Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening - Synapse ...

Illustrative Example
Figure 4.1, provides the benefit-cost ratios under the PAC test, the TRC test with OPIs
included, and the TRC test without OPIs included for our example utility. The OPIs that
we use here are the ones that are currently in use by Massachusetts energy efficiency
program administrators (NMR 2010).
First, it is interesting to note the difference between the results under the PAC test
relative to the TRC test without OPIs. The low-income programs are identical under
these two tests because the customers are not required to make any contribution toward
the incremental cost of efficiency measures. The C&I programs are more cost-effective
under the PAC test than the TRC test, because customers contribute towards the
incremental efficiency measure cost, and the OPIs for C&I programs are assumed to be
relatively small.
Second, it is interesting to note the difference between the results under the TRC test
with and without OPIs. The low-income programs are much more cost-effective with the
OPIs included because of the low-income other program benefits and the other fuel
savings. The residential new construction and retrofit programs are much more costeffective
with the OPIs included because of the other fuel savings. These two OPIs (lowincome
other program benefits and other fuel savings) account for the vast majority of
the differences between the cases with and without OPIs.
Figure 4.1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for OPIs
Source: The 2012 energy efficiency plan for our example utility, with modified assumptions as noted.
With regard to C&I programs, there are very few OPIs applied to the C&I sector. This
may be primarily due to the fact that this sector has not been studied as much as the
| 40 Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening | www.nhpci.org