Materials

etts survey rmonths (3

hile shoppined seeing de and energents recalle

m 2016, phogure 36 showurvey, as thulbs and sigetween yea14% in 2017

2017 surveys without na

may explaib types besie observed

ned in Passtored bulbs o

etts

of Hs

Avgper H

315 6.8

%* 0.9

% 3.0

%*† --

%* 1.8

% 0.8

% 0.2

% --

% --idence level.

0% confidence

URCHASES

consumer regarding liation sought

s

respondents1%) recalle

ng. When asisplays of di

gy savings aed seeing mone and wews their respose respondnage advertrs include a7 versus 7%

2017 LIGH

y asked reming the ten why respides LEDs oto have be

st Year – Pobtained with

. HH

# of bulbs

872

74

211

587

414

118

53

2

--

level.

S surveys asight bulb put when purch

s who said ted seeing ssked, unpromifferent typeacross differmarketing mb respondeponses in fudents also mtising energyan increase% in 2016)

HTING MAR

espondents echnologies pondents in or CFLs (“oteen obtained

Panel On-siin the past ye

New

% of bulbs

-

11%

21%

68%

48%

15%

5%

0%

--

ked responurchases, inhasing bulbs

hat they hadigns, displampted, to de

es of light burent types omaterials whnts differed

ull. These remost commy use and s

e in consum, and fewer

KET ASSES

if they haddirectly (i.e.both states

ther types od by on-site

ite Visits ear)

w York

% of HHs

n=105

23%†

34%

69%†

63%

29%

11%

2%

21%

dents abouncluding thes.

d purchasedays, or otheescribe wha

ulbs (26%) oof light bulbshich defined

significantlyesponses fa

monly noticedsavings. The

mers noticingr consumers

SSMENT

87

d ., s

of e

Avg. per HH

6.7 0.7

1.4

--

3.3

1.0

0.3

--

--

ut e

d er at or s d y ll d e g s


recalling 2016).

Figu

(Base

6.4.2 In

The coninformaticonsumehalf of MNew Yorrespondefewer thalumens owhich lig

There arin both M

seeing ENE

ure 36: Sig

: Respondent

nformation

nsumer survon they loo

ers in both stMassachusetrk consumeents in Massan in New or brightnessht bulb they

e significantMassachuse

ERGY STAR

gnage, MatConsum

ts purchasingma

n Sought W

veys askedok for whetates considtts consumers were som

sachusetts wYork (45%)

s, to be the sselected.

t differencestts and New

R advertisem

erials, anders When

g CFLs or LEDrketing mater

When Shop

d respondeen shoppinger both watt

ers (51%) somewhat morwere interest). Consumersingle most

s between rew York. Phon

ments in 201

d InformatiBuying CFDs in the last rials when sho

pping for B

nts in Masg for light tage and pricought out thre likely to ted in the Enrs in both simportant fa

esponses givne responde

2017 LIGH

17 (1% in 20

on Seen bFLs or LEDsix months aopping)

Bulbs

ssachusetts bulbs. Tab

ce when chohe ENERGYdo so (58%

nergy Facts states nameactor, beside

ven by phonents were sig

HTING MAR

016, compa

y MassachDs

nd who recal

and New ble 42showsoosing a bulY STAR labe%). Roughly

label (31%),ed wattage, es price, tha

ne and web gnificantly m

KET ASSES

red to 7% in

husetts

led seeing

York whas that mosb. More thanel—althoughone-third o

, significantlyfollowed by

t determined

respondentsmore likely to

SSMENT

88

n

at st n h

of y y d

s o


have repweb respabout wa

The inforto 2016. largest swho cons2016, as2016. Thas both tdetails).

Sample S

Price34

Wattage

Lumens

Watt Equ

Bulb life

ENERGY

Lighting Facts La

Color ap

Shape

Dimming

CRI

Mercury *Significa

6.4.3 In

Compariand the informati

33Table exc34 The “mo

ported consipondents. Inattage, lume

rmation consWattage anhift came in sidered lum

s is the 21%here also wathe conside

Table 42(Base: R

Size

or Brightnes

uivalency

Y STAR Lab

Facts / Enerbel

pearance

g

content ntly different f

nformation

ng the infortypes of b

on to inform

cludes “Other” ost important” q

dering pricen New York,ns, wattage

sumers consnd price were

the attentioens when m

% listing lumas a slight inration and m

2: ConsideRespondents

MAImp

5

2

ss 2

1

1

bel 1

rgy

from NY with

n Driving B

rmation consbulbs purcham their buyi

responses totauestion exclud

e and wattag, phone resequivalency

sulted whene the two fa

on consumermaking purchens as the crease in in

most importa

erations in who purchas

A Most portant

509

NA

24%

21%

12%

10%

13%

8%

7%

4%

1%

1%

0% in same categ

Bulb Type P

sumers repoased revealing decision

aling less than ded price

ge equivalenpondents wy, and bulb li

purchasingctors most wrs gave to luhasing decismost importterest in shoant levels in

Light Bulbed light bulbs

NY Most Important

346

NA

24%

15%

11%

15%

14%

5%

11%

2%

1%

2%

1% gory at 90% c

Purchasing

orted they los that LED

ns than cust

1% of conside

2017 LIGH

ncy in Masswere more lik

ife.

bulbs in 20widely consiumens. The sions is up srtant factor, opping for thncreased (se

b Purchases in the past s

t M

Consi

55

75

76

56

54

52

51

31

40

40

26

9

8confidence lev

g Decision

ooked for wD and CFL

tomers who

ration in each s

HTING MAR

sachusetts, ckely to seek

017 was reladered in eac56% in the

significantly compared t

he ENERGYee Appendix

es by Statesix months)33

MA idered C

59

5%*

6%

6%

4%*

2%

1%

%*

0%

0%

6%

%

% vel.

ns

while shoppipurchasers

o bought oth

state

KET ASSES

compared tok information

atively similach year. The2017 surveyfrom 23% in

to just 7% inY STAR labex C for more

e

NY Considered

401

91%

84%

62%

66%

59%

58%

45%

48%

45%

30%

15%

10%

ng for bulbsused more

her types o

SSMENT

89

o n

ar e y n n el e

s e of


bulbs. Fibased onconsumeUnsurprispurchasepurchaseshape, osignificansignificanwho repo

Purchasewhen shbulbs. Ainformati

gure 37 andn informatioers consultesingly, conse CFLs or LEed LEDs oror features sntly more lntly more likeorted seeking

ers of CFLsopping for b

All of this son when sho

d Figure 38 ion sought. Fed led to asumers lookEDs over othr CFLs. Cusuch as dimmikely to puely (100%) tg no informa

s and LEDs bulbs compasuggests thaopping than

identify the pFigure 37 rean increasedking for theher, less effistomers conmability, CRrchase effic

to purchase ation in the b

reported loared to 3.5 fat consumethose who b

proportions eveals that ad likelihood e ENERGY cient bulb tynsidering lu

RI, color appcient bulbs.bulb types o

buying proce

ooking at anfrom consumers who pubuy other typ

2017 LIGH

of bulb techalmost any to purchas

STAR labypes: 71% ofumens, a ligpearance, an. The only other than Cess.

n average ofmers who purchase efficpes of bulbs

HTING MAR

hnology typetype of infose CFLs a

bel were mof those seekghting facts nd bulb life w

consumersCFLs or LEDs

f about six urchased otcient bulbs

s.

KET ASSES

es purchasedormation thand/or LEDsost likely toking the labe

label, lampwere also as who weres were those

(5.7) factorsther types o

seek more

SSMENT

90

d at s. o el p ll e e

s of e


While loolean towafactors pmercury Consume(48%) ovto 22%).price whWhile sebetween between

35 Results

Figure (Base: R

oking at almard CFLs an

pushed purccontent werers considerver CFLs (28 Purchasersile shopping

eeking the Eefficient anLED and C

normalized to a

37: Bulb PRespondents

most any typnd LEDs ovechases of LEre significanring color ren8%), as well s most likelyg (42% to 3ENERGY STnd non-efficCFL shoppe

account for diff

Purchases who purchas

pe of informaer other typeEDs over C

ntly more likendering indeas those co

y to choose31%), althouTAR label wcient bulb prs. Those lo

ferent number o

Based on ed light bulbs

ation while es of bulbs, FCFLs. Unsurely to purchex were signonsidering w CFLs overgh the diffe

was the mospurchases, tooking for th

of purchasers o

2017 LIGH

Informatios in the past s

purchasing Figure 38 reprisingly, cu

hase LEDs (nificantly mohether the br LEDs wereerence is nost pronouncthere was nhe ENERGY

of each bulb ty

HTING MAR

on Sought six months)35

bulbs madeeveals that austomers wh61%) over Cre likely to c

bulb was dime those whoot statisticallyced driver ofnot a great Y STAR log

ype.

KET ASSES

e consumersa few specificho looked aCFLs (17%)choose LEDsmmable (39%o consideredy significantf differencesdivide here

go were only

SSMENT

91

s c

at ). s

% d t. s e y


slightly mLEDs repto CFL-oCFLs (5.

F

36 Results

more likely toported lookinonly buyers 2).

Figure 38: E(Base: Resp

normalized to a

o buy CFLs ng at an ave(5.8) and sl

Efficient Bpondents who

account for diff

(39%) thanerage of 6.0 flightly highe

ulb Purchapurchased L

ferent number o

n LEDs (34%factors in ma

er than cons

ases basedLEDs and/or C

of purchasers o

2017 LIGH

%). Consumeaking their dsumers who

d on InformCFLs in the pa

of each bulb ty

HTING MAR

ers who purdecision, alm bought bot

mation Souast six month

ype

KET ASSES

rchased onlymost identicath LEDs and

ught hs)36

SSMENT

92

y al d


complete

IncanMassas m

The store

Newlof fivthree

The fENERLEDsLEDs

As in paMassachbeing stowhile LEuse.

MassachhousehoNearly areported out/recyc

In compafour houswere incincandes

7e analysis of

ndescent bsachusetts

many incand

majority (6ed for future

ly purchaseve (79%) LEe-quarters (

first-year inRGY STAR s were beins and all Ma

ast studies, husetts homeored for futuD storage in

husetts houslds with moll the bulbs they were n

cle or not use

arison, New seholds in Ncandescentsscents stored

7 SectioAs in yearMassachushouseholdsleast one bto storage,

f bulbs found

bulbs remaiand New Y

descent bulb

67%) of stoe use, acco

ed LEDs weEDs purcha(73%) of new

n-service raLEDs was

ng installedassachuset

incandescees in 2017. re use. CFLncreased to

seholds storore than 100

stored in thnot stockpilie them.

York houseNew York ws or haloged in New Yo

n 7 Srs past, mosetts househs (84%) visitbulb in stora

including ind in storage

ined the moYork (56% abs in storag

red incandrding to sel

ere installedsed within wly purchas

te for ENERthe same i

d at a signifts LEDs.

ent bulbs mNotably, two

Ls accountedo 9%, nearly

red an aver0 bulbs in shis householng these bu

eholds storedwith more thns being srk were bein

Storageost househoholds (83%ted for the ge. In this s

n-service ratein on-site pa

ost commoand 59%, rege as the ne

descent bulblf-reported

d at a slightthe past ye

sed CFLs w

RGY STAR in 2017 (79ficantly low

ade up the o-thirds (67%d for nearlyy all of which

rage of 17.4torage, withld were inca

ulbs due to E

d an averagean 100 bulbtored for fu

ng stored for

2017 LIGH

e Behavolds stored ) and 215 2017 study

section, we es for CFLsarticipant ho

on type fouespectively)ext closest

lbs in Massintentions.

tly faster raear were ins

were installe

LEDs in Ma9%); in Newwer rate tha

majority (5%) of all stoone out of fh (96%) are

4 bulbs in 2h one houseandescents, EISA, but ra

e of 16.2 bubs in storaguture use. Ar future use.

HTING MAR

vior bulbs; 385 of the 255were found

present anas and LEDs useholds.

und in stora, with morebulb type (C

sachusetts

te than CFLstalled, anded.

assachusetw York, ENEan non-ENE

56%) of stoored incandefour (24%) se being store

2017. Thereehold storing

though the ather had pla

ulbs in 2017.e, the majoAgain of no

KET ASSES

of the 4655 New Yorkd to have aalysis relatedas well as a

age in bothe than twiceCFLs).

were being

Ls. Four oud just unde

tts and nonERGY STARERGY STAR

red bulbs inescents werestored bulbsed for future

e were eighg 185 bulbshomeowne

ans to throw

. There wererity of whichote, 76% o

SSMENT

93

5 k

at d a

h e

g

ut r

n-R R

n e s, e

ht s. er w

e h

of


Sample SAvg # ofStored Bulbs/HoIncandesCFLs Halogen FluorescLEDs Other** * In 2014, tcontrol and** Other incδ One outlie

For selecwatt, 60-purchase(stockpilibulbs bewatt, 60-in Massasignificanwere stowatt, and

Not surpcompareMassachtotal, occ(7,517 to13 on avaverage watt incaindicate stockpilestockpilin

Ta

201

Size 15f

ome* 6.7

scent 66%24%8%

ent 1%<1%0%

echnicians foud data collectiocludes xenon, her in 2013 with

cted incand-watt, 75-waed and storng). Twenty

ecause they -watt, 75-waachusetts. Intly higher thockpiling incd 100-watt in

risingly, selfd to non-st

husetts accocupants whootal bulbs, 16verage) of snumber of n

andescent—that self-ide

e bulbs that ang and stora

able 43: Sto(

M

12 2013

51 150

7 7.1

% 66% % 31%

% 3% % 1% % <1%

% 0% nd more bulbsn protocols. high pressure s 354 bulbs in s

escent bulbatt, and 100red these by-one on-site

are no longtt, and 100-wn New Yorkhan in Massandescent b

ncandescent

f-identified stockpilers inunted for 9%o did not re6.9 on avera

stored bulbs non-stockpilbulbs in stor

entified stockare no longeage behavior

ored Bulbs(Base: All on-

Massachuse

2014 2015

261 354

15.8 15.6

68% 64%25% 27%4% 5%2% 1%2% 2%0% <1%

in storage tha

sodium bulbs, astorage was rem

bs in storage-watt A-lam

bulbs becaue participantger being mwatt incandek, the numbsachusetts: tbulbs, accouts.

tockpilers ha both states

% of all bulbsport stockpiage). Stockpamong sto

ed—bulbs trage compakpilers were er being manr (Table 44).

s by Bulb T-site responde

etts

5 2016 2

4 420

6 17.5

% 59% 5% 26% 2

% 7% % 2% % 5% % <1% <

n had been fou

and mercury vamoved for this

e that are np bulbs—ho

use they wets (5%) said anufacturedescents. Thiber of self-idthirty-seven unting for 2

ad a higher s. In total, s in storage iling accounpiled bulbs ackpilers. Of hat were nored to non-smore likely

nufactured. N

2017 LIGH

Type over ents)

2017 2013465 127

17.8 11.6

56% 67%24% 24%9% 4%2% 4%9% 1%

<1% 1%und in previous

apor bulbs. analysis.

no longer beomeowners ere no long

they were sd, accountingis is in line wdentified sto(15%) on-si3% of store

average numthe 21 self- (735 total b

nted for 91%accounted fonote, stock

ot 40-watt, 6stockpilers (2y to store buNew York sh

HTING MAR

Time

New Yo

3δ 2015 2

7 101

6 18.3 1

% 70% % 17%

6% 5% 2%

<1% s years due to

eing manufawere asked

ger being mstockpiling ing for 10% owith past onockpile housite participaned 40-watt,

mber of bulb-identified s

bulbs, 35 on % of all bulbor 37% (274

kpilers also 60-watt, 75-w21.9 vs. 16.ulbs in genehowed simila

KET ASSES

ork

2016 2017

150 255

14.54 16.2

57% 59%17% 21%17% 11%6% 3%3% 6%

<1% 0%new quality

actured—40d if they hadmanufacturedncandescenof stored 40n-site studiesseholds wasnts said they60-watt, 75

bs in storagestockpilers in

average). Inbs in storage4 total bulbshad a largewatt, or 1009). This may

eral—not jusar patterns in

SSMENT

94

7

5

2

% % %

-d d

nt 0-s s y

5-

e n n e s, er 0-y

st n


Sample STotal StoAvg. # ofTotal stoAvg. # ofTotal nonAvg. # of

In both Mfound in bulb type

Sample Total StoBulbs Avg. # oStored Bulbs Median Incand. CFLs HalogenLED FluorescOther * 46 DK/Re**12 DK/Re

Size ored Bulbs f Stored Bulbckpiled bulbf stockpiled bn-stockpiled f non-stockp

Massachusestorage ove

e in storage

ASize 4ored

8,2

of 17

15624

99

cent 2<

efused househoefused househo

Table 4(

bs bs bulbs bulbs

piled bulbs

etts and Newerall and acin both state

Table 45: (

Massa

All L

in465

252 1

7.8

11 6% 54% 2

9% 9% 2% 1% <olds for incomeolds for income

44: Compa(Base: All on-

Stockpile

21 735 35.0 274 13.1 461 21.9

w York, inccross incomees (Table 45

Stored Bu(Base: All on-

achusetts* Low-come

Noi

134

1,347

10.1

4 59% 23% 8% 9% 1%

<1% e. e.

aring Stora-site responde

MA

ers No

Stock

447,516

--

7,516

andescents e types. CF).

ulbs by Bul-site responde

on-Low-ncome

285

6,113

21.5

14 56% 24% 8%

10% 2%

<1%

2017 LIGH

age Habitsents)

on-kpilers

Sto

44 517 6.9 - -

517 6.9

were the mFLs were the

lb by Incoments)

N

All 255

4,125

16.2

8 58% 21% 11% 7% 3% 0%

HTING MAR

NY

ockpilers

37 1,480 40.0 429 11.6

1,051 28.4

most commoe second m

me

New York**Low-

income 64

429

6.7

3 59% 20% 14% 7% 1% 0%

KET ASSES

Y Non-

Stockpilers

218 2,645 12.1

-- --

2,645 12.1

on bulb typeost common

Non-Low-

income179

3,281

18.3

11 56% 22% 11% 8% 3% 0%

SSMENT

95

s

e n

-


Table 462017, apLEDs in states wincandes(80% vs.

Sample STotal StoAvg. # oMedian IncandesCFLs Halogen LED FluorescOther

7.1 ST

In panel visit. Thethat had sites hadwere no storage i

• OMw

• Ininst

6 shows thapart from sin

storage (10were similascents for fu 65%).

T

Size ored Bulbs

of Stored Bu

scent

ent

TORED BUL

sites, the teere were a to

been in stod 2,531 bulblonger in ston 2017 (62%

One out of evMassachusetwhile only 3%n Massachusn New York,tored LEDs

t storage hangle-family h0%) than didar. In Mature use at

able 46: St(

A46

8,2ulbs 17

1156249%9%2%

<1

LB STATUS

am was ableotal of 6,337

orage in 201bs in storagorage in 201% in Massac

very ten (10tts were thro

% were throwsetts, 7% of 3% were inwere newly

abits were shouseholds id multifamil

assachusettsa significan

tored Bulb(Base: All on-

Massach

ll MultFam

65 9752 829.8 8.61 4% 52%% 29%

% 14%% 5%% 1%% <1%

S e to track st7 bulbs still 6 that weree in 2017 a

17. Most bulbchusetts; 70%

0%) incandesown out/recywn out/recycf LEDs that nstalled by tpurchased (

similar acrosin Massachuy homes (5

s, multifamtly higher ra

bs by Bulb -site responde

husetts ti-ily

SinglFami

7 3689 7,4236 20.2

13% 56%% 23%% 8%

% 10%% 2%% <1%

ored bulb stin storage in no longer i

and 361 thabs that had % in New Yo

scent bulbs ycled betweeled in New Ywere in storthe 2017 vis(47% in Mas

2017 LIGH

ss home typusetts, whic

5%). Storagemily househate than sing

by Home Tents)

le-ly All

8 2553 4,125

2 16.28

% 58%% 21%

11%% 7%

3%% 0%

tatus from thn Massachun storage int had been been in stor

ork). Notably

that had been the 2016 York. rage in 2016sit. In both sssachusetts,

HTING MAR

pes within eh had signife habits acrholds reporgle-family ho

Type

New YoMulti-Family

23 5 225 9.8

5 58% 18% 17%

7% 1% 0%

he 2016 visitusetts in 201n 2017. New

in storage rage in 2016y,

een in storagvisit and the

6 were instastates, nearly, 49% in New

KET ASSES

each state inficantly moreross the tworted storingouseholds in

ork -y

Single-Family

232 3,90016.8

9 58% 21% 11% 7% 3% 0%

t to the 20177 and 1,739

w York panein 2016 tha

6 were still in

ge in 2016 ine 2017 visits

alled in 2017y one-half ow York).

SSMENT

96

n e o g n

-y

7 9 el at n

n s,

7; of


Bulb Sta

# of Bulb

Same

New

Thrown o

Installed

Previous

Don’t kno

Bulb Sta

# of Bulb

Same

New

Thrown o

Installed

Previous

Don’t kno

atus 2017

bs

out/Recycled

in fixture

ly Installed

ow/Other

atus 2017

bs

out/Recycled

in fixture

ly Installed

ow/Other

Tab(B

CFL

2,039

58%

8%

d 12%

9%

6%

7%

CFL F

487

73%

13%

d 1%

4%

2%

7%

ble 47: StorBase: Panel on

Fluorescent

157

59%

4%

24%

1%

8%

4%

Fluorescent

116

77%

18%

0%

3%

0%

2%

red Bulbs n-site respon

Massacht Halogen

696

57%

20%

2%

9%

4%

8%

New Y

t Halogen

370

57%

25%

5%

1%

0%

12%

2017 LIGH

Status dents)

husetts Incandes

4,436

68%

7%

10%

5%

4%

6%

York

Incandes

1,735

75%

13%

3%

2%

<1%

7%

HTING MAR

scent LED

6 748

34%

47%

1%

7%

5%

6%

scent LED

5 184

41%

49%

1%

3%

0%

6%

KET ASSES

All

8,076

62%

11%

10%

7%

5%

6%

Total

2,892

70%

16%

3%

2%

1%

8%

SSMENT

97


fluorescebulbs obs

The EISAcategcovebulbs

The Da selsome

Mass

As dcomplaggefor J

Six oin 20exemfluor

Of inor exand 4

8ent, or not cserved insta

DOE recenA Phase II gories and

ers the vasts will be ex

DOE has lell-through pe bulb categ

sachusetts

drafted, EISApliant bulbsed implemeanuary 1, 2

out of every017 were dirmpt from EIrescent (8%

nstalled bulbxceed EISA4% are EISA

8 SectioExempThis sectionII (also comin Massachby EISA,

covered by Ealled during o

tly issued t(the backhigher lum

t majority oxempt from E

eft Phase II period is likegories.

consumers

A Phase II s. This mayentation, in 020).

y ten installrectly coverISA Phase , and 10%).

bs in MassA Phase I rA-complian

n 8 Eptions an examines

mmonly referhusetts and Ndirectional EISA. Here,on-site visits

two rulemakstop) to inmen lamps.of residentiEISA after J

enforcemenely, and allo

s’ awarenes

will prohibiy mean thaPhase II ef

led bulbs inred by EISAI (15% and

achusetts trequirementt halogen b

EISA Coand Excthe potentiarred to as thNew York by(covered b

, we provides.

akings whicnclude add. The revisial lighting January 1, 2

nt specificsowed for a p

ss of EISA h

it the manuat, unlike Phffects may p

n MassachuA Phase I; thd 13%), dire

that are covts—54% are

bulbs.

2017 LIGH

overagclusional impact of Ee EISA backy categorizin

by a separae a summar

ch greatly editional presed EISA P

options—m2020.

s somewhapossible de

has declined

ufacture, imPhase I whe

precede im

usetts (59%he remaininectional (18

vered by EIre efficient

HTING MAR

e, ns EISA Phase kstop) on inng each bulbate rulemary of the EIS

expanded theviously ex

Phase II bacmeaning th

at vague, indelay in enfo

d in recent y

mport, and sere the effe

mplementatio

%) and New ng installed8% and 15%

ISA Phase bulbs (CFL

KET ASSES

I and Phasestalled bulbsb as coveredking), lineaSA status o

he scope oxempt bulbckstop now

hat very few

dicated thaorcement fo

years.

sale of nonects of EISAon (planned

w York (62%)d bulbs were%), or linea

I, 62% meeLs or LEDs)

SSMENT

98

e s d

ar of

of b w w

at r

n-A d

%) e r

et s)


8.1 EISecond pthe Enerthe resid

Summarstandardbackstopwhich gexempt specificsallowed determinstakeholapproac

A.1.1 E

EISA 20ranging fstandardshows th

Phase I onot affecstandardlong afte

Rated LRanges

1,490–21,050–1750–1,0310–74

37 MA EEAeeac.org/wReport.pdf

SA OVERV

perhaps onlyrgy Independential lightin

ry: There ards went intp) is set to reatly expabulb categos somewha

for a posnation willlders. This

ch 2019 and

EISA Phase

07 set maxfrom 310 tos took effec

he schedule

of EISA 200ct the sale o incandescer the implem

Lumen s

In

2,600 1,489 049 9

AC, Lighting Mawordpress/wp-c.

VIEW y to the introdence and Sg market du

re two phasto effect in

go into effanded the sories and h

at vague, hassible delal be baseis an area t

d 2020.

e I

ximum wattao 2,600 lumect through afor Phase I.

7 prohibits thor use of suent bulbs ha

mentation of

TableTypica

ncandescenWattag

100 75 60 40

arket Assessmecontent/uploads

oduction of LSecurity Act uring recent t

ses of EISA2013 and 2

fect in 2020scope of thehigher lumeas indicateday in enfoed on an the PAs wil

age levels bens and opea phased pr

he manufactuch bulbs. Fave remaineEISA 2007 (

e 48: EISA al nt Lamp ge

ent and Saturas/Lighting-Mark

LEDs to the (EISA) of 2

times.

A. Phase I w2014. Phase0. The DOE e backstop,n lamps. St

d that a sellrcement fo

ongoing ll have to ca

by lumen ouerating at arocess, begi

ture and impFor this reaed available (NMR 2015)

Phase I Sc

MaximumWatta

72534329

tion Stagnationket-Assessmen

2017 LIGH

marketplac2007 is one

was introduce II (often rrecently iss, to includetill, the DOEl-through peor some b

dialog warefully mo

utput for mea range frominning in 20

port of non-cason, as obs

to consume).37

chedule

m Rated age

3 3 9

n Overall Repont-and-Saturati

HTING MAR

e, the impleof largest in

ced in 2012referred to asued two rue additionalE has left eeriod is like

bulb categowith lightinonitor, espe

edium screwm 110 to 13012 (Phase

compliant buserved in oters on retail

Effectiv

1/11/11/11/1

ort, 2015. http://on-Stagnation-

KET ASSES

mentation onfluences on

2; additionaas the EISAulemakingsl previously

enforcemenely, and hasories. Fina

ng industrycially as we

w-base bulbs30 volts. The

I). Table 48

ulbs but doesther studieslers’ shelves

ve Date

/12 /13 /14 /14

/ma--Overall-

SSMENT

99

of n

al A s, y

nt s

al y e

s e 8

s s, s


A.1.2 E

In JanuaThe com

• h• h

The first two moslumen raII backstfew bulbs

Lumen RThe amemeaning

Eliminattypes thalisting of estimatedeffect in 2Table 49

• R• R• S• 3• V• T• B

As the swill be dchanging

EISA Phase

ry 2017, theplete rules c

ttps://www.gttps://www.g

link providet important

ange and theop now covs will be exe

Range Expaended GSL l

that EISA P

tion of Exemat were exem

all 22 origind by the DO2020) discon):

Reflector LamRough ServicShatter-Resis

-Way LampsVibration SerT-Shape LamB, BA, CA, F,

ales data prdiscontinuedg the exempt

e II

e DOE issuecan be found

gpo.gov/fdsygpo.gov/fdsy

s an overvietakeaways fe eliminationers the vast

empt from EI

ansion. Phaumen range

Phase II will

mptions. Fompt (not covenally exemptOE). The finntinue exem

mps ce Lamps stant Lampss rvice Lamps mps of 40 Wa, G16-1/2, G

rovided in th are also st status, the

ed two final rd in the fede

ys/pkg/FR-20ys/pkg/FR-20

ew of DOE’sfrom the amn of seven et majority of SA after Jan

ase I of EISe, beginning apply to high

or Phase I oered) by thet GSL categnal rules for mptions for se

atts or less oG25, G30, S,

he table demsome of the

DOE discus

rules relatederal register t

017-01-19/p017-01-19/p

s decision tomended definexemptions.

residential nuary 1, 202

SA covers GJanuary 1, 2her lumen-o

of EISA, the e EISA efficieories as wePhase II of

even importa

or length of 1 M-14 lamp

monstrate, thhigher sale

ss a desire t

2017 LIGH

d to Generalthrough the

df/2016-320df/2016-320

o amend thenition are thCombined, lighting opti

20.

SLs betwee2020, will be

output lamps

DOE specifency standa

ell as approxf EISA (the ant categorie

10 inches orof 40 W or l

he categoriees categorieo avoid pote

HTING MAR

Service Lamfollowing lin

012.pdf 013.pdf

e definition ohe expansionthe revised ons—mean

en 310 to 2,e 310 to 4,00 compared t

fically identifrds. Table 4

ximate nationbackstop sees (highlight

r more less

es for whiches. In their ential lamp s

KET ASSES

mps (GSLs)ks:

of GSLs. Then of coveredEISA Phaseing that very

600 lumens00 lumens—to Phase I.

fied 22 lamp49 provides anal sales (aset to go intoted in bold in

h exemptionsrationale fo

switching.

SSMENT

100

).

e d e y

s. —

p a s o n

s or


Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20

21

22

8.1.1 E

It is impoenforce enforcem

DOE compof dodemaassocCompan ento thr

DOE backsindus

GSL Exe

ApplianceBlack LigBug LamColored LInfrared LLeft-HandMarine LaMarine SMine ServPlant LighReflectorRough SShatter-RSign ServSilver BowShowcas3-Way LaTraffic SigVibrationG shape inches orT shape length ofB, BA, CAS, M-14 l

Enforcemen

ortant to notethe standa

ment based o

acknowledply with a 45omestic manand for all geciated with tpliance Certnd to or delaree year dela

is committestop standastry, includin

Ta

empt Catego

e Lamp ht Lamp p Lamp Lamp d Thread Laamp ignal Servicevice Lamp ht Lamp r Lamp

Service LamResistant Lavice Lamp wl Lamp e Lamp amp gnal Lamp n Service LaLamp with d

r more lamp of 40 f 10 inches A, F, G16-1/amp of 40 W

nt and Sell

e that, in therds for all on an ongoin

dges that m5 lm/W standnufacturing eneral servictesting and ctification Maay in imposinay in enforci

ed to workingrd goes intong meetings

able 49: EIS

ory

mp

e Lamp

mp amp

amp diameter of 5

W or less oor more /2, G25, G30W or less

l Through

e final rules, lamp types

ng dialog wit

anufacturersdard. Manufa

jobs, the sce lamps witcertifying comnagement Sng any new ing the back

g with manuo effect. DOs and other

SA ExempApp

2<<<<<<<<<

3010.

11

<33<7

5 0

or 10

0, 72

Period

the DOE has beginning th lighting in

s may face acturers havstranding of th lamps usimpliance for

System (CCMstandards f

kstop standar

ufacturers to E will continr stakeholde

2017 LIGH

ptions prox. Sales

(DOE) 2 million

<1 million <1 million <2 million <1 million <1 million <1 million <1 million <1 million <1 million

0 million 1 million .7 Million 1 million 1 million

<1 million 3 million

<1 million 7 million

.9 million

0 million

2 million

as explicitly in 2020 a

dustry stake

a difficult ve voiced cof inventory, ing LED techr all generalMS). Manufafor general srd.

ensure a sunue to have er outreach,

HTING MAR

Exemp

MMMMMMMMMM

DiscDiscDisc

MMM

DiscM

Disc

M

Disc

Disc

stated that tand may ineholders.

transition ifncern regardthe ability hnology, andl service lamfacturers havservice lamp

uccessful traan active d

, throughou

KET ASSES

ption Status

aintain aintain aintain aintain aintain aintain aintain aintain aintain aintain

continue continue continue aintain aintain aintain

continue aintain continue

aintain

continue

continue

they may nonstead delay

f required tording the lossto meet thed the burden

mps in DOE’sve requestedps and a two

ansition if thedialogue withut the period

SSMENT

101

s

ot y

o s e n s d o

e h d


betwegeneand twith r

In additioDOE furtthrough n

In thaDOE compdistribstand2020detailsubsecompwould

8.2 EIThe propdropped continuoEISA incaware ofEISA aw

38 There is Appendix D

een publicatral service lthe public arespect to th

on, while thether clarifiednon-complia

at vein, DOto ‘‘prohibi

pliance. Forbutors can cdard. If, by 0, that invenl how the bection (i)(2),pliance with d interpret a

SA AWAR

portion of Mafrom 46%

us decreasecandescent f this legislaareness sinc

a difference beD for details.

tion of this rlamps, inclu

apprised of ihe standard.

e final rules d in a footnant lamps ma

OE also noteit sales,’’ it r most prodcontinue to contrast, distory will be backstop wo, ‘‘it shall nothe law at

nd apply the

RENESS assachusettin 2016 to 4

e in this indicphase-out. tion, also thce 2011.38

etween phone

rule and theuding IRLs. Dits plans for

say that mote that theanufactured

es NEMA’s could pres

ducts, NEMAsell inventorstributors castranded. A

ould work iot be unlawf

the time sue backstop w

ts responden40% in 201cator may mIn New Yore lowest of

and web respo

e complianceDuring this pr any broad

anufacture ae DOE woul

before the b

comment thsent a subsA states, ary still on haannot sell oAlthough it iif it comes ful for a manuch lamp wwith subsecti

nts who repo7, the lowe

mirror the decrk, 47% of cany survey

ondents, but it w

2017 LIGH

e date of anperiod, DOEexercise of

and sale of d likely allo

backstop goe

hat becausestantial pracafter a stanand that comold lamp invis prematureinto force,

nufacturer towas manufac

ion (i)(2) in m

orted that thest total fromcreased medconsumers year. Figure

was not statist

HTING MAR

ny backstop E will keep sf enforceme

lamps are cw manufactes into effec

e the backsctical difficuldard comesmplied with ventory aftere for DOE tDOE notes

o sell a lampctured.’’ DOmind.

hey were awm any survedia attentionreported thae 39 shows

ically significan

KET ASSES

standard fostakeholders

ent discretion

covered, theturers to sect:

stop requireslty regardings into effecthe previousr January 1to explain ins that undep which is in

OE expects i

ware of EISAey year. Then given to theat they werethe trend o

nt. See

SSMENT

102

or s n

e ll

s g ct s

1, n

er n it

A e e e

of


Figu

8.3 PH

In 2015, residentiaNEEP rewhere thfuture. AcategorieEISA rule

As the coout to excontext. presentecategoriz(exempt

39 NEEP, Thttp://www40 Note thatake into acapplies onl

ure 39: Mas

HASE I EISthe Northeaal lighting meport was tohe market isAs part of es in order emaking.

overage of Examine on-sIn order to g

ed in Figure ze bulbs intfrom EISA P

The State of Ou.neep.org/sites

at this flowchartccount differeny to CFLs and

ssachusettSig

SA COVERA

ast Energy Emarket in tho determineheading, athe NEEP to increase

EISA is imposite saturatigroup the on40, which wto four distPhase I and

ur Sockets: A Rs/default/files/ret outlines EISA

nces in exempteLEDs.

ts Consumgnificantly

(Base: All

AGE fficiency Pae Northeast

e if the resind if there iassessmenunderstand

ortant in deteon data for n-site data cwas preparedtinct categodecorative):

Regional Analysesources/State

A categorizationed bulbs outlin

mers’ Awarein Recent Respondents

rtnerships (Nt in the condential lights a role for

nt, residentiding of the p

ermining theinstalled b

collected intod by Apex Aries, combin:

sis of the ResideOfOurSocketsn based on the ed in the DOE’

2017 LIGH

eness of EYears

s)

NEEP) issuentext of EISAting market residential

ial lighting proportion o

e future of reulbs in Mas

o categoriesAnalytics.40 Uning two of

dential LightingFinal_0.pdf original EISA 2’s notice of pro

HTING MAR

EISA has D

ed a paper loA.39 The puhas been tlighting progwas group

of bulbs cov

esidential lighssachusetts , we used th

Ultimately, wf the NEEP

g Market, 2015

2007 legislatiooposed rulemak

KET ASSES

Declined

ooking at therpose of thetransformedgrams in theed into fivevered by the

hting, we sein a simila

he flow charwe elected toP categories

5.

n and does notking, which

SSMENT

103

e e

d, e e e

et ar rt o s

t


Any bulbbulbs. An(outside EISA Phwattage halogen manufacsingle wadesired lwe simplFor examequivalen

N1. Genera2. Directio3. Linear F4. Genera5. Decora

bs that were ny bulbs withthe EISA lu

hase I. Becarecorded onbulbs. We

turer-recomattage ratio umen outpuy multiplied

mple, an LEnt wattage o

NEEP Categoal Service (coonal Fluorescent

al Service (extive

not coveredh incandesc

umen or watause lumenn site to dete

used the mended wais a simplif

ut. To conveobserved w

ED with a wof 73 [11 * 6.

T

Bulb Type

LED

CFL

Incandesc

Halogen

ories overed by E

xempt from

d in this flowent equivalettage catego information

ermine equivratios prov

attage equivfied approacrt observed

wattages by tattage of 1166 = 73].

Table 50: W

e LED R

1.0

0.5

cent 0.1

0.2

ISA)

EISA)

w chart were ent wattagesories) were an is not incvalent incanvided in Tavalency tablch becausewattages to

the ratio and1 would be

Wattage Ra

RatioInc

0

9

5

2

2017 LIGH

NMR C1. Covere2. Directio3. Linear 4. Exemp

categorizeds below 29 walso catego

cluded on ligdescent watble 50, whes. We rec wattage ra

o incandesced rounded toassumed to

atios

candescent Ratio

6.66

3.70

1.0

1.39

HTING MAR

Categories ed by EISA onal Fluorescent t from EISA

d as non-genwatts or abovrized as notght bulbs, wttage for LE

hich were dcognize thatatios vary deent-equivale

o the neareso have an in

t

KET ASSES

neral serviceve 100 wattst covered bywe relied on

ED, CFL, andderived fromt adopting aepending on

ent wattagest whole wattncandescen

SSMENT

104

e s y n d m a n s, t. nt


Figure 41grouped from EIS

Massachwere covOn-site dSimilarlyMassach2017).42

41 This flow42 On-site nearly indisand vibratio

1 shows instinto four caA.

husetts on-sivered by EISdata from N, there wer

husetts (25%

w chart was crelighting inventstinguishable fon service lam

Figure

talled bulbs ategories: co

ite data showSA (59%) in ew York in

re significan% in 2016 vs

eated by Apex Aories are not arom similar EISps.

40: EISA P

in Massachovered by E

wed that nea2017, signif2017 provid

ntly fewer Es. 15% in 2

Analytics. able to fully caSA-covered bu

Phase I Ca

usetts and NISA, directio

arly six out oficantly moreded a similaEISA-exemp2017) and N

apture the instaulbs, such as ro

2017 LIGH

ategories41

New York hoonal, linear f

of every tene than were ar estimate opt bulbs curNew York (2

allation of exemough service la

HTING MAR

omes in 201fluorescent,

currently incovered in

of covered brrently insta24% in 2016

mpt bulbs in samps, shatter-r

KET ASSES

16 and 2017and exemp

stalled bulbs2016 (51%)bulbs (62%)

alled in both6 vs. 13% in

ockets that areresistant lamps

SSMENT

105

7, pt

s ). ). h n

e s,


To help breakdowshows, juwere effinearly twjust over of all bulb

in understawn of bulbs ust over onecient (CFLs

wo-fifths (39%three-fifths

bs in both st

Figure 41:

nding the cby type catee-half (54%or LEDs), a

%) of installe(62%) were tates were a

: Bulbs by

current stateegorized as ) of EISA-co

and just undeed General S

inefficient. Already EISA

EISA Phas

e of socketsGeneral Seovered bulber one-half (Service bulbAmong all C

A compliant i

2017 LIGH

se I Catego

s covered byrvice covere

bs found ins(46%) were

bs were efficCovered Gen

n 2017.

HTING MAR

ory

y EISA, we ed by EISA. stalled in Ma

inefficient. Iient (CFLs o

neral Service

KET ASSES

present theAs Table 51

assachusettsn New York

or LEDs) ande bulbs, 62%

SSMENT

106

e 1 s

k, d

%


Sockets ContainiSample STotal BuCFL IncandesHalogen LED Other Total EffiTotal IneAlready EComplian

8.4 EITo help customeMassachbased onand LEDwe excluall bulbs

• C• D• E

As TableService bexempt (

Covered

CFLs (92incandes

Direction

LEDs (16(14%), in

43 Given th

Table 51:

ing Size

ulbs

scent

ficient efficient EISA nt

SA PHASE

increase ors, we exam

husetts panen the origina

D coverage ouded linear f

divided into

Covered by EDirectional: Exempt:

e 52 showsbulbs covere18%) or dire

d by EISA P

2%) were thscents (63%

nal

6%) were thncandescent

e relatively sm

General S

MA 201Saturat

465 16,7138%42%4%

16%<1%54%46%

62%

E I COVERA

our understamined the sel householdal EISA 2007outlined in thfluorescents.the three re

EISA: 66 16 18

s, in Massaed by EISA ectional (16%

hase I

he most like), and LEDs

he most likets (7%), and

all sample size

Service Cov

17 ion

MSa

0

AGE – REP

anding of tsource and ds in 2016.4

7 coverageshe DOE’s no. As a point

emaining EIS

% % %

achusetts, tw(66%), and

%).

ely to be co (55%).

ely to be caCFLs (4%).

es in New York

vered by E

MA 2016 aturation

420 17,346 47% 40% 3%

10% --

57% 43%

60%

PLACEMEN

the EISA sEISA status

43 As stated s and do nototice of propof comparis

SA categorie

wo-thirds ofd just under

overed by E

ategorized a.

k, we have limit

2017 LIGH

EISA Phase

NY 20Saturat

2559,8130%55%6%9%

<1%39%62%

62%

NT BULBS

status of bus of replace

above, thet factor in prposed rulemson, followines:

f replacemeone-fifth ea

EISA, follow

as directiona

ted this analysi

HTING MAR

e I Saturati

017 tion S

5 7

% %

% % % % %

%

ulbs being ement bulbsese EISA caroposed cha

making. For tng are the p

ent bulbs wach were ca

wed by halo

al, followed

is to Massachu

KET ASSES

on

NY 2016 Saturation

150 7,372 37% 55% 3% 5%

<1% 42% 58%

45%

installed bys installed inategories areanges to CFLthis analysisroportions o

were Generategorized as

gens (79%)

by halogens

usetts.

SSMENT

107

y n e L s, of

al s

),

s


Exempt

Incandes(18%), ha

Tab

Bulb Typ

Total Bu

IncandesCFL Halogen LED

When weone-thirdwere stillmajority o

Table

Bulb T

Total Bu

IncandesCFL Halogen LED

from Phase

scents (30%alogens (7%

le 52: Mass

pe #

Bu

ulbs 2,

scent 431

1,

e examined d of incande able to findof halogens

e 53: Mass

Type

ulbs

scent

e I

%) were the m%), and CFLs

sachusetts(Base

# of ulbs Cov

,166

455 386 142 ,183

the bulb soescents (32% non-compli(60%) were

achusetts

(Base

# of bulbs

1,384

275 342 110 657

most likely ts (4%).

s Replacem: Massachuse

vered by EIS1,385 66% 63% 92% 79% 55%

ource for bu%) covered ant bulbs fro

e new (Table

ReplacemSo

: Massachuse

BNew bulb

931 64% 32% 49% 60% 90%

o be catego

ment Bulbsetts Panel Ho

SA Dire

ulbs that weby EISA w

om sources e 52).

ment Bulbs ource etts Panel Ho

Bulbs CoveFrom

336336

2017 LIGH

orized as ex

s by EISA ouseholds)

ectional 393 16% 7% 4%

14% 16%

re covered were new, in

other than s

covered b

ouseholds)

ered by EISAstorage

377 30% 63% 38% 38% 6%

HTING MAR

xempt, follow

Phase I Ca

Genera(Exempt f

3183047

18

by EISA, wndicating thastorage. Furt

by EISA Ph

A - Source From anot

765

1227

KET ASSES

wed by LEDs

ategory

l Service from EISA)

388 8% 0%

4% 7% 8%

we found thaat customersther, the vas

hase I by

ther fixture76 % %

2% % %

SSMENT

108

s

at s

st


8.5 EIWe also home typnon-low-limited thwere insu

• M

• Rb

• Rco

• Lco

• Lb

SA PHASE

examined pe (multifamincome) to d

his analysis ufficient to s

Multifamily an

Renter-occupulbs compar

Renter-occupompared to

ow-income hompared to

ow-income hulbs compar

E I COVERA

EISA Phasemily or singledetermine if to householupport this l

nd single-fam

pied homes (red to owner

pied homes howner-occu

homes (12%non-low-inco

homes (67%red to non-lo

Figure 42:

AGE BY INC

e I coverage-family), tenEISA coveralds in Massaevel of brea

mily homes h

(66%) had sr-occupied h

had significapied homes

%) had signifome homes

%) had signifow-income h

: Bulbs by

COME AND

e by three nure (own oage varies bachusetts bekdown.

had similar p

significantly hhomes (57%

antly lower p(11% vs. 20

ficantly lowe(21%).

ficantly highehomes (56%

EISA Phas

2017 LIGH

D HOME TY

important dor rent), andby these demecause the s

proportions o

higher propo%).

proportions o0%).

r proportions

er proportion%).

se I Catego

HTING MAR

YPE demographicd income (lomographic vsamples fro

of EISA-cov

ortions of EIS

of directiona

s of direction

ns of EISA-c

ory

KET ASSES

c categoriesw-income oariables. Wem New York

ered bulbs.

SA-covered

l bulbs

nal bulbs

covered

SSMENT

109

s: or e k


on-site phas testeindicated

Massdemo

New but w

On-sAmerdemoeduc

Massach

Income: income, respond)which shvisits, 30visits ide

Home TyThis figuwhich ind

Tenure: dissimila

Educatiodegree cestimatescompareCompareschool eeducatiotrends idachievem

Age: Theand sign

9participant saed for significd in Figure 43

sachusetts ographic co

York on-sitwere statisti

site visits rican Comographic v

cation.

husetts

More than while one-th). This is sighow that 880% of househntified as low

ype: Approxure is signifdicate that 8

Over sever to the ACS

on: More thcompared tos. There wd to 8%), a

ed to ACS 5education on (2% compdentified in

ment betwee

e consumer ificantly fewe

9 SectioThe demogthe consum2015 Ameaddition to have provid

ample whencant differen3 and Figure

on-site paomparisons

te and paneically simila

in Massacmmunity Svariables, in

one-half (6hird (29%) idgnificantly dif8% of Massholds identifw-income.

ximately twoficantly diffe0% of Mass

n in ten onS five-year es

han one-thio less than owere also m

and more p-year estimar GED (8%pared to 10

the ACS. en panel and

survey had er people in

n 9 Dgraphic informer survey. rican Commdata from

ded census dn available. Tnces across e 44 and dis

anel and ns.

el visits diffar across ot

chusetts anSurvey (ACncluding in

61%) of Masdentified as fferent from achusetts hfied as low-in

o-thirds of oerent from Machusetts ho

n-site particstimates (80

rd of on-sitone in five (

more on-siteparticipants ates, there w

% compared0%). The on

There wed new on-site

significantlythe 25-34 a

Demogrmation wasMassachus

munity Survthe compardata in compThroughout samples usi

scussed belo

new visits

fered signifither demog

nd New YCS) five-yencome, hom

ssachusetts low-incomeMassachus

households ncome, whil

n-site particMassachuseouseholders

ipants own 0%).

te househol(less than 2 participantwith some

were much fe to 25%) a

n-site participere no signe participant

y more peopnd 18-24-ye

2017 LIGH

raphicss collected osetts censusvey (ACS) rison area, parison to ththe demogr

ing a two-taiow.

were statis

icantly on hgraphic com

York signifear estimame type, ag

on-site pare (remaining setts 2015 Aare non-lowe 23% of ho

cipants lived etts 2015 ACs live in sing

their home

lds had an 20%) identifits with a bcollege (32

ewer on-siteand with lepants skewenificant diffets.

ple 55-64 anear-old categ

HTING MAR

s over the phs data comfive-year eUpstate Ne

he consumeraphic sectioiled t-test; si

stically sim

home type amparisons.

ficantly difates on sge, age of

rticipants weparticipants

ACS five-yeaw-income. Aouseholds in

in single-faCS five-yeale-family hom

es, which is

advanced ed in the AC

bachelor’s d2% comparee participantsess than a ed more ederences in

d over 65 thgory.

KET ASSES

one throughmes from theestimates; inew York, wer survey andon, the teamignificance is

milar across

and income

ffered fromseveral key

home, and

ere non-lows declined toar estimates

Among panen new on-site

amily homesar estimatesmes.

s statistically

or graduateCS five-yea

degree (11%ed to 23%)s with a highhigh schoo

ducated thaneducationa

han the ACS

SSMENT

110

h e n e d m s

s

e,

m y d

w-o s, el e

s. s,

y

e ar % ). h ol n al

S,


When Hwere buifewer hoto the AC

New Yor

Income: income, low-incom

Home Twere sinwhich inddiffered househonot signif

Tenure: househoACS fivenew visit

Educatiodegree, significanhousehoschool ed(25%). Lschool ed

Age: Neolder (15were sigthan indic

When Hoto the Ma

ome Built: lt at the sammes reporte

CS five-year

rk

Nearly threwhile one-qme, significa

ype: The ongle-family, sdicate 80% osignificantly lds were muficantly diffe

There werelders in New

e-year estimas.

on: More thsignificantly ntly fewer plds (32%) aducation or astly, New Yducation (1%

ew York on-s5%) comparenificantly mcated by the

ome Built: assachusetts

On-site andme rate as ed to have bestimates (3

e-quarters (7uarter were

antly differen

verwhelmingsignificantly of household

from Massultifamily. Sinrent than sin

e no significw York on-sates. Tenure

an one-thirdmore than

eople with aand ACS 5-GED (7%) wYork on-site%) than dete

sites had fewed with the ore 55-64-y

e ACS (16%

New York os ACS five-y

d survey pareported in

been built in 34%).

70%) of New low-income

nt from pane

g majority (9fewer than

ders live in ssachusetts ongle-family hngle-family h

cant differensite visits ane rates were

d of New Yoindicated in

a bachelor’syear estimawere statistices had signifermined by th

wer people ACS estima

year-olds (25and 16%, re

n-sites had year estimate

rticipants gethe ACS. Tthe 1930s o

w York on-sie. Over one-l visits, in wh

91%) of houn the Massasingle-familyon-site visitshouseholds ihousehold ne

nces betwend Massache statistically

ork on-site hn ACS five-s degree (26ates (24%). cally differenficantly fewehe ACS five-

who were 1ates (13%, 15%) and 35espectively).

more homeses (8%).

2017 LIGH

enerally repoThere were or earlier (27

ite househol-half (75%) hich 63% we

useholds in achusetts Ay homes. Nes in this resin New Yorkew visits (91

een the propusetts on-si

y similar acro

households (-year estima6%) than inNew York

nt from the Aer household-year estima

8-24 (3%), 17%, and 19-44-year-old.

s built in the

HTING MAR

orted when one-quarter 7% and 19%

ds visited wof new visit

ere non-low-

New York oCS five-yea

ew York houspect, in whk panel visits1%).

portion of hite visits, asoss New Yo

(37%) had aates (18%). n Massachuhouseholds ACS five-yeds with lessates (10%).

25-34 (15%9%, respectds (20%) in

e 1990s (12%

KET ASSES

their homesto one-third

%) compared

were non-lowts were non-income.

on-site visitsar estimatesseholds alsohich 21% os (91%) were

home-ownings well as therk panel and

an advancedThere were

setts on-sitewith a high

ear estimatess than a high

%), and 65 oively). Therethe on-sites

%) compared

SSMENT

111

s d d

w--

s s, o

of e

g e d

d e e h s h

or e s

d


Figure 43: Compaarison of MMA & NY O

2017 LIGH

On-Sites wi

HTING MAR

th Census

KET ASSES

s

SSMENT

112


Figure 44: Comparison of MMA & NY P

2017 LIGH

Panel and N

HTING MAR

New Visits

KET ASSES

SSMENT

113


The goalighting mportions Rochestediffered s

In Massapaid incewithin a telephononline reAmerican3 (RR3),take ratefinal on-s

In New Y

The finalNew YorMassachnoting thwere turn

44 The PubDownstatepurposes owith Massa45 Researchttps://rms

Al of the 201

market indicaof New Yo

er, and Syrasomewhat by

achusetts, pentive and acouple weee. The surv

espondents. n Associatio was 27%.

e for the on-ssite completi

York, survey

l on-site comrk. For panehusetts and at, in Massaned away be

blic Service Com because ConE

of this study, weachusetts, specch and Marketinresults.com/wp

A AppenThis appenapproaches

A.1 CO

17 residentiaators and reork, namelyacuse, as wey state.

otential surva link to an eks, the Teavey resulted

Overall, theon for Public

Table 54 psite studies on rate (e.g

respondents

mpletion rateel visits, we 105 househ

achusetts, thecause we h

mmission (PSCEd serves Wese would includecifically the Bosng Strategies, Ip-content/uploa

dix A Mdix providess used for th

NSUMER Sal lighting ccruit househ

y a 40-mile ell as all of W

vey respondonline surv

am began cin 601 resp

e response c Opinion Rerovides the (e.g., those ., those who

s were recru

e for new vrevisited 31

holds out of here were adhad already r

C) of New Yorkstchester Coune Westchester ston metro areaInc., Viewpoint ads/2017/02/Pa

Methods a detailed sis study.

SURVEY consumer suholds for the

radius aroWestchester

dents receivevey; if they dcalling housponses, withrate for the

esearch (AAresponse rawho agreed

o participated

uited from a

visits was 5015 househoa possible

dditional panreached our

k includes mostty as well as thCounty with U

a. Research Pan

anel-Book-2016

2017 LIGH

dologysummary of

urvey was te on-site visitound the cit

County.44 R

ed an advandid not respseholds to ch 270 phone Massachu

APOR) approates for the d to participad/total who a

panel maint

0% for Massolds out of a150 in New

nelists interer target.

t of Westchestehe five borough

Upstate in order

nel Profile Book6e.pdf.

HTING MAR

the methodo

o continue ts in Massacties of Alba

Recruitment

nce letter wpond to the complete the responde

usetts surveoach for Res consumer ate in the visagreed).

tained by RM

sachusetts aa possible 4

w York (70%sted in parti

er County in itshs of New Yorkr to increase co

k, 2016.

KET ASSES

ological

tracking keychusetts andany, Buffalofor the study

ith a $5 preweb survey

e survey bynts and 331

ey, using thesponse Ratesurveys, thesits), and the

MS.45

and 46% fo420 (75%) in

%). It is worthcipating who

s definition of k City. For the omparability

SSMENT

A-1

y d o, y

e-y y 1 e e e e

or n h o


Area Massach

New Vis

Panel V

New Yor

New Vis

Panel V1 The panecontacted t

A.1.1 W

The 201populatiostrategy multifamNew Yorwas donboosted school oand houssurveys a

husetts

sits

Visits1

rk

sits

Visits1 el visits were inthe 420 previou

Weighting

7 survey don proportio

for Massaily householrk, the teamne to achievthe proportior high schoosing charactare detailed

TaCons

Res

6

itially recruitedus participants

Scheme

ata for Masons for homachusetts sods in the ove sought to i

ve a higher on of responol graduate, teristics. Thein Table 55

able 54: Resumer Survsponse Rat

(Count)

27% (601

n/a

3% online (16% phone (2

n/a as part of the in Massachus

ssachusetts meownershipought to taerall sampleinclude no mproportion

ndents whosin an effort

e weighting .

esponse Rvey te On-

T

)

141) 263)

2013, 2014, 20etts and the 15

and New p (tenure) aarget equal e, as was domore than 5of renters

se highest leto limit respschemes fo

2017 LIGH

Rates

-site RecruTake Rate

50% (299

n/a

81% (329

n/a 015 or 2016 ev50 previous pa

York were and educatio

proportionone in the fou50% of multioverall, whi

evel of educapondent biasor the Massa

HTING MAR

it FinaCom

9)

9) 4

valuation. For 2rticipants in Ne

weighted toon. The 20s of singleur prior survifamily housch has also

ation includes based on dachusetts an

KET ASSES

al On-site mplete Rate

50% (150)

75% (315)

46% (150)

70% (105) 2017, the Teamew York.

o reflect the17 samplinge-family andey waves. In

seholds. Thiso historicallyes some highdemographicnd New York

SSMENT

A-2

m

e g d n s y h c k


Tenu

Massach

OwneOccup

RenteOccup

Don't knoTotal

New Yor

OwneOccup

RenteOccup

Don't knoTotal

A.1.2 S

Table 5690% con

46 It is wortnumber of question wthe report.

Ta

re

husetts Cons

er-pied

HighSomDegrBach

er-pied

SomSomDegrBach

ow/No answ

k Compariso

er-pied

SomBach

er-pied

SomBach

ow/No answ

Survey Sam

6 summarizefidence leve

Massachus

New York C

th noting that threspondents fo

was asked. For

able 55: Co

Educa

sumer Surve

h School andme College o

ree helor's degre

me college orme College o

ree helor's degre

wer

on Area Surv

me College ohelor’s Degre

me college orhelor's degre

wer

mple Error

es the numbel, assuming

Tab

setts Consum

Consumer S

he sample erroor a particular qthis reason, we

onsumer S

ation

ey

d Less r Associate’s

ee or higherr Less r Associate’s

ee or higher

vey

r Less ee or Higherr Less ee or higher

er of survey a 50/50 bre

ble 56: Surv

mer Survey

Survey

or for individual question, the pe provide statis

Survey Wei

Hous

41s

38

7740

s 25

30

2,5

69r 51

4715

1,8

ys completedeak in respon

vey Sample

Complete

601

402

questions askeroportion of res

stical testing fo

2017 LIGH

ghting Sch

seholds

9,185

88,621

75,861 02,799

54,098

09,157 n/a 49,721

99,042 0,249

75,971 59,933

n/a 45,195

d as well asnses, for the

e Error

esSample

Confi

ed in the survesponses, and tr individual que

HTING MAR

heme

Sample Size

39

76

270 36

40

92 40

601

68 217 51 61 5

402

s the samplee consumer s

e Error at 90dence Leve

+3.4%

+4.1%

eys varies basethe specifics ofestions in the m

KET ASSES

ProportionWeight

2.53

1.21

0.68 2.64

1.50

0.79 1.00 n/a

2.24 0.51 2.03 0.57 1.00 n/a

e error at thesurveys.46

0% el

ed on the f how the main body of

SSMENT

A-3

nate

e


Table 57site visits

Massach

New Vis

Panel V

New Yor

New Vis

Panel V

A.2 WThe on-sownershSample guiding p

• Tim

• TY

• Tco

Year

2017 CombinedMassachuVisits (Neand Pane

*Includes 1**Includes tenure=occ

2017 NewVisits-Massachu

provides ths by bulb typ

Table

Co

husetts

sits

Visits

k

sits

Visits

WEIGHTING

site survey ip (tenure) (PUMS) fro

principles be

To maintain cmportant for

To reflect theYork to the de

To make cerorrectly repr

Tenu

d usetts

ew el)

Tota

OwnSo

Bac

RentSo

Bac

1 tenure = occu1 tenure = occ

cupied without

w

usetts

Tota

Own

Som

e actual compe.

57: On-site

ompletes

465

150

315

255

150

105

G SCHEME data were and educa

om the Ameehind the sch

comparabilittracking cha

e population emographic

tain that theresent the po

Table 58

ure and Hom

l

ner-Occupiedme College o

chelor’s Degr

ter-Occupiedme College o

chelor’s Degr

upied without pcupied without ppayment or ren

l

ner-Occupied

e College or

mpletes, coe

e Sample E

Incandesce

C.V. Err

0.65 5%

0.65 9%

0.64 6%

0.49 5%

0.57 8%

0.42 7%

weighted toation in Maserican Comhemes are a

ty with previanges in satu

of Massachcharacterist

e panel dataopulation an

8: On-site

me Type

d or Less

ree or Higher

d or Less*

ree or Higher*

payment or rentpayment or rennt and educatio

d

Less

efficient of va

Error for Sa

ent CF

ror C.V.

% 0.65

% 0.63

% 0.66

% 0.81

% 0.79

% 0.83

o reflect thessachusetts

mmunity Survas follows:

ious schemeuration, use

husetts, inclutics of Massa

a are treatedd what we w

Visit Weig

Househ

2,549,72

807,806

775,861

656,897

** 309,157

t nt, 3 education=on=prefer not t

2,549,72

807,806

2017 LIGH

ariation, and

aturation E

FL

Error C.V

5% 1.4

8% 1.2

6% 1.6

8% 1.6

11% 1.4

13% 1.7

e populations based on vey (ACS)

es dating ba, purchase,

uding by weachusetts

d properly—want to comp

ht Scheme

holds SampSize

21 465

6 93

237

7 54

7 81

=prefer not to ato answer

21 150

6 25

HTING MAR

sample erro

Estimates

LED

V. Error

46 11%

23 17%

60 15%

61 17%

44 19%

79 29%

n proportionPublic Us

1-Year Est

ack to 2008and storage

eighing the d

—i.e., that thepare over tim

e ple Propo

Weig

1.58

0.60

2.22

0.70

answer, and 1

1.90

KET ASSES

or for the on

Halogen

C.V. Erro

1.22 9%

1.17 16%

1.22 11%

1.35 14%

1.40 19%

1.30 21%

ns for homee Microdatatimates. The

; this is verye behavior

data for New

e panel datame

ortionate ht

SSMENT

A-4

-

r

%

%

%

%

%

e a e

y

w

a


Year

*Includes 1**Includes

2017 PanVisits-Massachu

*Includes 1tenure=occ

2017 NewVisits (Neand Pane

*Includes 1

2017 NewVisits-NewYork

*Includes 1

2017 PanVisits-NewYork

*Includes 1

Table 59and med

Table

Bulb Ty

Tenu

Bach

RentSom

Bach1 tenure = occu1 education =

el

usetts

TotaOwn

Som

Bach

RentSom

Bach1 tenure = occucupied without

w York ew el)

TotaOwnSom

Bach

RentSom

Bach1 tenure = occu

w w

Tota

Own

Som

Bach

Rent

Som

Bach1 tenure = occu

el w

Tota

OwnSom

Bach

Rent1 tenure = occu

9 provides thian saturatio

e 59: 2017

ype

ure and Hom

helor’s Degree

ter-Occupiede College or

helor’s Degreeupied without pprefer not to an

l

ner-Occupied

e College or

helor’s Degree


helor’s Degreeupied without ppayment or ren

l

ner-Occupiede College or

helor’s Degree


helor’s Degreeupied without p

l

ner-Occupied

e College or

helor’s Degree

ter-Occupied

e College or

helor’s Degreeupied without p

l

ner-Occupiede College or

helor’s Degree

ter-Occupiedupied without p

he weighted on at the hou

Saturation

Mass

me Type

e or Higher*

d Less**

e or Higher***

payment or rentnswer

d

Less

e or Higher*

d Less**

e or Higher***

payment or rentnt and educatio

d Less

e or Higher

d Less

e or Higher*payment or rent

d

Less

e or Higher

d

Less

e or Higher*payment or rent

d Less

e or Higher

d payment or rent

estimates ousehold leve

n by SockeHou

sachusetts

Househ

775,861

656,897

309,157t

2,549,72

807,806

775,861

656,897

309,157t, 2 education=on=prefer not t

1,209,29

699,042

510,249

475,971

159,933t

1,209,29

699,042

510,249

475,971

159,933t

1,209,29

699,042

510,249

635,904t

of total saturel.

et and Meausehold

2017 LIGH

holds SampSize

74

7 21

7 30

21 315

6 68

163

7 33

7 51 =prefer not to ato answer

91 255

2 52

9 136

39

3 28

91 150

2 27

9 82

19

3 22

91 105

2 25

9 54

4 26

ration by sta

an and Med

HTING MAR

ple PropoWeig0.62

1.84

0.61

1.47

0.59

2.46

0.75 nswer, and 1

1.88

0.52

1.69

0.79

2.10

0.51

2.04

0.59

1.59

0.54

1.39

ate as well a

dian Satura

New York

KET ASSES

ortionate ht

as the mean

ation by

SSMENT

A-5

n


Incande

CFLs

LEDs

Halogen

Fluoresc

Sa

escent

n

cent

(

aturation

33%

29%

18%

8%

7%

(n=465)

Mean

32%

30%

17%

9%

7%

Median

28%

29%

10%

6%

5%

2017 LIGH

Saturation

44%

22%

9%

9%

10%

HTING MAR

(n=255)

Mean

41%

24%

10%

10%

9%

KET ASSES

Median

42%

20%

5%

6%

7%

SSMENT

A-6


saturatioempty socalculatio

Massach

• In(3hs

• E

• Tre

• Hm

• Wd

• Pth

• E

New Yor

• Inainwins

• EL

47 Note thato have pa48 Note thain New Yor

Bn percentagockets are ons.

husetts

ncome – CF35% vs. 2ouseholds (imilar across

Education –

Tenure – LEent/lease ho

Home Type multifamily ho

When Homeecades in w

Primary Lanhe primary la

Electric Bill

rk

ncome – Smong low-in

ncome houswas significancandescentignificantly h

Education – ED saturatio

at nine low-incorticipated in a l

at six low-incomrk reported par

B AppenDemogThis sectionLEDs, anMassachus

ges do not anot shown

FL saturatio7%); LED (21% vs. 13s income typ

Saturation w

ED saturationuseholds (2

– LED saouseholds (1

e Built (Sinwhich the sing

guage – Saanguage and

Payment –

Saturation isncome households (4% ntly lower int and halogehigher than i

Saturation won was lowe

ome householdighting direct-in

me households,rticipating in a l

dix B Sgraphicn looks at sad combine

setts (Tableadd up to 10

in the tabl

on was almosaturation

%).47 Combpes.

was similar a

n in own/bu0% vs. 10%

aturation in 19% vs. 12%

ngle-Familygle-family ho

aturation wad household

Saturation d

s similar acrseholds in N

vs. 13%). In New York en saturationn Massachu

was similar er and comb

s and 68 non-lnstall program., four non-low-iighting direct-in

2

Saturatcs aturation aced incande 60) and

00% becausele below bu

ost one-thirdwas signif

ined incand

across all lev

ying househ).

single-famil%).

y Only) – ome was bu

s similar acrs where Eng

did not differ

ross incomeNew York isIn non-low-ihouseholds n in New Yousetts (55% v

across levelbined incand

ow-income hou. income, and onnstall program.

2016-17 LIGH

tion by

ross select escent andNew York e fluorescenut were inc

d higher in ficantly highescent and

vels of educ

holds was tw

ly househol

Saturation wilt.

ross househglish was no

r based on w

e types. Hos lower thanncome hous(19% vs. 27

ork non-low-vs. 42%).48

ls of educatidescent and

useholds in Ma

ne prefer-not-to.

HTING MAR

demographid halogen(Table 62)

nt, other bulcluded in th

low-incomeher in nonhalogen sa

cation.

wice as high

ds was hig

was similar

holds where ot the primar

who paid the

owever, LEDn in Massacseholds, CF7%); similarlincome hou

ion. Howevehalogen sa

assachusetts w

o-answer-incom

RKET ASSE

ics for CFLs bulbs in). Note thab types, ande saturation

householdsn-low-incomeaturation was

h as that fo

gher than in

r across the

English wasry language.

electric bill.

D saturationchusetts lowFL saturationly, combinedseholds was

er, New Yorkaturation was

were confirmed

me households

ESSMENT

B-1

s, n

at d n

s e s

or

n

e

s

n w-n d s

k s

s


hcocosaA

• Thsavshh

• HMaN

• Pth

• E

igher amonounterpart gombined inaturation wa

Associate’s D

Tenure – LEouseholds (aturation wes. 28% for Calogen satouseholds (5

Home Type Massachuset

nd combineNew York.

Primary Lanhe primary la

Electric Bill

ng the Bacgroup in Macandescent as also sign

Degree level

ED saturation20% vs. 10%

ere significanCFLs; 10% turation wa55% vs. 41%

– Saturatiotts single-fam

ed incandesc

guage – Saanguage and

Payment –

chelor’s Degassachusetts

and halognificantly higof educatio

n was highe%). When contly lower in vs. 20% for

as significa%).

on was simmily househcent and ha

aturation wad household

Saturation d

gree or His (12% vs. gens). Comgher in Newn than in Ma

er in own/buompared to New York ar LEDs); simntly higher

milar across olds, CFL s

alogen satur

s similar acrs where Eng

did not differ

2017 LIGH

igher level 21% for L

mbined incaw York amoassachusetts

uying houseMassachus

among own/bmilarly, combr among N

home typesaturation waration was h

ross househglish was no

r based on w

HTING MAR

of educatiLEDs; 54% ndescent aong the Sos (56% vs. 4

eholds than setts, both Cbuying housbined incanNew York

es. When cas lower (21

higher (54%

holds where ot the primar

who paid the

KET ASSES

on than itsvs. 42% fo

and halogenme College

41%).

in rent/leaseCFL and LED

eholds (20%descent andown/buying

compared to1% vs. 29%

vs. 41%) in

English wasry language.

electric bill.

SSMENT

B-2

s or n e,

e D % d g

o ) n

s


I

N

L

D*

E

H

S

B

DT

O

R

O*

H

M

S

*

Income

Non-low-income

Low-income

DK/Refused * Significantly differ

Education

High School or

Some College, A

Bachelor’s Degr

DK/Refused Tenure

Own/Buying

Rent/Lease

Occupied witho*Significantly differe

Home Type

Multifamily

Single Family

*Significantly differe

e

rent from LI at the 9

Less

Associate’s Deg

ree or Higher

ut payment or reent from Rent/Leas

ent from Single Fam

Table 60: S

Sample S

285

134

4690% confidence lev

46

gree 101

314

4

330

132

ent 3 se at the 90% confid

97

368

mily at the 90% con

Saturation by

Size # of Bulb

5,233

19,230

2,685vel.

2,073

5,186

19,718

171

23,347

3,636

165 dence level.

2,711

24,437

nfidence level.

Demographic

bs# of BulbStatewid84,100,1

0 36,373,2

14,100,8

20,277,8

47,926,3

8 65,717,4

652,665

7 107,703,4

25,907,1

963,685

14,107,2

7 120,467,0

cs – Massach

bs de

Avgsockets

67 658 354 5

30 4

84 500 65 4

403 791 2

5 5

58 2020 6

2016-17 LI

B-3

husetts

g # of s per HH

CFL

67 27%

39 35%

58 26%

45 33%

51 32%

63 26%

43 16%

71 28%

28 34%

55 18%

28 31%

66 29%

IGHTING MARK

Ls LEDs Inc

%* 21%*

% 13%

% 18%

% 16%

% 15%

% 21%

% 65%

% 20%*

% 10%

% 34%

% 12%*

% 19%

KET ASSESSM

an+Halo

42%

38%

44%

38%

41%

42%

10%

41%

42%

38%

44%

41%

MENT


P

E

N

E

I

S

HTB

B

L

K

D

O

E

I

Primary Langu

English

Non-English

Electric Bill Pa

I pay my electric

Someone else p

HOU Room Type Bedroom

Bathroom

Living Space

Kitchen

Dining Room

Other

Exterior

Indoor

uage

ayment

c bill

pays my electric

Ta

All H# of Sockets

Statewide

21,091,790 18,399,371 17,671,938 16,625,924 8,681,144

52,104,112

11,939,540 134,574,279

Saturation b

SampSize437

28

457

c bill 8

able 61: Massa

Households Avg # of s

per H

8.3

7.2

6.9

6.5

3.4

20.4

4.7

52.8

by Demograp

ple e

# of Bulbs 25,828

1,320

26,625

523

achusetts Sta

ockets HH

# oSt

2,

2,

2,

2,

1,

4 2,

2

8 14

hics – Massa

# of SockeStatewide

127,291,67

72,820,60

132,056,20

2,518,075

atewide Socke

Multifamf Sockets tatewide

A

633,570 789,495 258,604 314,919 277,853 832,816

201,166 ,107,258

2017 L

chusetts (con

ets e

Avgsockets

77 52 4

04 55 6

et Counts by

mily Avg # of sockets

per HH

4.8

5.0

4.1

4.2

2.3

5.1

0.4

25.4

LIGHTING MAR

B-4

ntinued)

g # of s per HH

CFL

59 39%

47 37%

58 29%

65 33%

Room Type

s # of SockStatewid

18,458,2

15,609,8

15,413,3

14,311,0

7,403,2

49,271,2

11,738,3

120,467,

RKET ASSESSM

Ls LEDs Inc

% 18%

% 23%

% 19%

% 9%

Single Familykets de

Avg # p

220 876 333 004 90

296 2

374 020 6

MENT

an+Halo

42%

29%

41%

45%

of sockets er HH

9.3

7.9

7.7

7.2

3.7

24.7

5.9

60.4


I

N

L

D*

E

H

S

B

DT

O

RH

M

S

P

E

N

E

I

O

Income

Non-low-income

Low-income

DK/Refused *Significantly differe

Education

High School or

Some College, A

Bachelor’s Degr

DK/Refused Tenure

Own/Buying

Rent/Lease Home Type

Multifamily

Single Family

Primary Langu

English

Non-English

Electric Bill Pa

I pay my electric

Other

e

ent from Low-incom

Less

Associate’s Deg

ree or Higher

uage

ayment

c bill

Table 62

Sample179

64

12me at the 90% confi

22

gree 69

191

3

188

67

23

232

253

2

232

23

2: Saturation

e Size # of B9 12,5

4 2,2

2 97idence level.

2 82

9 3,1

1 11,6

14

8 14,1

7 1,6

3 56

2 15,2

3 15,7

73

2 14,8

3 91

by Demograp

Bulbs

# of BStatew

528 70,547

85 20,489

79 6,936

21 10,706

37 41,429

693 45,285

41 552,

192 83,211

00 14,761

68 3,731

224 94,241

719 97,546

3 426,

874 92,095

8 5,877

2017 L

phics – New Y

Bulbs wide

Avg #of

socketper HH

7,876 70

9,010 36

6,076 82

6,057 37

9,053 45

5,323 73

529 47

1,436 76

1,526 24

,764 25

1,198 66

6,932 62

030 37

5,660 64

7,302 40

LIGHTING MAR

B-5

York

#

ts H CFLs

19%†

29%

23%

29%

21%

20%

12%

20%†

27%

30%

21%†

21%

50%

22%

19%

RKET ASSESSM

LEDs Inca11%*†

4%†

11%

6%

8%

12%†

3%

10%†

8%

12%

20%

9%

3%

10%

7%

MENT

an+Halo 55%†

49%

52%

43%

56%†

54%†

78%

55%†

46%

42%

54%†

54%

28%

54%

52%


from this although respondealthough Table 63

To undercharacteweb respyounger across de

Ta

(Base

Indicato

Sample s

Bulb AwFamiliar wFamiliar wFamiliar wAware of

Bulb UseEver useEver usePrefer LEPrefer CF* Significanlevel.

Csurvey showless so

ents reporteLED familia

provides a

rstand theseristics and fpondents to than those emographics

able 63: Co

: All responde

r

size

wareness anwith LEDs with CFLs with Halogef EISA

e and Prefeed an LED ed a CFL EDs to CFLsFLs to LEDsntly different be

C Appenby SurAs explainesurvey wasrespondent

wed some sthan in pr

ed significanarity and ussnapshot of

e significant dfound that p

be low-incoin Massachs to examine

onsumers’ Kn

ents unless to

nd Familiarit

ns

erence

s s etween phone a

dix C Crvey Moed in the bos conductedts. Similar tosignificant difrevious yeantly higher e were relat

f some of the

differences, hone responome. Meanwusetts (Figue the impact

Bulb Awanowledge bopic depended

value

ty

and web respo

2

Consumode andody of the red with 270 o the past twfferences in

ars. Compalevels of fatively similaese differenc

the Team endents in Mwhile, New Yure 45). Thists of these d

reness andby Survey d on knowled

es shown)

MA

Phone

270

65% 77%* 61%* 34%

48% 62% 39%* 17%

ondents within s

2016-17 LIGH

mer Sud Demoeport, the Mphone resp

wo mixed-moresponses b

ared to phoamiliarity witr between bces.

examined resassachusettYork respons appendix cdifferences.

d FamiliariMode

dge of specific

A

Web

331

71% 94% 80% 47%

54% 72% 63% 7%

same state at t

HTING MAR

rvey ReographiMassachusetpondents anode surveysbetween theone responth CFLs anboth respond

spondents’ dts were mor

ndents werecompares su

ity and Lig

c bulb types –

Phone

263

75% 92% 76% 45%

62% 90% 39% 19%

the 90% confid

RKET ASSE

esults ics tts consumend 331 webs, the resultse two groupsndents, webnd halogensdent groups

demographicre likely than significantlyurvey results

ghting

– maximum

NY

e Web

139

68%95%88%52%

59%80%32%15%

ence

ESSMENT

C-1

er b s

s, b s, s.

c n y s


C.1 KMassachhousing demograwere sigwere alswho tookthis split phone ayounger between

Figure

KEY DEMOG

husetts phontenure, but

aphically betgnificantly yoo significan

k the survey in income

nd web resrespondentstates.

e 45: Key D(Base: All

GRAPHIC Dne and web

their incomtween statesounger thantly less likeby phone. Fbetween ph

sponses wht base in N

Demographvalid respons

DIFFERENC

b respondenmes differeds, with the n those in Mly to be lowFigure 45 illuhone and wen it came

New York lik

hic Differenses; excludes

CES BETWE

nts were relad significantlnotable excMassachuse

w-income coustrates thesweb respond

to many okely explain

nces betwes “Don’t know”

2017 LIGH

EEN SURVE

atively similly. Respondception that etts. New Yompared to se differencedents drove of the key inns some ke

een Consu” and “Refuse

HTING MAR

EY MODES

lar in terms dents were

New York York phone

those in Maes. NMR spe some of thndicators. S

ey difference

umer Surveed” responses

KET ASSES

S of age and

fairly similarespondentsrespondents

assachusettseculates thahe divergenSimilarly, thees observed

ey Modess)

SSMENT

C-2

d ar s s s

at nt e d


The remathese thr

C.2 MOF E

ainder of thiree demogra

MASSACHU

EISA

s appendix aphic groupin

USETTS CO

explores kengs: age, ho

ONSUMERS

y differenceousing tenure

’ BULB FA

2017 LIGH

s for Massae, and incom

AMILIARITY

HTING MAR

achusetts resme.

Y AND AWA

KET ASSES

spondents in

ARENESS

SSMENT

C-3

n


Figure 4following

• Age. halogof thetwo respodemo

• Tenusignifwas t

• Incomconsudividetwo d

These dbetween homeowdemonst

6 compares demograph

Respondengens, while tese differencgroups cam

ondents ageographic.

ure. Homeowficantly morethe greatest

me. Non-lowumers to bee in EISA awdemographic

ifferences liphone and

ners, and rated higher

s EISA awarhic categorie

nts under ththose 45 andces was stame in repoes 45 and o

wners were e aware of Ebetween an

w-income ree aware of Ewareness bec groups.

kely playedweb responnon-low-inc

r levels of aw

reness, andes for Massa

he age of 4d older repo

atistically sigorted EISA older were f

more familiaEISA. The dny of these d

espondents EISA and weetween inco

into the ovndents. Web

come, and wareness an

LED, CFL,chusetts res

45 were sligorted slightly nificant. The

awarenessfamiliar with

ar than renteifference in

demographic

were signifiere more fame categori

verall differeb respondenthese dem

nd familiarity

2017 LIGH

and halogespondents:

ghtly more higher CFL

e greatest ds, where n

h the act co

ers with all tyrenters’ and

c groups.

cantly moremiliar with aies was the

ences in awnts were mo

mographic gy.

HTING MAR

en familiarity

familiar withL familiarity, ifference benearly twice

ompared to

ypes of bulbd owners’ LE

e likely thanall three bulbgreatest sp

wareness anore likely to groups, on

KET ASSES

y across the

h LEDs andthough none

etween thesee as manythe younge

bs, as well asED familiarity

n low-incomeb types. Thelit within any

nd familiaritybe youngerthe whole

SSMENT

C-4

e

d e e y

er

s y

e e y

y r, e,


Figure 46: Massa

(Ba

achusetts Cby Age,

ase: All respo

Consumer, Tenure, a

ondents in the

rs’ Bulb Faand Incomee demographic

2017 LIGH

amiliarity ae Categoryc categories s

HTING MAR

nd EISA Ay shown)

KET ASSES

Awareness

SSMENT

C-5


C.3 MWe founlight bulbacross de

• Age. ratesbulbspurch

• Tenulastinthey therehomepurchhome

• IncomLEDsexplawere slight

MASSACHU

d that phoneb purchasesemographics

Younger re than the old

s, indicating hase efficien

ure. Homeowng measures

also are mefore, wish eownership hases. Reneowners, bu

me. Non-lows, which genain the large

nearly idently more like

USETTS CO

e and web r, specificallys. Figure 47

espondents rder demograthat these re

nt bulb types

wners may s, such as L

more likely tto invest ibeing the dters were t they opted

w-income renerally are e divide in Lntical betwely to choose

ONSUMERS

respondentsy in purchas highlights th

reported puraphic. They espondents

s.

be more liLEDs, becauo be respoin the mosdemographialmost as to buy CFLs

spondents lat a higher LED purchaeen the twoe other types

’ RECENT

s differed siging LEDs; ahese differen

rchasing botalso were leunder the a

ikely to inveuse they plansible for p

st efficient c group thalikely to p

s and other

ikely had mprice point

ases betweeo groups, ws of bulbs.

2017 LIGH

LIGHTING

gnificantly ins a result, wnces.

th LEDs andess likely to age of 45 we

est in morean on stayingpaying their equipment.

at saw the purchase sotypes of bul

ore financiathan other

en the two gwhile low-inc

HTING MAR

PURCHAS

n their patterwe examined

d CFLs at slpurchase o

ere slightly m

e expensiveg in their ho

own electrThis is su

greatest divome type obs over LED

al resources light bulbs.

groups. CFcome respon

KET ASSES

ES rns of recend differences

lightly highether types o

more likely to

e and longeomes longerric bills andupported byvide in LEDof bulbs asDs.

to purchase. This wouldL purchasesndents were

SSMENT

C-6

nt s

er of o

er r; d, y D s

e d s e


Figure

e 47: Massa

(Ba

achusetts Age, T

ase: All respo

ConsumerTenure, anondents in the

rs’ Purchasd Income C

e demographic

2017 LIGH

ses in the Categoryc categories s

HTING MAR

Last Six M

shown)

KET ASSES

Months by

SSMENT

C-7


Diffewhenchangpurchlookinimpo

Ta

(Base

Sample S

Wattage

Price

Lumens

Watt Equ

Bulb life

ENERGY

Color ap

Shape

Lighting Facts La

Dimming*Significa

C.4 MAs illustrCFLs coLEDs, wpercentaany otherather tha

rences fromn purchasingge was thehasing bulbsng at lumensrtant factor,

ble 64: Ma

e: Responden

Size

or Brightnes

uivalency

Y STAR Lab

pearance

Facts/ Energbel

g ntly different f

MASSACHU

rated in Figumpared to

while age hage of renterr demograpan renters p

m 2016. Theg bulbs weree increase s. Over halfs or brightnethree times

ssachuset

nts who report

Con

ss

bel

gy

from 2016 at

USETTS CO

ure 48, homerenters. Non

ad a relativers indicatinghic group, threferring CF

e factors thae very simila

in consumf of all surveess, up fromas many as

tts Consum

ted purchasin

MA nsidered 2017

559

76%

75%

56%*

54%

52%

51%

40%

40%

31%

26% the 90% conf

ONSUMERS

eowners wen-low-incom

ely small imp that they phis was causFLs to LEDs.

at Massachur between 2

mers consideey responde

m 23% last ye in 2016.

mers’ BulbYear

ng light bulbs survey)

MA Consider

2016

210

70%

72%

23%

49%

50%

43%

34%

33%

37%

23%fidence level

’ BULB PR

ere significane respondepact on LEDreferred LEDsed by a hig.

2017 LIGH

setts reside2017 and 20ering lumenents who puear, and 21%

b Purchase

within the six

red MAImp

2

2

2

REFERENCE

ntly more liknts were alD or CFL pDs to CFLs gh proportion

HTING MAR

nts reported016. The mons or brighurchased bu% listed this

e Considera

x months prio

A Most portant 2017

509

24%

NA

21%

12%

10%

13%

7%

4%

8%

1%

ES kely to prefeso more lik

preference. Awas much

n of unsure

KET ASSES

d consideringst significan

htness whenulbs reporteds as the mos

ations by

r to taking the

MA Most important

2016

210

25%

NA

7%

14%

18%

11%

8%

2%

6%

1%

er LEDs oveely to prefeAlthough thesmaller thanrespondents

SSMENT

C-8

g nt n d st

e

er er e n s


Figur

(Bas

C.5 EThe team(Figure 4both statage catesignificanEISA in bbe familiarespondethan thisbelow in differs sig

re 48: Mass

se: Responde

EXAMINING

m also exam45) affected tes had relategories. EISAntly betweenboth states. ar with CFLsents ages 45s older grou

Figure 49. Ignificantly fr

sachusettsTen

ents who repo

G THE EFFE

mined if the creported fam

tively similarA awarenesn states, withYounger res

s (81%) than5 and abovep in MassaIt should be rom last year

s Consumenure, and Iorted using bo

categor

ECT OF AG

comparativemiliarity lever familiarity ls was the oh respondenspondents inn their undere were also achusetts (80

noted that tr, when only

ers’ LED ancome Cat

oth CFLs and ries shown)

E DIFFERE

ely younger els. Overall,levels with L

only categorynts ages 45 n Massachur-45 countersignificantly 0% versus the 52% of uy 23% of res

2017 LIGH

and CFL Prtegory LEDs and ar

ENCES BET

survey respthe effects

LEDs, CFLsy where theand over mo

usetts were srparts in Newmore likely 66%). Thesunder-45 supondents we

HTING MAR

references

re in the demo

TWEEN STA

pondents froseemed to , and haloge

e age categoore likely to significantly w York (94%to be famili

se results arvey takers ere under 45

KET ASSES

by Age,

ographic

ATES m New Yorkbe small, asens betweenories differedbe aware oless likely to

%). New Yorkar with EISAre displayedin New York5.

SSMENT

C-9

k s n d

of o k A d k


Figure 49: MaassachuseFa

tts and Neamiliarity b

(Base: All

ew York LEy Age CateRespondents

2017 LIGH

ED, CFL, Haegory s)

HTING MAR

alogen and

KET ASSES

d EISA

SSMENT

C-10


a=significanb=significan

Sample Size

Som

SomSomAw

EveEve

PrePreDeNot

ProMoTurLon

MoProLesOth

LigPreTypCFLEDOthNonInfoWaPricLumWaBulMoMoMoMoSigDisCoExp

Rec

ent

Lig

hti

ng

Pu

rch

ases

Re

Pre

Bul

Sel

Indicator

Bu

lb F

amili

arit

y an

d P

refe

ren

ces

Bul

Re

D

tly differs from ptly differs from N

mewhat or very fam

mewhat or very fammewhat or very fam

ware of EISA

er used CFLser used LEDs

efer CFLs over LEDefer LEDs over CFpends on the situat yet sure

oduce better lightre energy efficientrn on instantlynger bulb life

re energy efficientoduce better lightss expensiveher

hting needs and seefer LEDs but morpe of Bulb Purchas

FLsDsherneormation Sought Wattagecemensatt Equivalencylb Lifest important factorst important factorst important factorst important factor

gns, Displays, or Msplayed different tympared energy saplained terms like l

asons for CFL pre

eference Depends

lb Awareness and

lf-Reported Use an

lb Preference

asons for LED pre

D AppenResultThis appeconsumer sprior survey

Table 65:

hone within samNY at 90%

miliar with CFLs

miliar with LEDsmiliar with halogen

DsFLsation

ettingse expensivesed in the Past Six

When Buying Bulbs

r besides price: War besides price: Lur besides price: Enr besides price: Wa

Materials Seen whepes of light bulbs

avings across diffelumens, wattage, e

eference (most com

on-- (most comm

Familiarity

nd Satisfaction

eference (most com

dix D Ds

endix providsurveys (Tays (Table 66

2017 Con

e state at 90% c

ns

x Months

s (most common re

attage mens

nergy Star Labelatt Equivalency

en Shopping for Bu

rent light bulbsetc.

mmon responses)

on responses)

mmon responses)

Detailed

des summable 65) and).

sumer Sur

confidence

Phone270

77%

65%61%34%

62%48%

17%39%22%20%

N/AN/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/AN/A

N/AN/A

36%31%29%24%

esponses)91%82%62%60%57%30%18%13%6%

ulbs (most commo36%18%26%

)

2017 LIGH

d Cons

ary-level red a comparis

rvey Resul

Web331

94%a

71%80%a47%

72%57%

7%63%a16%14%

N/AN/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/AN/A

N/AN/A

37%44%a10%a27%

61%a66%a50%47%45%17%a24%12%18%a

n responses)18%15%4%a

MA

HTING MAR

sumer S

esults fromson of key

lts

Overall Pho601 26

85%b 92

68% 7568%b 7640% 45

67%b 9052% 62

12% 1952%b 3919% 2117% 21

51% N/40% N/21% N/20% N/

64% N/22% N/5% N/22% N/

35%b N/27% N/

37% 4237% 3819% 3125% 16

75% 9074%b 9055% 7253%b 7351% 6624% 2421% 1613% 1612% 9%

26% N/16% N/14% N/

KET ASSES

Survey

m the 2017indicators to

one Web O63 139

% 95%

% 68%% 88%% 52%

% 80%% 59%

% 15%% 32%% 40%% 12%

/A N/A/A N/A/A N/A/A N/A


/A N/A/A N/A

% 56%% 36%% 20%% 20%

% 72%a% 92%% 42%a% 51%a% 45%a% 24%% 12%% 9%% 14%

/A N/A/A N/A/A N/A

NY

SSMENT

D-1

7 o

Overall402

93%

73%80%47%

86%61%

18%37%27%18%

57%48%25%32%

56%28%18%5%

81%19%

46%37%27%18%

84%91%62%66%59%24%15%14%11%

N/AN/AN/A


a=significanb=significan

Sample Size

SinMuOth

193194195196197198199200Do

OwReOth

Les1,42,02,5DoAge18-25-35-45-55-65 DoEduLesNinHigSomAssBacGraRe

EngSpaOthRe

Les$15$20$30$40$50$75$10$15Do

Dem

og

rap

hic

s

Prim

Inc

Hou

De

Hou

Siz

Indicator

tly differs from ptly differs from N

ngle Familylti Familiyher/Don't Know/Re

30s or earlier40s50s60s70s80s90s00 or latern't know/Refused

wn/Buyingnt/Leaseher/Don't Know/Re

ss than 1,400 sq ft400-1,999 sq ft000-2,4999 sq ft500 sq ft or moren't know/Refusede-24 years old-34 years old-44 years old-54 years old-64 years oldor oldern't Know/Refuseducationss than Ninth Gradnth to Twelfth Gradgh School Graduateme College, No Desociates Degreechelor's Degreeaduate or Professifused

glishanishherfused

ss than $15,0005,000 to less than 0,000 to less than 0,000 to less than 0,000 to less than 0,000 to less than 5,000 to less than 00,000 to less than50,000 or moren't Know/Refused

mary Language

ome Status

using Type

cade Home was b

using Tenure

ze of Home

hone within samNY at 90%

efused

efused

t

dee, No diplomae (Includes GED)egree

onal Degree

$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$75,000$100,000n $150,000

built

e state at 90% cconfidence

Phone270

61%39%0%

20%9%11%14%12%10%4%

12%a7%

68%31%1%

36%24%9%9%22%

1%12%12%15%23%32%4%

1%4%13%14%9%26%28%5%

87%3%6%4%

9%4%8%7%7%14%10%10%10%22%

2017 LIGH

Web331

60%40%1%

18%6%14%12%9%9%8%14%9%

70%27%2%

28%25%12%17%18%

1%11%17%20%22%21%8%

0%1%7%9%8%27%39%10%

87%1%6%6%

2%a1%3%3%5%11%8%11%15%41%a

MA

HTING MAR

Overall Pho601 26

60%b 7639%b 240% 0%

19% 287% 6%13% 1813% 1310% 8%10% 106% 7%

13%b 8%8%b 2%

69% 7029% 302% 1%

31% 3631% 3211% 176% 13

20%b 3%

1% 4%12%b 2015%b 2318%b 2823%b 2226%b 4%6%b 1%

1% 0%2% 0%

10%b 3%11% 148% 1426% 3034% 378%b 2%

87% N/2% N/6% N/5% N/

5% 5%2% 4%5% 7%5% 6%6% 6%12% 189%b 1610% 1712% 1332%b 8%

KET ASSES

one Web O63 139

% 85%% 14%% 1%

% 21%% 11%% 21%% 11%% 7%% 7%% 12%% 5%% 5%

% 76%% 24%% 0%

% 31%% 36%% 17%% 12%% 5%

% 4%% 28%% 27%% 25%% 15%% 1%% 0%

% 0%% 1%% 3%% 14%% 10%% 37%% 35%% 1%


% 3%% 1%% 5%% 11%% 6%% 22%% 18%% 13%% 7%% 13%

NY

SSMENT

D-2

Overall402

79%21%0%

25%8%19%12%8%9%9%7%3%

72%28%0%

34%33%17%12%4%

4%23%25%27%18%3%0%

0%0%3%14%13%33%36%1%

87%2%6%5%

4%3%6%7%6%20%17%15%11%10%


Base: All respa Significantlb Significantlc Significantld Significantle Significantlf Significantlyg Significantlh Significantl

IndicatorSample Size

SingleMulti FOther

1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000 oDon't

Own/BRent/LOtherDon't

18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 or Don't

Less tHigh sSomeBacheDon’t

Low InNot LoRefus

Less t$15,0$20,0$30,0$40,0$50,0$75,0$100,$150,Don't

Dem

og

rap

hic

s

Incom

Educa

Incom

Age

Housi

Decad

Housi

IndicatorSample Size

SomeSomeSomeAwareSelf-REver uEver uBulb PPreferPreferDepenNot ye

Bu

lb F

amili

arit

y, U

se, a

nd

P

refe

ren

ces

Bulb A

Ta

pondents. ly different from 2ly different from 2ly different from 2ly different from 2ly different from Wy different from Suly different from 2ly different from 2

e FamilyFamiliyr/Don't Know/Refused

s or earlierssssssor laterknow/Refused

BuyingLeaserknow/Refused

years old years old years old years old years oldolderKnow/Refused

than high school graduschool graduate (Inclue college or associateselor’s degree or higherknow/refused

ncomeow Incomesed

than $15,00000 to less than $20,0000 to less than $30,0000 to less than $40,0000 to less than $50,0000 to less than $75,0000 to less than $100,0000 to less than $150,000 or moreKnow/Refused

me Level

ation

me Status

ng Tenure

de Home was Built (si

ng Type

ewhat or very familiar wewhat or very familiar wewhat or very familiar we of EISAReported Use and Satiused CFLsused LEDsPreferencer CFLs over LEDsr LEDs over CFLsnds on the situationet sure

Awareness and Famili

ble 66: 200

017 at the 90% co2016 at the 90% co015 at the 90% co

2014 at the 90% coWinter 2012 at the ummer 2012 at the

2011 at the 90% co2010 at the 90% co

uatedes GED)s degreer

0000000000000,000

ngle-family residences

with CFLswith LEDswith halogens

sfaction

arity

09 – 2017 C

onfidence level onfidence level onfidence level onfidence level 90% confidence lee 90% confidence onfidence level onfidence level

2009503

69%de14%abcd

2%d

26%7%bc

13%9%ef11%13%

12%e6%bcd

3%d

82%abcd17%abcd

0%1%

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

3%b16%20%e57%

3%abc

N/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

s)

2009503

71%abN/AN/AN/A

68%dN/A

N/AN/AN/AN/A

Consumer

evel level

9 20103 381

efgh 79%abcdedefgh 20%abcded 1%bd

% 31%abcdfghcfh 4%% 14%fg 10%ef

% 10%% 13%efh 7%dfg 9%d 3%d

defgh 75%bde 7defgh 24%de 2

% 1%% 0%

A N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/A

bc 3%bc%b 15%b

eh 25%%c 56%

cfh 1%abcd

A N/AA N/AA N/A

A N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/AA N/A

9 20103 381

bcdh 70%abdefgA N/AA N/AA N/A

deh 78%abcdefgA N/A

A N/AA N/AA N/AA N/A

2017 LIGH

Survey Re

2011Summe

2012582 604

78%abcde 76%abcd20%abcde 23%abcd

1%bd 2%d

25%e 24%d5% 4%13% 15%d

13%be 14%bce11% 11%11% 13%9% 7%bd9% 9%

2%bd 2%bd

78%abcde 77%bcd21%bcde 23%bcd

1% 0%0% 0%

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

2%be 2%be15%b 17%ab21% 23%

61%ce 57%2%abc 1%abcd

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

2011Summe

2012582 604

69%abc 68%abc41%abcdef 47%abc69%bcde 65%cd47%de 42%cd

61%bc 64%bcN/A N/A

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

HTING MAR

esults

er Winter 2012 2014600 940

de 51%abc 53%bcde 49%abcd 41%bc

1%bd 5%abc

31%abcd 23%6%b 5%15% 11%c

e 5%abcd 11%12% 10%13% 13%8% 10%8% 10%

2%bd 7%c

de 62%bc 64%bcde 38%bc 35%bc

0% 1%0% 0%

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

4%bc 3%bcb 17%ab 15%b

25% 22%53%b 57%

d 2%abc 3%abc

N/A 27%bcN/A 57%N/A 16%b

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

er Winter 2012 2014600 940

c 69%abc 65%abccd 46%abcd 54%abcd 64%d 59%ad 44%cd 52%ab

c 64%bc 62%bcN/A N/A

N/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A N/A

KET ASSES

2015 2016778 610

69%a 66%29%a 31%2% 3%a

21% 24%4% 3%16% 13%10% 9%11% 13%14% 11%9% 11%10% 11%3% 5%

71% 69%27% 29%1% 0%1% 1%

1%b 4%12% 12%14% 14%22%b 17%21% 22%28% 27%1%ab 5%

2% 2%16%a 10%23% 21%56%b 61%2%a 6%

23%b 17%a58% 57%19%b 26%

4%b 2%2%b 4%5% 5%9%b 4%6% 6%13% 13%14% 10%13% 12%9% 10%

24%ab 35%

2015 2016778 610

c 83%b 87%c 61%b 69%

60% 61%49% 46%

70% 69%N/A 47%

10% 10%45%b 58%29%ab 16%16% 16%

SSMENT

D-3

2017601

60%39%0%

19%7%13%13%10%10%6%13%8%

69%29%1%0%

1%12%15%18%23%26%6%

3%10%19%60%8%

28%52%20%

5%2%5%5%6%12%9%10%12%32%

2017601

85%68%68%40%

67%52%

12%52%19%17%


When wstatistica

Bulb Typ

Incandesc

CFLs

LEDs

Halogen

Fluoresce

Empty So

Other/ Don’t kno

Efficient CFL + LE

CFL + LEFluoresceb Significan

E.2 P

As Tablepanelists90% or 8

Bulb Typ

Incandesc

CFLs

LEDs

Ee compare l differences

Table

e 2

Unwe

cent 3

2

1

9

ent 8

ocket 4

w

Bulbs CombD 4

D + ent

5

ntly different fro

PENETRATI

e 68 showss when comp80% confiden

Table

e 2

Unwecent 9

9

7

E AppenNew V

E.1 SAT

the 2017 ns at the 90%

e 67: Panel2017 New Vis

(n = 150) eighted We

33%

27%

18%

9%

8%

4%

1%

bined 45%

53%

om new visits a

ON COMPA

s, there areparing penence levels.

e 68: Panel2017 New Vis

(n = 150)

eighted We95%

97%

73%

dix E Cisits

TURATION

new visits to% or 80% con

l and New sits

eighted Un

33%

31%

16%

9%

8%

4%

1%

47%

55%

at the 80% conf

ARISONS

e no significetration rates

l and New sits

eighted Un96%

97%

70%

Compa

COMPARIS

o the combinfidence leve

Visit Satur2017 Pane

(n = 31nweighted

32%

29%

21%

8%

7%

3%

1%

50%

57%

fidence level

cant differes for CFLs,

Visit Satur2017 Pane

(n = 31

nweighted 96%

94%

78%

2017 LIGH

rison o

SONS ined 2017 pels.

ration Comelists

15) Weighted

33%

29%

19%

8%

7%

4%

<1%

48%

55%

nces betweLEDs, or inc

ration Comelists

15)

Weighted 94%

94%

71%

HTING MAR

of Pane

panel visits,

mparison 2017 Co

(n =Unweighted

33%

28%

20%

9%

7%

3%

1%

48%

55%

een the newcandescent

mparison 2017 Co

(n =

Unweighted95%

95%

71%

KET ASSES

lists to

, we find no

ombined = 465) d Weighted

33%

29%

18%

8%

7%

4%

1%

47%

54%

w visits andbulbs at the

ombined = 465)

d Weighted96%

95%

76%

SSMENT

E-1

o

o

d

d e

d


York. We

New Yor

• Lto2fo“oLM

• CdfaofM

Fe explored M

rk Trends b

LEDs. 2017 o 17% (kitch6% (kitchen

ourteen roomother” (6%). ED saturat

Massachuset

CFLs. In geeclined. As w

all short of thf offices, w

Massachuset

F AppenLightinIn this appein saturation

Figure 50 sMassachuset

y Technolo

LED saturathen), compan). In the pam types: kitLED saturation rates ftts.

eneral, CFL with the ove

hose observewhich have tts (34%).

dix F Ang Trenendix, we pron and bulb r

hows energytts trends in

ogy

tion rates in ared to Mas

ast year, LEDtchen (17%)tion stayed afor all room

saturation erall energy-eed in Massasimilar CFL

Additionds ovide more deplacement

y-efficient buFigure 18.

New York rossachusetts D saturation), closet (7%at 2016 levem types w

across rooefficient bulb

achusetts forL saturation

2017 LIGH

onal Ana

details on Netrends in M

ulb saturatio

oom types rwhich rang

n at least do%), foyer (1

els in offices were lower

om types inb saturation r each room levels in N

HTING MAR

alysis o

ew York-speassachusett

on by room t

ranged from ged from 9%oubled in fiv10%), utility (7%) and gain New Yo

ncreased mrate, these type, with thNew York (

KET ASSES

of

ecific trends ts.

ype in New

6% (“other”% (closet) tove out of the

(11%), andarages (6%)ork than in

oderately opercentageshe exception(35%) as in

SSMENT

F-1

”) o e d ). n

or s n n


Figure 550: Energyy-Efficient Bulb Saturation by R

2017 LIGH

Room Type

HTING MAR

e, 2013-17,

KET ASSES

, New York

SSMENT

F-2

k


2017 LIGHHTING MARKET ASSES

SSMENT

F-3


Number

In order behaviorObservatobservatwith a sim

• Ra

• Rrein

of bulbs re

to determin, we dividtions at the bions in eachmilar numbe

Replaced bulcross quarti

Replacementeplaced ovenstalling sign

eplaced (Ma

ne whether ed Massacbulb level in

h quartile) aner of panel ho

lbs: There wles. t bulbs: Acro

erall installednificantly few

assachusett

the numbechusetts pa the first (lef

nd the seconouseholds in

was no signi

oss both setsd significantlwer LEDs.

ts)

er of bulbs nel househft side of Tabnd aggregaten each quart

ificant differe

s of quartiley more repl

2017 LIGH

replaced wholds into ble 69, with ed at the hotile).

ence in the

s, househollacement inc

HTING MAR

was driving two sets oa similar nuusehold leve

types of bu

ds with the fcandescent

KET ASSES

replacemenof quartilesmber of bulbel (right side

ulbs replaced

fewest bulbsbulbs, while

SSMENT

F-4

nt s. b e,

d

s e


Qua(Qua

1-6 bureplac (574 bu

n=177)

7-13 breplac (598 bu

n=64)

14-29 replac (584 bu

n=32)

30-81 replac (619 bu

n=12)

a. Sigb. Sigc. Sigd. Sig

artile Bulb artiles calculated

ulbs ed

lbs,

Incande

CFL

Fluores

Haloge

LED

Empty S

bulbs ed

lbs,

Incande

CFL

Fluores

Haloge

LED

Empty S

bulbs ed

lbs,

Incande

CFL

Fluores

Haloge

LED

Empty S

bulbs ed

lbs,

Incande

CFL

Fluores

Haloge

LED

Empty Sgnificantly different fgnificantly different fgnificantly different fgnificantly different f

Type Rd on number of b

Coun

escent 242

202

scent 14

n 36

31

Socket 49

Coun

escent 255

198

scent 14

n 53

43

Socket 32

Coun

escent 283

193

scent 13

n 52

26

Socket 17

Coun

escent 404

147

scent 0

n 33

15

Socket 20 from 4th Quartile at from 1st Quartile at from 2nd Quartile atfrom 3rd Quartile at

Table 69: Bu

Replacedbulbs replaced i

t Percent

43%

34%

4%a

6%

5%

8%

t Percent

41%

33%

2%

9%

8%

7%

t Percent

41%

41%

1%

10%

4%

3%

t Percent

66%

23%

0%b

6%

2%

3% the 90% confidencthe 90% confidenc

t the 90% confidenc the 90% confidenc

ulb Replacem

Replacemenn each househo

Count Per

175 31%

152 28%

13 3%

53 10

142 20%

39 8%

Count Per

151 28

112 20

6 1

54 10

252 38%

21 3

Count Per

113 16%

85 15

11 1

27 4

339 62%

9 2%

Count Per

40 5%

53 11

0 0%

19 3

506 81%

1 0%ce level. ce level. ce level. ce level.

ment by Quarti

nt Quartold) (

rcent

%ad 1-2 bulbsreplaced (110 bulbs

n=71)

%ad

%a

0%

%acd

%acd

rcent

8% 3-4 bulbsreplaced (208 bulbs

n=59)

0%

%

0%

%bd

%

rcent

%bc 5-8 bulbsreplaced (460 bulbs

n=74)

5%b

%

%

%bc

%b

rcent

%bc 9-81 bulbreplaced (1,597 bulb

n=81)

%b

%b

%

%bc

%b e. Signiff. Signifg. Signifh. Signif

2017 L

iles – Massac

ile Bulb TQuartiles calcul

s d

s,

Incandes

CFL

Fluoresc

Halogen

LED

Empty So

s d

s,

Incandes

CFL

Fluoresc

Halogen

LED

Empty So

s d

s,

Incandes

CFL

Fluoresc

Halogen

LED

Empty So

bs d

bs,

Incandes

CFL

Fluoresc

Halogen

LED

Empty Soficantly different fromficantly different fromficantly different fromficantly different from

LIGHTING MAR

F-5

chusetts

Type Related on househ

Count

scent 43

43

cent 2

8

5

ocket 9

Count

scent 95

77

cent 5

9

7

ocket 15

Count

scent 202

142

cent 13

39

29

ocket 35

Count

scent 844

478

cent 21

118

74

ocket 59 m 4th Quartile at thm 1st Quartile at thm 2nd Quartile at thm 3rd Quartile at th

RKET ASSESSM

eplacedholds that replac

Percent

40%

39%

1%

6%

6%

8%

Percent

49%

35%

3%

4%

3%

6%

Percent

42%

31%

5%

8%

5%

9%

Percent

49%

32%

1%

9%

5%

4% e 90% confidence e 90% confidence

he 90% confidence e 90% confidence

MENT

Replacementced bulbs)

Count Percen

39 36%e

32 28%e

2 1%

11 10%

13 10%eh

13 15%h

Count Percen

67 29%e

62 30%e

5 3%

24 16%eh

39 15%eh

11 7%

Count Percen

128 29%e

92 25%

7 2%

30 6%g

179 32%ef

24 6%f

Count Percen

844 16%fg

478 15%fg

21 1%

118 6%g

74 60%fg

59 2%level. level. level. level.

nt e e

h

nt e e

h h

nt e

g

nt h g

h


As in pdemograof potentbias.

G.1 PTable 70We agai2016. Ththough th

Dispos

CompleteNo respoDid not contact IneligibleWait list Visit cancRefused Total

G.2 PThe demto the ovslightly frvisits betfor the 2than in idthe 2017visited coand sma

Gprevious yeaaphic charactial responde

PANEL RES

0 shows that n completedhe share of hat rate is si

sition Co

e 1onse 9

4

e 2-

celled -2

15

PANEL DEM

mographic chverall responrom 2016 aftween 2015 017 visits thdentified non7 sample anompared to tller than the

G AppenEach year 2014, we cpanelists toresponse bthe sample—

ars, we cocteristics andents. Our an

SPONSE RA

we continued visits at th

sites that dmilar to 201

Tabl

2014 ount % 11 74%9 6%

4 3%

24 16%-- -- -- -- 2 1% 50 100%

MOGRAPHIC

haracteristicsndent pool (Tfter increasinand 2016.

han for 2016n-low-incomend actual vithe available 7% differen

dix G Psince the incompare tho see if theias. For the —270 panel

ontinue to sd saturation nalysis finds

ATES e to have a hree-quartersdid not resp5.

le 70: MA P

20Count

% 203 29

6

% 16 6 -- 1

% 261

C ANALYS

s of the 201Table 71). Tng 8% for thFor income,

6, though thee homes. In isits: there e pool of resnce in the sa

Panel Nnitial wave oe sample o

ey differ in a2017 visits,

lists and 150

see a highrates when

s no cause f

robust respos of the avapond was a

Panel Disp

015 %

78% 11%

2%

6% 2% --

<1% 100%

IS 7 completed

The share ofe sample ov the share o

e difference tenure, we were 4% m

spondents. Tame figure fo

2017 LIGH

Non-Resof panel visof potential any ways th, we had 420 new visits

h response comparing

for concern

onse rate amailable sitesat its highes

position

2016Count

270 715 4

37 1

21 63 4 1 <

351 10

d panel visitsf single-famiverall and 6%of low-incomis in the incfind the larg

more homeoThis differencor 2014.

HTING MAR

sponsesits in Mass

panelists tohat would p

20 sites to drfrom the 201

rate and the panelistregarding n

mong previo, as in 2014

st level this

% Cou77% 314% 51

11% 20

6% 221% 6 1% 5

<1% 2 00% 42

s are again ily homes ha% among th

me homes iscrease of regest divergenowners amoce is still rela

KET ASSES

e Biassachusetts ino the actuapoint to nonraw upon fo16 wave.

very similas to the pooon-response

us panelists4, 2015, andyear (12%)

2017 unt % 5 75%

1 12%

0 5%

2 5%1%1%

<1%0 100%

quite similaas increased

he completeds 6% smallefusals rathence betweenng the sitesatively small

SSMENT

G-1

n al -

or

ar ol e

s. d ),

ar d d

er er n s l,


Demog

Home TySingle Fa

Multifamil

EducatioGraduate

Bachelor’s

Some colAssociate

High scho

Less than

DK/Ref

Income Low-incom

Non-low-i

DK/Ref

Tenure Own/Buyi

G.3 PSocket sresponsedifferencpanelists

graphics

ype mily

y

on degree

s degree

lege/ e’s degree

ool/GED

n high school

me

ncome

ng

PANEL SAT

saturation ise bias. As ine of greate

s in 2017 (Ta

Table

2014All

(n=150) C(n

66%

34%

38%

20%

27%

13%

2%

--

31%

69%

--

65%

TURATION Cs the most i every previ

er than 1% able 72).

71: MA Pa

4 Comp. n=111)

Al(n=2

67% 66%

33% 34%

38% 36%

21% 26%

29% 25%

11% 11%

2% 1%

-- 1%

27% 31%

73% 63%

-- 6%

72% 66%

COMPARIS

mportant coious wave, tfor the com

anel Demo

2015 l 61)

Comp.(n=203)

% 67%

% 33%

% 36%

% 29%

% 24%

% 9%

% 1%

% 1%

% 31%

% 63%

% 6%

% 67%

SON omparison fohere are no mpleted site

2017 LIGH

graphics

2016All

(n=351) (

74%

27%

33%

28%

25%

10%

2%

2%

29%

63%

9%

69%

for this stud lamp typeses versus t

HTING MAR

6 Comp. (n=270)

A(n=4

73% 76

27% 25

32% 33

28% 31

27% 23

9% 9

2% 2

2% 2

30% 24

62% 63

8% 13

70% 69

dy to measu that exhibitthe sample

KET ASSES

2017 All 420)

Comp.(n=315

6% 75%

5% 25%

3% 33%

1% 29%

3% 25%

% 10%

% 2%

% 2%

4% 24%

3% 63%

3% 13%

9% 73%

ure any nont a saturation

of potentia

SSMENT

G-2

. 5)

-n al


Bulb Ty

IncandesCFLs FluorescHalogen LEDs Other/EmSocket * For each column has

G.4 NAs for theAs in MaNew Yor(Table 73

Disposit

CompleteDid not cNo respoWait list IneligibleVisit cancRefused Total

Given ththose of demogravisits comthe New that, as fresponde

ype Al(n=15

scent 53%30%

ent 8%5%2%

mpty 2%

panel year cols 2013 saturati

NY PANEL

e Massachuassachusettsrk. We comp3).

tion

e contact onse

e celled

e high respthe sample

aphic categompared to thYork paneli

for the Massents.

Table 7

2014 l 50)

Comp.(n=111

% 53% % 31%

% 9% % 4% % 1%

% 2%

umn, the saturion rates for tho

NON-RESP

usetts sites, ws, we find littpleted visits

Tab

Count80 6 4 0 2 6 3

101

ponse rate, oe. This is theory for 2017 he 2017 respsts are withi

sachusetts vi

2: MA Satu

20. )

All (n=261)

45% 34% 9% 7% 3%

3%

ration figures aose panelists.

PONSE BIA

we analyzedtle to no indat 70% of th

le 73: NY P

2016

one expectse case, as Tis the 5% g

pondent pooin 2% of theisits, there is

uration Co

15 Comp. (n=203) (

45% 33% 9% 7% 3%

3%

re for the previ

AS ASSESS

d the New Yication of nohe sites in th

Panel Disp

% 79% 6% 4%

- 2% 6% 3%

100%

s the demogTable 74 shgreater sharol. The socke values of ths no evidenc

2017 LIGH

omparison*

2016 All

n=351) Co(n=

42% 432% 39% 87% 77% 6

3% 3

ious year’s visi

SMENT York paneliston-responsehe responde

position

Coun10517176 3 2 0

150

graphics of hows. The lare of homeoet saturationhe sample oce of non-res

HTING MAR

*

omp. =270)

All(n=42

3% 37%3% 30%

8% 7%7% 9%6% 13%

3% 4%

its. For exampl

s for non-rese bias for theent pool, with

2017 nt

the panelistargest differ

owners in thn values by loverall. We csponse bias

KET ASSES

2017 l 20)

Comp.(n=315

% 37%% 30%

% 7% % 8% % 14%

% 4%

le, the 2014

sponse biase panelists inh no refusals

% 70% 11% 11% 4% 2% 1%

- 100%

ts to parallerence in anye completedamp type fo

can concludes in the pane

SSMENT

G-3

. )

s. n s

el y d

or e el


Dem

Home TySingle FaMultifamEducatioGraduateBachelorSome coAssociateHigh schLess thaDK/Ref Income Low-incoNon-low-DK/Ref Tenure Own/Buy

Bu

IncandesCFLs FluorescHalogen LEDs Other/Em* For each column has

mographics

ype amily ily on e degree r’s degree ollege/ e’s degree ool/GED n high schoo

ome -income

ying

lb Type

scent

ent

mpty Socket panel year col

s 2015 saturati

Table

(n =

81

31

2

1ol

261

7

Table 7

Al(n = 1

50%23%12%9%3%4%

umn, the saturion rates for tho

e 74: NY Pa

2016All = 101)

84% 16%

37% 19%

23%

16% 5% 1%

24% 66% 10%

72%

75: NY Satu

2016l

101) C

% % %

% % % ration figures aose panelists.

anel Demog

6 Completes

(n = 80)

84% 16%

40% 21%

16%

16% 5% 1%

20% 71% 9%

78%

uration Co

Completes (n = 80)

49% 22% 12% 9% 3% 4%

re for the previ

2017 LIGH

graphics

s A(n =

7921

3319

24

195%1%

246313

71

mparison*

Al(n = 1

46%23%11%8%7%5%

ious year’s visi

HTING MAR

2017 All

150) C

9% %

3% 9%

4%

9% % %

4% 3% 3%

%

*

2017 ll 101)

C

% % %

% % % its. For exampl

KET ASSES

Completes(n = 105)

79% 21%

29% 23%

24%

18% 5% 1%

25% 63% 12%

76%

Completes(n = 80)

48% 21% 10% 8% 8% 5%

le, the 2016

SSMENT

G-4


lighting market assessment consumer survey and on-site saturation study

Documents