of CFLs through most of 2016 may have contributed to its lower LED market share, as some households bought CFLs rather than LEDs. Table 2: Model Summary Statistics (n=38 States) of Coefficient Independent Variable Model Coefficient Intercept -0.908 0.013 Program Spending per Household 0.029 0.001 (Sqrt) Political Index 0.010 0.005 Median Income <0.001 0.007 Political Index * Median Income <-0.001 0.006 Non-POS sqft per HH 0.011 0.187 Program Age 0.002 0.068 Adjusted R2 0.677 The NTGRs suggested by the recommended model are 55% when assuming the Massachusetts program never existed (i.e., there was no program activity in 2016 or any years prior), and 39% when assuming the program existed through 2015 but not in 2016. The team modeled and compared the counterfactual scenario (which can only be modeled, as it never actually happened) with a modeled LED market share, rather than the actual LED market share, to allow for a more comparable calculation (Table 3). Table 3: Model Summary Statistics (n=38 States) Counterfactual No Massachusetts No Massachusetts Calculation Term Programs Ever Program in 2016 Massachusetts Bulbs 19,460,804 19,460,804 2016 (A) Program $ per HH Actual (B) $11.31 $11.31 Program $ per HH $0.00 $0.00 Counterfactual (C) Program Age Actual (D) 18 18 Program Age Counterfactual 0 17 (E) LED Market Share 17.5% 21.7% Counterfactual (F) LED Market Share Modeled 31.8% 31.8% (G) LED Qty Modeled (H=A*G) 6,188,536 6,188,536 LED Qty Counterfactual (I= 3,405,641 4,222,994 A*F)
of CFLs through most of 2016 may have contributed to its lower LED market share, as some households bought CFLs rather than LEDs. Table 2: Model Summary Statistics (n=38 States) Independent Variable Model Coefficient of Coefficient Intercept -0.908 0.013 Program Spending per Household (Sqrt) 0.029 0.001 Political Index 0.010 0.005 Median Income <0.001 0.007 Political Index * Median Income <-0.001 0.006 Non-POS sqft per HH 0.011 0.187 Program Age 0.002 0.068 Adjusted R2 0.677 The NTGRs suggested by the recommended model are 55% when assuming the Massachusetts program never existed (i.e., there was no program activity in 2016 or any years prior), and 39% when assuming the program existed through 2015 but not in 2016. The team modeled and compared the counterfactual scenario (which can only be modeled, as it never actually happened) with a modeled LED market share, rather than the actual LED market share, to allow for a more comparable calculation (Table 3). Table 3: Model Summary Statistics (n=38 States) Counterfactual Calculation Term No Massachusetts Programs Ever No Massachusetts Program in 2016 Massachusetts Bulbs 2016 (A) 19,460,804 19,460,804 Program $ per HH Actual (B) $11.31 $11.31 Program $ per HH Counterfactual (C) $0.00 $0.00 Program Age Actual (D) 18 18 Program Age Counterfactual (E) 0 17 LED Market Share Counterfactual (F) 17.5% 21.7% LED Market Share Modeled (G) 31.8% 31.8% LED Qty Modeled (H=A*G) 6,188,536 6,188,536 LED Qty Counterfactual (I= A*F) 3,405,641 4,222,994
RLPNC_165_1710_SalesDataReport_16NOV2017_FINAL.docx