# VIA HAND DELIVERY AND ELECTRONIC MAIL

August 2, 2010

Mr. Mark D. Marini, Secretary Mr. Philip Giudice, Commissioner

Department of Public Utilities Department of Energy Resources

One South Station, 2 nd 

# Floor 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020

Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02114

Re: The Cape Light Compact 2009 Annual Repo rt on Energy Efficiency Activities

Dear Secretary Marini a nd Commissioner Giudice:

I am pleased to enclose for filing with the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) and

the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) the Cape Light Compact’s 2009 Annual Report

on Energy Efficiency Activities . This report is also being submitted electronically by email to the DPU and to Larry Masland of the DOER.

If you have any questions or comments regard ing this report, please feel free to contact

me or the Compact’s Energy Efficiency Progr am Manager, Kevin Galligan directly at

(508) 375-6828.

Sincerely,

Robert Mahoney

Chairman

Cape Light Compact Governing Board

Enclosure

# Cape Light Compact

Annual Report on

Energy Efficiency Activities

in 2009

Submitted to the

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

and the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

August 2, 2010

# This page intentionally blank.

# Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

B. Report Organization ........................................................................................... 5

C. Summary of Results ........................................................................................... 6

D. Summary of Results by Sector ........................................................................... 8

II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology ...................................................................... 15

III. Impacts by BCR Activity ......................................................................................... 21

A. Residential ........................................................................................................ 21

B. Low-Income ..................................................................................................... 31

C. Commercial & Industrial .................................................................................. 35

IV. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 39

# I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction

Since July 2001 the Cape Light Compact has de livered energy efficiency programs to all

member towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. This Annual Report provides

detailed information on the Compact’s energy efficiency activities and savings during the

course of calendar year 2009.

The Compact’s 2009 Energy Efficiency Plan (r eferred to henceforth as the “2009 EEP”)

was approved on May 29, 2009. Using the 2009 funding as approved by the Department,

the Compact implemented the following set of efficiency programs and non programrelated pilots in 2008:

• The Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# New Construction Program , which provides home

buyers, home builders, and construction trad e allies with tech nical assistance and

financial incentives to increase the effici ency of homes that are newly built or

undergo major renovations. Results of this pr ogram are shown in the Residential Lost

Opportunity row of Table 2 and in Secti on III. Results of the Low-Income New

Construction Program, which provides lo w-income housing development agencies

and residential construction trade allies w ith incentives to increase the home energy

rating of new low-income housing, are also included.

Green Affordable Housing Initiative: In 2007, the Massachusetts Technology

Collaborative approved a $1.5 million grant to the Cape Light Compact in support

of the Green Affordable Housing Initia tive. $1.2 million of the total funds are

earmarked for renewable energy systems to be installed on newly constructed

affordable homes. The remainder of the funds is for advanced building

technology. The Compact was one of six grantees throughout the state.

The grant funds are for new construction homes that are designated affordable,

consistent with the state guidelines. This program builds on the Cape Light

Compact’s already successful Residential New Construc tion Demonstration Pilot,

which supported four homes built to “green ” standards in Chatham, Orleans, and

Falmouth in 2003-2004. The Compact’s program will help affordable housing

developers find ways to shrink the “envir onmental footprint” of homes and result

in lower greenhouse gas emissions, including the cost of energy for those homes.

The Green Affordable Housing Initiative aims to catalyze the affordable housing

financing, development, and builder co mmunities to include more green design

and renewable energy in future developments.

Between 2008 and 2010, the program is expected to help build as many as 55

affordable housing units on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. While there were

no home completions in 2009, the Compact worked on 39 units over the course of

the year.

1

# Major Renovations Pilot: In December 2007, the Cape Light Compact began

working with a homeowner who expressed inte rest in an addition that was eligible

for neither the ENERGY STAR ® 

# Homes program nor the single-family retrofit

program. To address this gap in progra m offerings, Cape Light Compact worked

with a local HERS rater to identify meas ures in existing and new home programs

that would address the structure. As a re sult of this effort, the major renovations

pilot, addressing additions affecting 500 sq. ft or more, was created in 2008 and

formalized in 2009. One test home was completed in 2008, and four were

completed in 2009. The pilot has now extended to the other electric program

administrators in Massachusetts, and the EPA has developed protocols for a

renovation program based on the experience in Massachusetts.

• 

# Residential High Efficiency Central Air Conditioning Program , which was

reintroduced in 2009 (the Cape Light Co mpact closed the program in March 2006

due to budget constraints), promotes the purchase and installation of ENERGY

STAR ® 

# qualified central air conditioning systems in new construction and market

conversion of older heati ng, ventilation and air cond itioning (“HVAC”) units. The

program also is designed to increase the number of trained tec hnicians in the state

and to improve the quality of installations. Results of this program are shown in the

Residential HVAC row of Table 2 and in Section III.

• 

# The Residential Mass Save ® 

# Program , which provides all in terested residential

customers with energy savings education, the opportunity for a home energy audit

and financial incentives for numerous electr ic and non-electric efficiency measures.

Results of this program are shown in th e Residential Retrofit 1-4 row of Table 2

and in Section III.

Deep Retrofit Pilot: In 2009, Cape Light Compact investigated th e potential of

achieving approximately 30% to 50% in energy savings through a pilot program

focusing on deep retrofits of existing residential buildings.

The goal of the pilot program was to asse ss the costs and benefits of deep energy

retrofits in Massachusetts re sidences. The design include d a plan to support deep

retrofits and to gather informati on on customer satisfaction, behavior

modification, and energy savings. Th e pilot was designed to help the

Commonwealth begin to develop informa tion on appropriate measures for deep

retrofits, approaches for different housi ng types, ways to educate customers and

appropriate marketing materials, and th e types of financing mechanisms and

incentive levels to drive participa tion. Additionally, the Commonwealth would

gain experience modeling the energy savings and training energy-retrofit

contractors. Pilot program services were delivered through the existing Mass

Save ® 

# network, with possible energy mode ling and other assistance provided

through the Residential Ne w Construction Program.

The Compact’s participation goal was to reach out to and engage 3 homeowners

who were planning to undergo major exte rior renovations (e .g., siding and/or

window replacements). The Compact received 12 inquires on the pilot from

2

# October 2008 through December 2009 and had one project move forward in

December 2009 with work to begin in th e spring of 2010. The difficulties inherent

in getting interested parties to participate in this pilot program include the fact that

homeowners need to commit a considerab le amount of upfront capital to the

project and major renovation timeframes are homeowner-driven. As a result,

program results will likely be availa ble in conjunction with 2010 reporting.

• 

# The Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Lighting Program , which seeks to increase the

availability and use of ENERGY STAR ® 

# qualified lighting. This program is used to

implement the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (“NEEP ”) initiatives and

other regional market transformation efforts. Results of this program are shown in

the Residential Lighting row of Table 2 and in Section III.

• 

# The Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Appliances Program , which seeks to increase

the availability and use of ENERGY STAR ® 

# qualified appliances, including: room

air conditioners, dehumidifiers and refrig erators as well as consumer electronics

such as Advanced Power Strips. This program is used to implement the Northeast

Energy Efficiency Partnership (“NEEP”) initiatives and othe r regional market

transformation efforts. Results of this program are shown in the Residential

Appliances row of Table 2 and in Section III.

• 

# Non Program-Related Pilots , which seek to investig ate new approaches and

measures. The following non program-rela ted pilots were conducted in 2009:

Smart Home Energy Monitoring Pilot: Cape Light Compact designed and

implemented a Residential Smart Ener gy Monitoring Pilot program in 2009 to

evaluate potential energy savings from in

- home energy monitoring systems, gain

insight to behavioral aspect s of energy use, and inform future residential Smart

Grid projects. This pilot program was ev aluated in 2009 and results are discussed

in Section III. Evaluation of the pilot is ongoing through the end of calendar year

2010, at which point further informati on regarding the pe rsistence of the

identified energy savings will be further measured and evaluated. As a result of

the findings in the report, Cape Light Compact will expand the pilot by offering

Phase 2 which will include residential and commercial participants. An RFP for

Phase 2 will be available in August 2010.

Additional results are available in a report that is available at

http://www.capelightcompact.org/reports.html . Click on the report titled,

Residential Smart Home Energy Monitori ng Pilot Final Evaluation Report, dated

March 31, 2010.

Energy Pay and Save Pilot: The Massachusetts program administrators, including

the Cape Light Compact, designed and implemented a Energy Pay and Save Pilot

program in 2009 to determine the extent to which on-bill financing motivates

customers to install energy efficiency measures. This pilot program was

evaluated in 2009 and results ar e discussed in Section III.

3

# • 

# The Low-Income Single Family Program , which provides low-income customers in

single-family dwellings with assistance in installing efficient lighting, appliances,

and weatherization measures. These services are similar to, but more extensive in

ability to leverage program benefits and offer higher incentives to eligible

customers, than in the Mass Save ® 

# program. Results of this program are shown in

the Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 row of Table 3 and in Section III.

• 

# The Low-Income Multi-Family Program , which provides owners and managers of

low-income multi-family dwellings with assistance in purchasing and installing

efficient lighting, appliances and space heat ing measures. Results of this program

are shown in the Low-Income Retrofit Mult i-Family row of Table 3 and in Section

III.

• 

# The Commercial and Industri al New Construction Program , which provides

technical assistance and financial incentiv es to increase the efficiency in the

construction, renovation, and/or remode ling of all commerc ial, industrial,

government and multi-family housing facili ties. Results of this program are

included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row of Table 4 and in Section III.

• 

# The Medium and Large Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which

provides technical and financ ial assistance to medium and large commercial and

industrial (“C&I”) customers seeking to do discretionary replacements of existing

operating equipment and processes in their facilities with high-efficiency

alternatives. Results of th is program are included in the C&I Large Retrofit row of

Table 4 and in Section III.

• 

# The Small Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program , which provides technical

assistance, financial incentiv es and direct installation to small C&I customers to

replace existing operating equipment and syst ems with high-efficiency equipment.

Results of this program are included in the C&I Small Retrofit row of Table 4 and

in Section III.

• 

# The Government Agencies Program , which provides technical assistance and

financial incentives 1 

# to all government facilities, including municipal, state and

federal facilities. For the purposes of repor ting the results of this program in this

Annual Report, in Table 4 and in Section III, the results of efficiency activities with

small government customers are included in the C&I Small Retrofit row, while the

results of efficiency activities with large government customers are included in the

C&I Large Retrofit row. The results of government new construction activities are

included in the C&I Lost Opportunity row.

• 

# The Commercial and Industrial Products and Services Program , which seeks to

increase the availability and use of more efficient motors, lighting designs, and

HVAC systems. This program is used to implement NEEP and other regional

1 

# Unlike the Compact’s other C&I Programs, where a customer co-pay is required, the Government

program covers the entire cost of eligible energy effici ency services resulting from an audit up to a cap of

$150,000 per project.



# 4

# market transformation initiatives. The resu lts of this program are included in the

C&I Lost Opportunity row of Table 4 and in Section III.



# B. Report Organization

This Executive Summary provides an overview of the Compact’s energy efficiency

programs’ (referred to as BCR Activities) bene fits and costs. For each sector there are

tables summarizing the lifetime energy sa vings, lifetime capacity savings, the nonelectric benefits (NEBs), and the dollar values of the total benefits 2 

# and the total costs.

The savings data are presented in terms of both “preliminary” and “reported” data.

• The preliminary data refers to savings estimates that are based on the evaluation

impact factors that were used in the 2009 EEP. 3



# • 

# The reported data refers to savings estimates that are based on evaluation impact

factors from all of the program evaluations that have been prepared since the 2009

EEP was filed. Thus, the reported data presents our best estimate of the efficiency

savings, based on all the evaluation info rmation available at this time.

Section II of this Annual Report provides a di scussion of the methodology that is used for

program monitoring and evalua tion. It presents a brief summary of the types of

evaluations that are used, and a descripti on of the methodology for estimated net energy

savings. It also includes a list of the evaluation studies that were used to prepare the 2009

reported efficiency savings results. These evaluation studies are also used to inform

program design and delivery.

Section III of this Annual Report provides more detailed results of the program activities.

The tables in this section include info rmation regarding the number of program

participants, the annual efficiency savings and non-electric benefits, the benefit-cost ratio

of the program, and the savings impacts by type of end-use (lighting, HVAC, motors,

refrigeration, hot water, and end-user behavior). This se ction also summarizes recent

evaluation report findings where relevant.

Finally, the Appendices provide more detail regarding pr ogram design and

implementation, monitoring and evaluation results and the program savings. The

following is a list of the Appendices and the content available in each Appendix:

Appendix 1 provides a glossary of terms and abbreviations;

2 

# The Compact is submitting benefit-cost ratios for its 2009 energy efficiency programs with additional

capacity and energy benefits in the form of a demand reduction induced price effect (“DRIPE”). This is

consistent with its 2009 EEP (see page 12 stating, “On average, all of the Compact’s efficiency programs in

the Proposal combined are estimated to have a benef it-cost ratio of roughly 3.82 (using the TRC test

without adders) and 4.14 (taking into account capacity and energy Demand Reduction Induced Price

Effects). Exhibit B, Appendix A5.) and other Program Administrators practice in 2009.

3 

# D.P.U. 07-47, The Cape Light Compact’s Proposed Second Amendment to its Approved Energy

Efficiency Plan: 2007-2012 (the “2009 EEP”).



# 5

# Appendix 2 provides tables showing the impact factors used to calculate reported savings

by sector, program, and measure;

Appendix 3 provides greater detail on pr ogram budgets, savings and benefits;

Appendix 4 provides a comparison of pla nned and reported outsourced and in-house

expenditures;

Appendix 5 provides a calculation of th e Program Administrator’s incentive; 4



# Appendix 6 provides the executi ve summaries as well as full reports for all of the

evaluation studies that are appl icable to this program year;

Appendix 7 provides performance metric s-related documents and reports; 5



# Appendix 8 provides the detailed inpu ts into the savings calculations;

Appendices 9 and 10 are new to the 2009 A nnual Report. In 2009, the Department of

Public Utilities (D.P.U.) requested the fo llowing in conjunction with the 2009 Annual

Report filing : 6 

# 1) “progress reports and updates” on a number of initiatives and 2)

“sections identifying (1) all programs for which savings, costs, or benefits vary by more

than 20 percent from planned values; (2) all programs with a benefit/cost ratio less than

one; and (3) all programs that the Program Administrator intends to discontinue.”

Appendix 9 provides the Progress Report Upda tes on Compliance Items Consistent with

the Department’s Order in D.P.U. 09-119 for the Progress Report;

Appendix 10 provides the Variance Analysis Consistent with the Department’s

Memorandum dated June 22, 2010 for the Variance Analysis;

Appendix 11 is also new to the 2009 Annual Report. During the Cape Light Compact’s

09-119 proceeding, the D.P.U. requested that the Cape Light Compact submit the Year

End 2009 Town Program Activity Reports wi th the 2009 Annual Report. Therefore,

Appendix 11 provides these reports.



# C. Summary of Results

Table 1 provides a summary of the program expenses and savings. It also presents the

percent change between the final reported re sults and (a) the preliminary reported results,

and (b) the estimates of expenses and savings targets in the 2009 EEP. The values in the

“Amount” column are the 2009 results, based on all evaluations availa ble at this time.

4 

# As the Cape Light Compact does not receive a perf ormance incentive, there is no content in this

Appendix.

5 

# As the Cape Light Compact does not receive a perf ormance incentive, there is no content in this

Appendix.

6 

# Hearing Officer Memorandum, RE: 2009 Annual Reports, June 22, 2010.



# 6

## (Report-Pre)/Pre (Report-Plan)/Plan

Prorgram Implementation Expenses $8.726 $ - Millions 0% -10%

Total Expenses $8.901 $ - Millions 0% -12%

Annual Energy Savings 14.079 GWh -24% -32%

Annual Summer Demand Savings 2.788 MW -9% -25%

Annual Winter Demand Savings 4.581 MW -18% 3%

Lifetime Energy Savings 163.637 GWh -16% -21%

Lifetime Demand Savings 41.587 MW-Years -4% -23%

Total Resource Cost Test 3.85 Benefit / Cost -9% -7%

Performance Incentive - After Taxes

- $ - Millions 0% 0% SAVINGS AND EXPENSES FOR 2009 TABLE 1

Measurement Amount Percent Change Comparison Units



# Program implementation expenses include all of the co sts incurred by the Compac t, except for monitoring

and verification costs. Total expenses include pr ogram implementation costs, plus monitoring and

verification costs, plus customer contributions.



# The Compact’s 2009 program implementation expenses were roughly 10% lower than

the budgets in the 2009 EEP. The lower program implementation expenses were due to

lower marketing, incentives, and sales, techni cal assistance and trai ning costs, despite

higher program planning a nd administrative costs.

• The lower marketing, incentives, and sales, technical assistance and training costs

were due to delays in plan approval and RGGI fund receipts. As a result of these

delays, the Compact did not have enough time to ramp up the programs and thus

expend all of the funds in 2009.

• The higher program planning and administ rative costs were due to additional

legal and technical support services. The 2010-2012 Statewide & Individual Plans

required greater legal and technical support services than planned.

The Compact’s 2009 total expenses were roughl y 12% lower than the budgets in the 2009

EEP. The lower total expenses were due to lo wer evaluation costs, in addition to lower

marketing, incentive, and sales, techni cal assistance, and training costs.

• The lower evaluation costs were due to th e continued benefits of shared costs

among all program administrators particip ating in joint statewide and regional

studies.

The annual and lifetime energy savings achieve d in 2009 were lower th an those estimated

in the 2009 EEP (by 32% and 21%, respectivel y). The annual summer and lifetime

capacity savings achieved in 2009 were lower than those estimated in the 2009 EEP (by -

25% and -23%, respectively). The annual wi nter capacity savings achieved in 2009 were

slightly higher (3%) than those estimated in the 2009 EEP. This was due to a greater

uptake of measures with annual winter capacity savings, relative to measures with annual

summer capacity savings.

Savings declines were primarily experien ced in the Residential Lost Opportunity,

ENERGY STAR ® 

# HVAC, Residential Lighting, and Low-In come Retrofit Multi-Family

programs. Please see Appendix 10 (Variance Anal ysis Consistent with the Department’s

Memorandum dated June 22, 2010) for more de tails on the variance in expenditures,

savings and benefits relative to the 2 009 EEP and reasons for this variance.

7

# The benefit-cost ratio of the 2009 programs in total was 3.85, including capacity and

energy DRIPE. This indicates that the Co mpact’s programs in total are highly costeffective, where every $1.00 spent reduces the net cost of electricity by $3.85.



# D. Summary of Results by Sector

1. Residential Programs

Table 2 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime nonelectric benefits for each of th e residential programs. It also presents the total cumulative

benefits and costs, in 2009 present value dolla rs. These total benefits and costs are used

to determine whether each program is cost-e ffective, based on th e total resource cost

(TRC) test.

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activit y Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Benefits $-Costs



### A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 2,023 2,023 942 942 $710,143 $710,143 $1,163,373 $443,560

A02b Residential HVAC 498 498 704 704 $0 $0 $264,201 $62,539

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 29,838 29,838 14,522 14,522 $6,510,300 $6,510,300 $13,745,762 $3,334,379

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

A03c Residential Load Response NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

A04a Residential Lighting 43,165 12,885 2,829 958 $322,614 $111,745 $1,775,504 $412,799

A04b Residential Appliances 4,684 4,684 405 405 $971,454 $971,454 $1,513,556 $228,457

Total 80,208 49,928 19,403 17,531 $8,514,511 $8,303,642 $18,462,396 $4,481,734 TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW TRC Values Lifetime $ NEB



# Figures 1 through 4 present the same information as Table 2. They indicate that most of

the residential energy and capacity savings are obtained from the Residential Retrofit 1-4

and Residential Lighting programs; that most of the non-electric bene fits come from the

Residential Retrofit 1-4 program; and that a ll residential programs are cost-effective.

The Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling Effort 7 

# based on 2009 program results and

Residential Lighting Mar kdown Impact Evaluation 8 

# based on 2008 program results had

the following impact on the Residential Lighting program results:

• Reduced the reported lifetime MWh savings relative to the preliminary lifetime

MWh savings;

• Reduced the reported lifetime kW savings relative to the preliminary lifetime kW

savings; and,

• Reduced the reported lifetime non-energy benefits relative to the preliminary

lifetime non-energy benefits.

This is due to the fact that the in-service rate changed from 117% to 40%, gross annual

kWh savings changed from 57 to 47, and gross annual kW savings changed from 0.049 to

7 

# Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling Effort , NMR Group, Inc., February 4, 2010.

8 

# Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, Inc, and

GDS Associates, January 20, 2009.



# 8

# 0.046. Please see section III.A.3 for the Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling Effort

study within the Residentia l ENERGY STAR® Lighting Pr ogram for more details.

FIGURE 1

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH 

## A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit

Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity



# FIGURE 2

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME kW

- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW 

## A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit

Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity



# 9

# FIGURE 3

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME $ NEB

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB 

## A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity



# FIGURE 4

RESIDENTIAL TRC VALUES

$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS$ TRC VALUE 

## A04b Residential Appliances

A04a Residential Lighting

A03c Residential Load Response

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A02b Residential HVAC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity



# 2. Low-Income Programs

Table 3 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime nonelectric benefits for each of the low-income programs. It also presents the total

cumulative benefits and costs, in 2009 presen t value dollars. These total benefits and

costs are used to determine whether each pr ogram is cost-effective, based on the total

resource cost test.

10

### Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activit y Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Benefits $-Costs



### B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 4,259 4,259 1,642 1,642 $2,556,586 $2,556,586 $3,454,183 $824,610

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 193 193 11 11 $889,419 $889,419 $909,542 $169,814

Total 4,451 4,451 1,654 1,654 $3,446,006 $3,446,006 $4,363,725 $994,424 TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF LOW-INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW TRC Values Lifetime $ NEB



# Figures 5 through 8 present the same informati on graphically as liste d in Table 3. They

indicate that most of the energy and capacity savings and non-electric benefits are

coming from the Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 program and all of the programs are costeffective. There is no difference between the reported and preliminary results for LowIncome programs since there were no upda tes from evaluation studies this year.

FIGURE 5

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME MWH

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH 

## B03b Low-Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity



# 11

# FIGURE 6

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME kW

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW 

## B03b Low-Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity



# FIGURE 7

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME $ NEB

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB 

## B03b Low-Income Retrofit

Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity



# 12

# FIGURE 8

LOW-INCOME TRC VALUES

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS$ TRC VALUE



## B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity



# 3. Commercial & Industrial Programs

Table 4 presents the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, and lifetime nonelectric benefits for each of the Commercial & Industrial programs. It also presents the

total cumulative benefits and costs, in 2009 pr esent value dollars. These total benefits

and costs are used to determine whether each program is cost-effective, based on the total

resource cost (TRC) test.

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activit y Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report $-Benefits $-Costs



## C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 14,425 14,425 3,992 3,992 $17,083 $17,083 $2,716,446 $469,945

C03a Large C&I Retrofit 35,170 35,170 4,844 4,844 $11,137 $11,137 $5,098,054 $1,248,429

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 59,663 59,663 13,565 13,565 $117,242 $117,242 $10,178,248 $3,394,506

Total 109,258 109,258 22,402 22,402 $145,462 $145,462 $17,992,748 $5,112,881 TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF C&I BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW TRC Values Lifetime $ NEB



# Figures 9 through 12 present the same information as Table 4. They indicate that much

of the energy and capacity savings and non-el ectric benefits come from the Small C&I

Retrofit program; and that all of the program s are cost-effective. There is no difference

between the reported and preliminary resu lts for C&I programs since there were no

updates from evaluation studies this year.

13

# FIGURE 9

C&I LIFETIME MWH

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH



## C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity



# FIGURE 10

C&I LIFETIME kW

- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW



## C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity



# 14

# FIGURE 11

C&I LIFETIME $ NEB

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB



### C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity



# FIGURE 12

C&I TRC VALUES

$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000

$-Benefits $-Costs

BENFITS VERSUS COSTS$ TRC VALUE



### C03b Small C&I Retrofit

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity



# II. Overview of Evaluation Methodology

Preliminary versus Reported Results

As noted above, the savings data in this report are presented in terms of both

“preliminary” and “reported” data.

15

# • The preliminary data refers to savings estimates that are based on the evaluation

impact factors that were used in the 2009 EEP. 9



# • 

# The reported data refers to savings estimates that are based on evaluation impact

factors from all of the program evaluations that have been prepared since the 2009

EEP was filed. Thus, the reported data presents our best estimate of the efficiency

savings, based on all the evaluation info rmation available at this time.

Evaluation Studies Used in Preparing 2009 Reported Results

Since its inception in July 2001, the Compact has participated in many statewide and

regional monitoring and evaluation studies, al ong with other energy efficiency Program

Administrators. The Compact has also conduc ted several evaluation studies specific to

its own programs. It is common for energy efficiency program evaluators to update

parameters on a multi-year cycle, unless significant program changes warrant more

frequent study.

The evaluation studies completed in 2009 that were used to u pdate impact factors or to

inform the process of program delivery are li sted below. In 2009, the studies included a

mix of process and impact evaluation and other research. The executive summary and

full versions of these reports are included in Appendix 6.

1. Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program

2009 Findings and Analysis, NMR Group Inc., May 26, 2010. Executive

Summary.

Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program

2009 Findings and Analysis, NMR Group Inc., May 26, 2010. Full Report.

2. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# 2009 COOL SMART

Quality Installation Verification Evaluation Report, ICF International,

February 24, 2010. Executive Summary.

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# 2009 COOL SMART

Quality Installation Verification Evaluation Report, ICF International,

February 24, 2010. Full Report.

3. Energy Savings Analysis for the Ma ssachusetts New Homes with ENERGY

STAR ® 

# , ICF International, June 4, 2010. Executive Summary.

Energy Savings Analysis for the Ma ssachusetts New Homes with ENERGY

STAR ® 

# , ICF International, June 4, 2010. Full Report.

4. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program, 2009

Progress Report, Dorothy Conant, May 26, 2010. Executive Summary.

9 

# D.P.U. 07-47, The Cape Light Compact’s Proposed Second Amendment to its Approved Energy

Efficiency Plan: 2007-2012 (the “2009 EEP”).



# 16

# The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program, 2009

Progress Report, Dorothy Conant, May 26, 2010. Full Report.

5. Residential Central AC Regional Eval uation, ADM Associates, Inc., October

2009.

6. Energy Pay and Save Pilot Program Survey & Analysis, Black & Veatch,

March 2010.

7. 2009 Massachusetts Multi-Family Progr am Assessment, Nexus Market

Research, Inc., October 16, 2009.

8. The Market for CFLs in Massachus etts, NMR Group, Inc., January 28, 2010.

9. Results of the Multistate CFL Modeli ng Effort, NMR Group, Inc., February 4,

2010.

10. Market Assessment and Best Practices for Delivering Plug-Load Energy

Efficiency in Business-Final Repor t, PA Consulting Group, June 14, 2010.

11. Cape Light Compact Residential Sm art Energy Monitoring Pilot, PA

Consulting, March 31, 2010.

Types of Evaluations

The evaluation of 2009 energy efficiency progr am impacts reflects the Compact’s efforts

to apply appropriate methodologies and adjust them for individual program

characteristics. The diverse nature of the programs, includi ng the magnitude of

preliminary kW and kWh impacts, the numbe r of customers served, and the end uses

affected, calls for the adoption of different evaluation approaches. Evaluations of some

programs use several methodologies to deve lop overall impact results and provide

meaningful feedback on program delivery a nd direction. Some of these methodologies

are briefly described below.

Survey-Based Impact Parameter Studies . Survey-based impact parameter studies focus

on the analysis of information collected th rough customer surveys. They are generally

used to measure free-ridership and spillover. These studies provide timely feedback to

program managers as well as input to the impact evaluations.

• The California Public Utilities Commissi on, the New York State Energy Research

and Development Authority (NYSER DA), Wisconsin Public Service

Commission, Consumers Energy in Michig an, Connecticut Energy Conservation

Management Board, Connecticut Light and Power, Northeast Utilities, The

United Illuminating Company, Cape Li ght Compact, NSTAR, National Grid

(NGRID), Unitil, Western Massachusetts Electric Company (WMECO) and Xcel

17

# Energy in Colorado funded a study to summarize a multi-state CFL modeling

effort 10 

# to determine a net-to-gross ratio (N TG) for lighting products. This net-togross ratio was implemented within the Massachusetts Residential ENERGY

STAR ® 

# Lighting Program.

Billing Analyses . Billing analyses involve the analysis of billing data, combined in some

cases with survey data, to determine imp acts for programs where a large number of

participants install similar measures. Since billing data are available for all customers,

billing analysis techniques may include repr esentative samples of both participants and

non-participants in an evaluation.

• The Massachusetts electric program admini strators jointly funde d an evaluation of

the Energy Pay and Save Pilot 11 

# , to determine the extent to which on-bill

financing motivates customers to install energy efficiency measures. While this

study was primarily survey-based, it included a billing analysis.

Site Specific Measurement Analysis . Impact evaluations for many of the end uses and

programs covered in this report rely on engi neering estimates that are based on sitespecific metering and on-site telephone a ssessments of measure performance and

persistence. All of the following studies were co nducted in 2010.

• The Joint Management Committee (JMC) co mpleted an evaluation report focused

on investigating the relations hip between HERS ratings and energy savings in the

Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# New Construction Program. 12



# • The Joint Management Committee (JMC) completed an evaluation 13 

# of the

quality of installations for central ai r conditioning (CAC) systems as well as

adherence to the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# guidelines in

a select number of homes.

• NSTAR Electric and Gas Corp., National Grid in Massachusetts and Rhode

Island, Connecticut Light & Power, a nd United Illuminating jointly funded a

study 14 

# to assess energy savings and de mand impacts resulting from the

installation of efficient central air conditioning (CAC) systems and collected

baseline data on duct leakage and infiltration rates of houses.

10 

# Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling Effort , NMR Group, Inc., February 4, 2010.

11 

# Energy Pay and Save Pilot Program Survey & Analysis , Black & Veatch, March 2010.

12 

# Energy Savings Analysis for the Massachus etts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# , ICF International,

June 4, 2010.

13 

# Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# 2009 COOL SMART Quality Installation Verification

Evaluation Report , ICF International, February 24, 2010.

14 

# Residential Central AC Regional Evaluation, ADM Associates, Inc. October 2009.



# 18

# • The Massachusetts electric program admini strators jointly funde d an evaluation of

the Energy Pay and Save Pilot 15 

# , to determine the extent to which on-bill

financing motivates customers to install energy efficiency measures.

Process and Market Pr ogress Evaluation Studies . Process evaluations review energy

efficiency program design and implemen tation, and recommend modifications to

program delivery. The scope of these evaluations includes all aspects of the program

including administrative efficiency, the quali ty of service provided, and the databases

used for program tracking and reporting. Pro cess evaluations assess the early stages of

energy efficiency programs. They specifica lly provide an assessment of (a) whether

actual operations resemble the intended program design and operation plan, and

(b) whether real-world experience shows that the original program design and

implementation plan are appropriate given the existing field c onditions. All of the

following studies were conducted in 2010.

• The Joint Management Committee (JMC) completed the following two

evaluations of the Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# New Construction Program.

o An evaluation 16 

# was conducted to develop a proposed attribution

mechanism for codes and standa rds for Massachusetts, develop

recommendations for streamlining the process by which builders

participate in the program, documen t lessons learned from the Zero

Energy Challenge Pilot, and investig ate other approaches to estimating

whole house savings for homes undergoing major renovations or

additions.

o A 2009 Progress Report 17 

# was prepared, to summarize 2009 Program

activity.

• The Cape Light Compact funded an ev aluation of its Smart Home Energy

Monitoring Pilot 18 

# , to understand customer interest and satisfaction with the pilot

as well as energy savings.

• The Massachusetts electric program admi nistrators jointly funded an evaluation 19



# to understand the current market conditi ons and possible new program approaches

for common and specialty CFLs in the Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Lighting

Program.

15 

# Energy Pay and Save Pilot Program Survey & Analysis , Black & Veatch, March 2010.

16 

# Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program 2009 Findings and

Analysis , NMR Group Inc., May 26, 2010.

17 

# The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program, 2009 Progress Report , Dorothy Conant,

May 26, 2010.

18 

# Cape Light Compact Residential Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot , PA Consulting, March 31, 2010.

19 

# The Market for CFL’s in Massachusetts , NMR Group, Inc., January 28, 2010.



# 19

# • The Massachusetts electric program admi nistrators jointly funded an evaluation 20



# to characterize the market for plug- load efficiency, including maximum

achievable potential energy savings, and to id entify best practices to deliver those

savings within the Small Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program.

Economic Modeling and Analysis Studies. The benefits and cost -effectiveness of energy

efficiency programs are based on modeling and an alysis that values energy efficiency in

relation to the avoided costs of energy supply projected ove r the life of the programs and

measures installed. Avoided costs are typically projected based on forecasting models.

• The Massachusetts electric and gas progr am administrators jointly funded a multifamily evaluation 21 

# to confirm or deny the findings of an April workshop, assess

progress in overcoming barriers and identify strategies to make targeting, program

design, and program implementation for Residential, Low-Income and

Commercial and Industrial cu stomers more successful.

• The Residential Central AC Regional Evaluation 22 

# also included an economic

modeling analysis.

Generic Impact Equations

The general form of the impact equation fo r most of the measures installed is:

Net Impacts = Gross Impacts * Realizati on Rate*(1-Free-Ridership + Spillover) *

Persistence Factor.

Realization Rates are study-specific parameters, whic h typically compare the energy or

demand performance of installed equipment to in itial estimates of performance. They are

typically based on engineeri ng or billing analysis.

Free-ridership includes both partial and pure free-ri dership, where such information is

available, as required by D.T.E 98-100.

In energy efficiency programs, spillover may occur among both participants and

nonparticipants. Both participant and nonpa rticipant spillover were used in the

calculation of savings for commer cial and industrial programs, consistent with D.T.E. 98-

100. The nonparticipant spillover impact used in this report is based on the combined

results of National Grid 23 

# and Compact surveys 24



# .

20 

# Market Assessment and Best Practices for Deliverin g Plug-Load Energy Efficiency in Business – Final

Report , PA Consulting Group, June 14, 2010.

21 

# 2009 Massachusetts Multi-Fa mily Program Assessment , Nexus Market Research, Inc., August 19, 2009.

22 

# Residential Central AC Regional Evaluation, ADM Associates, Inc. October 2009.

23 

# National Grid, Cape Light Compact, United Illuminating 2005 Commercial and Industrial Programs

Free-ridership and Spillover Study. Revised Final Report. PA Consulting Group. September 1, 2006.

24 

# Cape Light Compact 2007 Commercial and Industrial Programs Free-ridership and Spillover Study.

Final Executive Summary. PA Consulting Group. June 23, 2008.



# 20

# Persistence indicates the continued presence of sa vings over time as indicated by followup surveys that confirm the measure remain s installed, and verify it is operating as

intended. As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study 25 

# , “Savings persistence is the

percent change in expected savings due to changed operating hours, changed process

operation, and/or degradation in equipment efficiency relative to the baseline efficiency

option”.

Measure lives are applied to net annual kW and kW h to calculate lifetime kW and kWh.

As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study 26 

# , measure life is “The median number of

years that a measure is installed and operati onal. This definition implicitly includes

equipment life and measure persistence, but not savings persiste nce....In addition, this

definition conforms in letter or in spirit with the definition of measure life used by most

national utilities.”

Performance Metrics

As a not-for-profit inter- governmental organization, the Compact does not require

shareholder performance incentives, and thus does not need to monito r or track any form

of performance metrics.



# III. Impacts by BCR Activity

A. Residential

1. By BCR Activity

Table 5 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the

lifetime savings, and the costs incurred for the residential programs. It also presents the

benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. The costs and benefits used to

derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 2.

The Residential Retrofit 1-4 and Residential Lighting Programs provide the greatest

annual energy and capacity savings. All of the residential programs are cost-effective.

25 

# Measure Life Study Report prepared for the Massachusetts Join t Utilities by Energy Resource Solutions

(ERS), October 10, 2005.

26 

# Measure Life Study Report prepared for the Massachusetts Join t Utilities by Energy Resource Solutions

(ERS), October 10, 2005.



# 21Benefit-Cost Ratio BenefitCost

Activity kWh kWh per

Cust kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB Activity per

Cust TRC

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 127 157,074 1,237 42.74 $29,622 2,023 942 $710,143 $443,560 $3,493 2.62

A02b Residential HVAC 107 27,644 258 39.09 $0 498 704 $0 $62,539 $584 4.22

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 3,959 3,269,252 826 772.88 $319,050 29,838 14,522 $6,510,300 $3,334,379 $842 4.12

A03b Residential Retrofit Multifamily NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

A03c Residential Load Response NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

A04a Residential Lighting 3,805 1,781,436 468 132.01 $15,712 12,885 958 $111,745 $412,799 $108 4.30

A04b Residential Appliances 1,994 308,400 155 33.14 $48,573 4,684 405 $971,454 $228,457 $115 6.63

Total 9,992 5,543,807 555 1,019.86 $412,956 49,928 17,531 $8,303,642 $4,481,734 $449 4.12 TABLE 5

IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime CostParticipant



# 2. By End Use

Table 6 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the residential programs.

Lighting and HVAC provide the majority of energy and capacity savings from the

residential programs. Most of the residential non-electric benefits are from HVAC.

The residential impact factors were updated by evaluation studies. There are significant

differences between preliminary and reporte d results for Lighting. The reported lifetime

MWh and lifetime kW savings and non-electric benefits are substantially lower than the

preliminary lifetime MWh and lif etime kW savings and non-electric benefits for Lighting

measures due to adjustments to the in-servi ce rate, energy savings and capacity savings.

End Use

Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report



# Lighting 61,561 31,281 4,031 2,160 $461,715 $250,847

HVAC 13,228 13,228 14,820 14,820 $6,723,104 $6,723,104

Refrigeration 499 499 47 47 $0 $0

Hot Water 236 236 99 99 $358,237 $358,237

Motors 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Process 4,684 4,684 405 405 $971,454 $971,454

End User Behavior 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Total 80,208 49,928 19,403 17,531 $8,514,511 $8,303,642 TABLE 6

IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL END-USES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB



# Figures 13 through 15 present the same information as Table 6.

22

# FIGURE 13

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

Preliminary Report

Lifetime MWH

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH 

# End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting



# FIGURE 14

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME kW - END-USE

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

Preliminary Report

Lifetime kW

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW 

# End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting



# 23

# FIGURE 15

RESIDENTIAL LIFETIME $ NEB - END- USE

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000

Preliminary Report

Lifetime $ NEB

BENEFITS VERSUS COSTSLIFETIME $ NEB 

## End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting



# 3. Program Evaluation

Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# New Construction Program



# Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program 2009

Findings and Analysis , NMR Group Inc., May 26, 2010.

In 2010, the Joint Management Committee (JMC) completed a program design,

implementation, and measurement evaluation report. The evaluation included:

• An evaluation of California’s mechanisms for claiming savings from code-related

activities and proposed attribution framework for Massachusetts;

• Recommendations for streamlining the pro cess by which builders participate in

the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program;

• Identification of lessons learned fr om the Zero Energy Challenge Pilot;

• Other approaches to estimating whole house savings for homes undergoing major

renovations or additions.

Codes and Standards: An extensive review of the California protocols for attribution of a

portion of the savings from C&S activities to Program Administrator efforts was

completed. Using these as a template, a pr oposed attribution mechanism was developed

for Massachusetts which will cover savings from both upgrades to state codes and

increased compliance with both state code and stretch codes for homes that do not

participate in the Program. The principal r ecommendation is to use the California Delphi

panel approach to assure an independent asse ssment of how much of the resulting savings

to attribute to Program Administrator efforts.

24

# Streamlining the Process: Interviews were cond ucted with 26 builders, 10 HERS raters, 3

rating companies listed on the web site, and 3 ICF account managers. Additionally, four

builders who did not participate were inte rviewed. Principal conclusions include,

flexibility among market players in program implementation is im portant, builders are

very satisfied with the raters , ICF account managers are used mainly when an issue needs

resolution and HERS raters screen out margin ally interested builders. One issue that

needs to be addressed is getting checks to the builders sooner.

Zero Energy Challenge: Two builders who built such homes achieved negative HERS

ratings meaning that the homes are net producers of energy. Both builders have

incorporated what they learned in buildi ng these homes into their standard building

practice. Creating home buyer demand will be the key to getting more builders involved.

Builders want to know how they can recover the significant additional costs involved in

building these homes.

Major Renovations: Very few programs have pr ovisions that cover additions to existing

structures. The major renovations pilot program will assess the merits of blending parts

of the residential retr ofit program, such as ar e offered thru Mass Save ® 

# , with the unique

features associated with the services offered with the pilot for large additions to existing

houses.

Results from this study are informing future program design, implementation, and

measurement. For example, the results from the investigation into streamlining the

process are leading program administrators to design a fully market-based program.

Results from this study did not drive changes to the reported savings and benefits for the

Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# New Construction Program.

Energy Savings Analysis for the Massachus etts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ®



# , ICF International, June 4, 2010.

Also in 2010, the Joint Management Committe e (JMC) completed an evaluation report

focused on investigating the relationship between HERS ratings and energy savings.

Historically the New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# program has used a tiered approach

to encourage participants to bu ild to higher levels of energy efficiency. Greater incentives

were paid for greater energy efficiency and higher tier levels. Higher tiers were assumed

to equate to greater energy savings, and we re based on the Home Energy Rating System

(HERS). HERS ratings were, therefore, assume d to be a sufficiently accurate predictor of

energy savings. Program results, however, lead the Joint Management Committee (JMC)

to question that relationship. The JMC went on to determine that a low HERS rating does

not necessarily guarantee greater energy savings.

The JMC then undertook an analysis that re sulted in expanding the tier structure from

three to four tiers, a nd identifying new criterion for achievi ng various tier levels. The new

criterion is based on a percentage savings above a User Defi ned Reference Home

(UDRH) baseline. The old tier levels were structured as follows: Code+, HERS 85 and

HERS 65. The new tier levels are structured as follows: Code+, HERS 85, HERS 85 plus

30% improvement over the UDRH baseline, a nd HERS 85 plus 60% improvement over

the UDRH baseline.

25

# The results of this analysis are being used in the statewide work ing group to enhance

implementation and energy savings derive d from the program moving forward. For

example, the savings calculations were restru ctured to better ali gn with the way savings

data inputs are structured. In particular , savings are now based on the User-Defined

Reference Home, or a baseline home, instea d of the model home within the REMRate

tool. Results from this study did not drive chan ges to the reported savings and benefits for

the Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# New Construction Program.

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program, 2009 Progress

Report , Dorothy Conant, May 26, 2010.

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program 2009 Progress Report is

a summary of 2009 Program activity. Progr am performance information includes

historical as well as current information to s how the growth of the Program over time. In

preparing the report, the vendor looked at the following aspects of the New Homes with

ENERGY STAR ® 

# Program:

• Permits, Completions, and ENERGY STAR ® 

# Penetration Rates

• HERS Ratings

• ENERGY STAR ® 

# Lighting, Windows, Heating a nd Central Air Conditioning

• Envelope and Duct Leakage

• HERS Raters

• New Homes Recruited

All findings included in this report are take n into consideration by the statewide working

group in an effort to enhance the progra m implementation, participation, and derived

savings. The key finding from this year’s Progress Report was that the program

administrators gained market share, despit e the down economy. Results from this study

did not drive changes to the reported savings and benefits for the Residential ENERGY

STAR ® 

# New Construction Program.

Residential High Efficiency Central Air Conditioning Program



# Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® 

# 2009 COOL SMART Quality

Installation Verification Evaluation Report , ICF International, February 24, 2010.

The intent of this study was to evaluate the quality of installa tions for central air

conditioning (CAC) systems as well as adherence to the Massachusetts New Homes with

ENERGY STAR ® 

# guidelines in a select number of homes.

A sample of fifty (50) new homes that participated in the program in 2008-09 was

selected for this study. The findi ngs indicate that most of th e homes in the sample did not

meet the standards for a quali ty installation. For example, very few would meet “ACCA

Quality Installation Specifications”, 50% of the AC systems were oversized, 70% had

out-of-spec measured air flow, 40% had inco rrect refrigerant charges, 30% lacked

thermal expansion valves and, 26% had unve rified indoor-outdoor cooling equipment

26

# matches. Most homes had installed equipment that barely met the code requirement for

efficiency (13 SEER). 27



# Program changes have been adopted as a re sult of these findings and identified shortcomings. For example, the requirements and training for Quality Installation

Specifications for central air systems were re fined. Results from this study did not drive

changes to the reported savings and benefits for the Residential High Efficiency Central

Air Conditioning Program.

Residential Central AC Regional Evaluation, ADM Associates, Inc. October 2009.

The purpose of this study is to assess energy savings and demand impacts resulting from

the installation of efficien t central air conditioning (C AC) systems. The study also

collects baseline data on duct leakage and infiltration rates of houses.

Data for the study was collected through post- installation monitoring of the CAC systems

installed in existing and new homes in Ma ssachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Results are derived using Typi cal Meteorological Year (TMY) weather data, as well as

actual 2008 weather data, and gr ouped into the following ISO Lo ad Zones: Northeastern

Massachusetts, Southeastern Massachusetts, Western/Centra l Massachusetts, Connecticut

and Rhode Island.

Results of the study indicate that higher efficiency CAC systems provide a sizeable

reduction in annual kWh usage. Using TMY data, for example, savings for Southeastern

Massachusetts are estimated to be 95 kWh a nnually. Study results are intended to provide

a basis for regulatory reporting as well as a pplication to the Forw ard Capacity Market.

Results from this study did not drive changes to the reported savings and benefits for the

Residential High Efficiency Central Air Conditioning Program.

Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Lighting Program



# Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling Effort , NMR Group, Inc., February 4, 2010.

This report summarizes the analyses c onducted in support of the multistate CFL

modeling effort, highlighting the results as they pertain to the net-to-gross ratio (NTG)

for the Massachusetts Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Lighting Program. Thirteen

companies in 7 states sponsored 9,300 house hold phone surveys and 1,400 on-site visits

in 15 states to estimate the net-to-gross (NTG ) ratio of sales and pe netration of compact

fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). The 15 survey ed states ranged from 4 states with

established CFL programs to 7 states with no CFL program or emerging CFL programs.

. The working penetration / market transf ormation model is that each CFL sold via a

program would induce several non-program CFL sa les in the early years. As the market

matured, and as sales spilled over into othe r states, according to plan, the ratio of nonprogram sales to program sales woul d fall, eventually to zero.

27 

# As a point of clarification, the study concentrated on central air conditioning systems within homes that

met the performance path for ENERGY STAR Homes. This does not mean that these home received

incentives for equipment or quality installation.



# 27

# NMR Group built a variety of regression models that used demographics in the various

study areas, plus measures of program strength and history, to explain (1) purchases of

CFLs in the past 3 and 12 months and (2) cu mulative penetration of CFLs in homes. The

modeling suggested that CFL programs had a st atistically significant net positive effect

on CFL purchases in 2008, as well as on current CFL use and saturation. However, it did

not find a net positive program effect on CFLs purchased in the past three months. In

general, years using CFLs was a little more important predictor of purchases than was

strength of program. A purchase model wit hout CFL saturation as a predictor yielded a

19% NTG ratio, while a similar model with saturation yielded a 63% NTG ratio. Given

the uncertainties involved, the report recomm ends an average of the two, a 41% NTG

ratio.

Results from this study drove declines in the reported net savings and benefits for the

Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Lighting Program. The Cape Light Compact calculated its

preliminary net savings and benefits for CFL screw-in bulbs using a 117% in-service rate

comprised of an 84% installa tion rate multiplied by a 139% net-to-gross ratio. The Cape

Light Compact calculated its reported net sa vings and benefits for CFL screw-in bulbs

using a 40% in-service rate comprised of a 97% installation rate multiplied by a 41% netto-gross ratio. This study informed the net- to-gross ratio change. The installation rate

change was informed by the 2008 Resident ial Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation 28



# that was completed in January 2009. 29 

# Reported gross annual kWh and kW savings

assumptions also changed as follows as a result of the 2008 Residential Lighting

Markdown Impact Evaluation. Gross annual kW h changed from a preliminary value of

57 to a reported value of 47. Gross annual kW changed from a preliminary value of 0.049

to a reported value of 0.046.

The decline in the net-to-gro ss ratio indicates that the market is transformed for CFL

bulbs for some groups of consumers. As a re sult, the program desi gn is changing the mix

of products offered to different consumers and the market channels used to target

different groups of consumers.

The Market for CFL’s in Massachusetts, NMR Group, Inc., January 28, 2010

.

This report presents the findings of research conducted to understa nd the current market

conditions and possible new pr ogram approaches for common and specialty CFLs in

Massachusetts. The report presented fi ndings within the following categories:

• Awareness and satisfaction

• CFL use

• Socket saturation

• CFL purchases

28 

# Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, Inc, and

GDS Associates, January 20, 2009.

29 

# As this study was not finalized until January 2009, th e update does not appear in the 2009 EEP. Also, as

the study is from the 2008 program year and was used to update the 2008 Annual Report, it is not listed

with the studies from the 2009 program year.



# 28

# • LEDs and other energy-saving technologies

• Upcoming federal lighting standards

• New technologies and policies

The recommendations that came out of this study will be taken into consideration in the

statewide working group to enhance implem entation, marketing, and program offerings

moving forward. Results from this study did not drive changes to the reported savings

and benefits for the Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Lighting Program.

Residential ENERGY STAR ® 

# Appliances Program



# No new evaluation activities were conducte d on the results of this program in 2009.

Non Program-Related Pilots



# Energy Pay and Save Pilot Program Survey & Analysis , Black & Veatch, March 2010.

The purpose of the study is to determine the extent to which on-bill financing motivates

customers to install energy e fficiency measures. The pilo t ran from April 2009 through

December 2009, and was offered to residential customers and small commercial and

industrial customers. Statew ide participation was low am ong residential customers,

averaging 4% across the five participating Pr ogram Administrators (PAs), but was much

higher among small business customers, averaging 22% across the five PAs.

For Cape Light Compact, a total of 32 cu stomers participated in the program: 10

residential and 22 small business. Cape Light’s residential participants installed heating

systems, basement and attic insulation and air sealing measures. The average loan

amount was $402 (below the cap of $500), the average term of the loan was 16 months,

and the average monthly savings were $21. Average measure costs ranged from $95 to

$1,800.

For Cape Light’s small business participants, lighting equipment was the predominant

measure installed. The average rebate for those lighting measures was $180, offsetting

over 70% of the average measure cost of $257. For all small busine ss participants, the

average loan amount was $436 (well below th e cap of $1,000), the average term of the

loan was 10 months, and the average monthl y savings were $81. The average project

cost was $2,179.

The results of this evaluation suggest a very limited need for an on-bill financing option

for residential customers. The results of this pilot study are being re viewed and used in

conjunction with the statewide on-bill financ ing working group. Any findings will be

used to inform financing options in future program years. Results from this study did not

drive changes to the reported savings a nd benefits for the Residential Mass Save ®



# Program.

Cape Light Compact Residential Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot , PA Consulting,

March 31, 2010.

Cape Light Compact designe d and implemented a Residential Smart Home Energy

Monitoring Pilot program in 2009 to eval uate potential energy savings from in

- home

29

# energy monitoring systems, gain insight to be havioral aspects of energy use, and inform

future residential Smart Grid projects. The response to the pilot announcement was

outstanding, with more than 300 residents requ esting the available s pots in the program.

To implement the pilot, the Cape Light identified 91 participan ts on Cape Cod and

Martha’s Vineyard and installed an in -home energy monitoring system in each

participants home for a period of one year. The monitoring system is unique as compared

to other behavioral programs in that it enab les the participant to view their electricity

consumption in real time, displaying energy usage down to the minute. Participants

received information and training regardi ng the system and had access to an online

dashboard. The online dashboard offered participants feedback on their energy

consumption by providing:

• real time current energy use and demand;

• savings metrics in kWh, dollars, and CO 2 

# emissions; and,

• opportunities to learn about and sign up for energy saving activities (e.g.,

unplugging chargers when not in use).

Participants were also part of a community network and could view electricity use of

other similar households in the pilot and communicate with other pilot members each

other through a social networking system.

Results of the eval uation indicate:

• Strong customer interest in the pilot (w ith minimal marketing expense, the pilot

attracted more than triple the num ber of desired participants);

• High levels of customer satisfaction with the pilot;

• Significant energy savings.

Seventy-five percent of program particip ants reduced energy consumption during the

program. Program participants reduced th eir daily energy use by an average of 9.3

percent or 2.9 kWh per day, th e second highest decrease when compared to results from

similar smart monitoring programs tested th roughout North America. One-third reduced

average energy consumption by 4 or more kW h per day. Additional re sults are available

in a report that is available at http://www.capelightco mpact.org/reports.html . Click on the

report titled, Residential Smart Home Ener gy Monitoring Pilot Final Evaluation Report,

dated March 31, 2010.

As a result of the findings in the report, Cape Light Compact will expand the pilot by

offering Phase 2 which will include residentia l and commercial participants. An RFP for

Phase 2 will be available in August 2010. Ev aluation of the pilot will continue through

the end of calendar year 2010, at which poi nt further information regarding the

persistence of the identified energy savings will be furthe r measured and evaluated. If

savings and persistence remain, the Cape Light Compact would recommend making this

pilot a program. This Annual Report does not include the savings estimates from this

evaluation. The savings estimates will be applied if the pilot becomes a program.

30

# B. Low-Income

1. By BCR Activity

Table 7 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the

lifetime savings, and the costs incurred for th e Low-Income programs. It also presents

the benefit-cost ratio, based on the total resource cost test. The costs and benefits used to

derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 3.

The Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Program contributes greater annual and lifetime energy and

capacity savings and non-electric benefits due to the fact that there are a greater number

of participants in this program. All of the programs are cost-effective.

Benefit-Cost Ratio BenefitCost

Activity kWh kWh per

Cust kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB Activity per

Cust TRC

B02a Low-Income Lost Opportunity NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 624 396,453 635 102.58 $152,366 4,259 1,642 $2,556,586 $824,610 $1,321 4.19

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 78 15,235 195 1.32 $46,346 193 11 $889,419 $169,814 $2,177 5.36

TOTAL 702 411,687 586 103.89 $198,712 4,451 1,654 $3,446,006 $994,424 $1,417 4.39 TABLE 7

IMPACT BY LOW-INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime CostParticipant



# 2. By End Use

Table 8 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the Low-Income programs. Most

of the energy savings for Low-Income are fr om the Lighting and End User Behavior end

uses. Most of the capacity savings for Low-Income are from the Lighting and HVAC end

uses. Most of the Low-Income non-electric benefits come from the HVAC measures.

This is because the home energy audits result in benefits associat ed with (a) improved

property values, (b) reduced fire, illness and moving costs, and (c) fossil-fuel savings.

All of the Low-Income programs also have non- electric benefits as a result of reduced

usage of the low-income discount rate. The Low-Income programs also have non-electric

benefits that are experienced by non-low-income residential customers, such as lighting

O&M savings and reduced water usage.

There is no difference between the reported and preliminary results for Low-Income

programs since there were no updates from evaluation studies this year.

Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report



# Lighting 2,978 2,978 276 276 $86,026 $86,026

HVAC 246 246 1,231 1,231 $3,170,936 $3,170,936

Refrigeration 739 739 96 96 $50,706 $50,706

Hot Water 8 8 5 5 $100,919 $100,919

Motors 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

End User Behavior 480 480 46 46 $37,418 $37,418

Total 4,451 4,451 1,654 1,654 $3,446,006 $3,446,006 TABLE 8

IMPACT BY LOW-INCOME END-USES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB End Use



# Figures 16 through 18 present the same information as Table 8.

31

# FIGURE 16

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH 

## End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting



# FIGURE 17

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME kW - END-USE

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW 

## End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting



# 32

# FIGURE 18

LOW-INCOME LIFETIME $ NEB - END-USE

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB 

## End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting



# 3. Program Evaluation

Low-Income Single Family Program



# No new evaluation activities were conducte d on the results of this program in 2009.

Low-Income Multi-Family Program



# 2009 Massachusetts Multi-Family Program Assessment , Nexus Market Research,

Inc., August 19, 2009. 30



# On March 24, 2009 the Energy Efficiency Adviso ry Council (EEAC) issued a “Priorities

Resolution” to support the development of stat ewide electric and na tural gas efficiency

investment plans.

In response to the Council’s resolution, a Multi-Family Program Design Workshop was

held in April 2009. The purpose of the works hop was to obtain key stakeholder feedback

on the design elements of a successful Multi-Family program. The workshop was

attended by customers, the EEAC members and their consultants, vendors providing

service for MA Multi-Family programs, and PA staff. Customers that attended the

workshop were primarily from the low-income/affordable housing sector.

30 

# The Cape Light Compact is listing this study under the Low-Income Multi-Family Program, as it does

not report Multi-Family program results under Reside ntial and C&I. However, the results of this study

include and therefore apply to all program partic ipants, including Residential and C&I Multi-Family

program participants.



# 33

# As required by law, the program administra tors filed drafts of the 2010-2012 statewide

gas and electric energy efficiency plans on April 30, 2009. Due to time constraints, the

program administrators did not have the oppor tunity to fully asse ss the results of the

workshop, identify and fill additional data n eeds, or develop a comprehensive MultiFamily program design. As a result, the program administrators and EEAC agreed that

additional time and effort was required, includin g gathering input from market rate actors

given the composition of cust omers attending the workshop.

Accordingly, the purpose of this assessment was to obtain further data to inform the

program design effort including:

• Confirm or disconfirm, as well as augm ent, the findings and recommendations

from the workshop;

• Understand the progress made to date on overcoming technical barriers;

• Identify successful strategies for deliveri ng a program that is fuel and rate class

blind, takes a “whole building” approach to identifying energy efficiency

opportunities, and encourages customers to achieve “deeper savings” within

Multi-Family properties.

The following tasks were completed in support of this assessment:

• Four focus groups with multi-family building owners, managers and landlords;

• Eight interviews with program ad ministrators in other states;

• A review of available literature and a re view of the April 2009 workshop results.

Findings included the fact the same barrier s identified in 1995 and 2001 hold true in

2009, suggesting continuing challenges in penetrating this market.

Key strengths of the existing program incl ude, technical assistance offered, customer

service, labeling and brand recognition, th e whole building approach and quality

assurance.

Key weaknesses include, the inability to operate blind to fuel type, poor uptake of tenant

training services, insufficient market resear ch, lack of funding for additional training

services and not keeping up with client expect ations. The principal barriers continue to

be the split incentive issue, uncertainty of e quipment performance, financial constraints

and lack of program awareness.

The findings that came out of this study will be taken into consideration in the statewide

working group to inform successful imple mentation of the program moving forward.

Results from this study did not drive changes to the reported savings and benefits for the

Low-Income Multi-Family Program.

34

# C. Commercial & Industrial

1. By BCR Activity

Table 9 presents a summary of the number of customers served, the annual savings, the

lifetime savings, and the costs in curred for the commercial & i ndustrial programs. It also

presents the benefit-cost ratio, based on th e total resource cost test. The costs and

benefits used to derive this ratio are the same as those presented in Table 4.

The Small C&I Retrofit Program contribute s the most annual and lifetime energy and

capacity savings and non-electric benefits. All of the programs are cost-effective.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Benefit-Cost

Activity kWh kWh per

Customer kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB Activity per

Customer TRC

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 63 989,771 15,711 282.20 $1,139 14,425 3,992 $17,083 $469,945 $7,459 5.78

C03a Large C&I Retrofit 32 2,521,062 78,783 347.98 $857 35,170 4,844 $11,137 $1,248,429 $39,013 4.08

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 353 4,613,133 13,068 1,034.29 $9,019 59,663 13,565 $117,242 $3,394,506 $9,616 3.00

TOTAL 448 8,123,966 18,134 1,664.46 $11,014 109,258 22,402 $145,462 $5,112,881 $11,413 3.52 TABLE 9

IMPACT BY C&I BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime CostParticipant



# 2. By End Use

Table 10 presents a summary of the lifetim e energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the co mmercial & industrial

programs.

Most of the energy savings, capacity savings, and non-electric benefits are from lighting

measures. The non-electric benefits in the C& I sector are primarily from reduced O&M

costs as a result of efficient light bulbs with longer operating lives.

There is no difference between the reported and preliminary results for C&I programs

since there were no updates from evaluation studies this year.

Preliminary Report Preliminary Report Preliminary Report



# Lighting 60,673 60,673 12,940 12,940 $145,462 $145,462

HVAC 22,182 22,182 4,427 4,427 $0 $0

Motors / Drives 19,797 19,797 4,378 4,378 $0 $0

Refrigeration 6,607 6,607 657 657 $0 $0

Hot Water 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Compressed Air NA NA NA NA NA NA

Process 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

End User Behavior 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Total 109,258 109,258 22,402 22,402 $145,462 $145,462 TABLE 10

IMPACT BY C&I END-USES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB End Use



# Figures 19 through 21 present the same information as Table 10.

35

# FIGURE 19

C&I LIFETIME MWH - END-USE

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME MWH 

## End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting



# FIGURE 20

C&I LIFETIME kW - END USE

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME kW 

## End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting



# 36

# FIGURE 21

C&I LIFETIME $ NEB - END-USE

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000

Preliminary Report

PRELIMINARY VERSUS EVALUATEDLIFETIME $ NEB 

## End User Behavior

Process

Compressed Air

Hot Water

Refrigeration

Motors / Drives

HVAC

Lighting



# 3. Program Evaluation

Commercial and Industrial New Construction Program



# No new evaluation activities were conducte d on the results of this program in 2009.

Medium and Large Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program



# No new evaluation activities were conducte d on the results of this program in 2009.

Small Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program



# Market Assessment and Best Practices for Delivering Plug-Load Energy Efficiency in

Business – Final Report , PA Consulting Group, June 14, 2010.

The purpose of this study was to provide in formation on current plug-load programs,

provide a preliminary estimate for potenti al energy savings, and recommend program

strategies for the C&I sector, with an emphasis on small businesses.

The scope of this study was somewhat lim ited as there was no budget for primary data

collection and analysis. While the results of the study includ e certain caveats, including

recommendations for primary data collection, the results also poi nt to a number of

overarching recommendations, as well as num erous measure specific strategies for

consideration. Overarching recomme ndations include the following:

• Integrate plug-load efficien cy into existing programs;

• Consider programs that target upstream market actors;

• Explore the use of total wo rk space control systems;

• Provide plug-load efficiency training and education.

37

# Measure specific recommendati ons include the following:

• Distribute smart strips during energy audits and as part of a direct install program;

• Distribute educational materials on the benefits of computer and monitor power

management;

• Encourage replacement of office task lights with energy efficient lights.

All recommendations from this study will be taken into consideration by the appropriate

statewide PA working group. It is anticipated that some of the recommendations will be

used to enhance C&I program offerings, and potentially residential program offerings as

well.

Government Agencies Program



# No new evaluation activities were conducte d on the results of this program in 2009.

Commercial and Industrial Products and Services Program



# No new evaluation activities were conducte d on the results of this program in 2009.

38

# IV. Appendices

Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

Appendix 2. Impact Factors

Appendix 3. Detailed Benefits and Costs by BCR Activity

Appendix 4. Comparison of Planned a nd Reported Outsourced and In-House

Expenditures

Appendix 5. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive

Appendix 6. Energy Efficiency Evaluations & Studies

Appendix 7. Performance Metrics Related Documents and Reports

Appendix 8. Detailed Savings Calculations of the 2009 Programs

Appendix 9. Progress Report/U pdate on Compliance Items

Appendix 10. Variance Analysis

Appendix 11. Cape Light Compact’s Year End 2009 Town Program Activity Reports

(Cape Light Compact-S pecific Appendix)

39

# Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 1



# Annual kWh Reduction Expected net annual energy savi ngs after all impact factors

have been taken into consideration.

AMP Appliance Management Program

BBRS Board of Building Regu lations and Standards

CAP Community Action Program

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency

CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamps

Coincident Peak Demand Demand for electricity at the time of the Company’s peak

demand.

Delta Watts The difference in the wattage between pre-existing or

baseline lighting equipment and energy efficient lighting

equipment.

Demand The amount of electric energy used by a customer or a piece

of equipment at a specific tim e, expressed in kilowatts.

Demand Adjustment Factor This factor is a combination of one or more evaluation

impact parameters applied to gross demand savings in the

calculation of net demand savings.

Diversity That characteristic of a variety of electric loads whereby

individual maximum demands usually occur at different

times.

Diversity Factor Percent of savings available atthe time of the Company’s

peak demand.

DOE Department of Energy

DOER Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources

D&R D&R International, the contra ctor to DOE and EPA that

monitors sales of ENERGY STAR® appliances.

DSM Demand Side Management

DTE Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and

Energy

EFLH Equivalent Full Load Hours

1 

# Much of this glossary was taken from Massachusetts Electric and Nantucket Electric, 2003 Energy

Efficiency Annual Report , submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy,

September 2004. In addition to this glossary, a glossa ry completed in March 2009 for the Regional EM&V

Forum with additional terms and acronyms is now available at: http://www.neep.org/EMVinfo.html

# Energy Adjustment Factor A factor made up of one or more evaluation impact

parameters applied to gross kW h savings in the calculation

of net kWh savings.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPACT Energy Policy Act

ENERGY STAR® Brand name for the voluntary energy efficiency labeling

initiative sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and Department of Energy.

Free Riders Customers who participate in an energy efficiency program

but would have installed the sa me measure(s) on their own if

the program had not been available.

Free-Ridership Rate The percent of savings attr ibutable to Free Riders.

Gross kW Expected demand reduction based on a comparison of

standard or replaced equipment, and equipment installed

through an energy efficiency program.

Gross kWh Expected kWh reduction based on a comparison of standard

or replaced equipment, and e quipment installed through an

energy efficiency program.

GWh Gigawatt-hour – a measure of electricity usage over time

equal to 1,000 megawatt-hour s or 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours.

Hours of Use The estimated number of hours per year that a measure

operates.

Hours of Use Realization

Rate Ratio of actual metered hours of use data to estimated hours

of use data.

HP Horsepower

HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning

Impact Factor Generic term for persistence, realization rates, in-service

rates, non-coincid ent connected demand factors, etc.,

developed during the evaluation of energy efficiency

programs and used to calculate net savings.

JMC The Joint Management Committee of utility and non-utility

parties that manages the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program.

kWh Kilowatt-hour – The basic unit of electric energy usage over

time. One kWh is equal to one kW of power supplied to a

circuit for a period of one hour.

kW Kilowatt – A measure of electric demand – 1000 watts

kW – Years See: Lifetime kW

Lifetime The expected length of time, in years, that an installed

measure will be in service and producing savings.

Lifetime kW The expected demand savings over the lifetime of an

# installed measure, calculated by multiplying the annual peak

kW reduction associated with a measure by the expected

lifetime of that measure. It is expressed in units of kWyears.

Lifetime MWh The expected energy savings over the lifetime of an installed

measure, calculated by multiplying the annual MWh

reduction associated with a measure by the expected lifetime

of that measure.

LIHEAP Low Income Heating Assistance Program

Maximum Annual kW

Savings Peak annual demand savings of a measure. At the program

level, this equals the sum of the annual peak demand savings

across all measures.

Measure Specific technology or practice that produces energy and/or

demand savings for which the company provides financial

incentives.

MPER Multi-Year Program Evaluation and Market Progress

Reporting, or Market Progre ss and Evaluation Report,

developed for various residential programs.

MW Megawatt – a measure of electric demand equal to 1,000

kilowatts.

MWh Megawatt-hour – a measure of energy use over time equal to

1,000 kilowatt-hours.

NATE North American Technician Excellence Program

NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships

O&M Operation and Maintenance

Off-Peak energy kWh The kWh reduction that occurs during the Company’s offpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. and

all day of weekends and holidays)

On-Peak Energy kWh The kWh reduction that occurs during the Company’s onpeak hours for energy. (Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.,

except holidays)

Persistence Rate Percentage of first year ener gy or demand savings expected

to persist over the life of the installed energy efficiency

equipment; developed by conducting surveys of installed

equipment several years after installation to determine

presence and operational capab ility of the equipment.

RCS Residential Conservation Services. Formerly Energy

Conservation Services or ECS

Seasonal (Winter/Summer)

kW The net demand reduction during either the Winter or

Summer seasons.

Spillover Additional energy efficient equipment installed by customers

# that were influenced by the Company’s sponsored program,

but without direct fi nancial or technical assistance from the

program. Spillover is separated into Participantand Nonparticipant factors. Non-participating customers may be

influenced by product availabi lity, publicity, education, and

other factors that are affected by the program.

Spillover Rate Estimate of energy savings attributable to spillover effects

expressed as a percent of savi ngs installed by participants

through an energy efficiency program.

VSD Variable Speed Drive

WAP Weatherization Assistance Program

Watt The basic electrical unit of power.

# Appendix 2. Impact Factors

The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated

savings for the Commercial & Industrial programs in 2009. Comm ercial & Industrial

impact factors were not evaluated in 2009.

Table A2.1 Commercial & Industrial Program Evaluation Impact Factors

BCR Activity Program End

Use Measure

Life Free

Ridership

Rate Spillover

[Participant]

Rate Spillover

[NonParticipant]

Rate InService

Rate

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction ALght 15 30.70% 6.20% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction BHVAC 15 33.20% 8.80% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction CMoDr 20 21.10% 17.70% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction DRefr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction EHoWa 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction ALght 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction BHVAC 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction CMoDr 20 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction DRefr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02b C&I Govt New Construction EHoWa 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit ALght 13 5.70% 3.20% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit BHVAC 12 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit DRefr 13 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit EHoWa 10 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large ALght 13 0.60% 3.40% 2.90% 89%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large BHVAC 12 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large DRefr 13 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03c C&I Govt Large BHVAC 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit ALght 13 5.70% 3.20% 2.90% 86%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit BHVAC 10 43.30% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit DRefr 10 4.20% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit EHoWa 10 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small ALght 13 0.60% 3.40% 2.90% 89%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small BHVAC 10 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03d C&I Govt Small DRefr 10 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services ALght 15 27.90% 13.40% 2.60% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services BHVAC 13 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C04c C&I Products & Services CMoDr 15 0.00% 0.00% 2.90% 100%



# Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% for the In-Service Rate nor 0% for the

Free Ridership, Participant Spillover, or Non-Participant Spillover Rates.

# The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated

savings for residential programs offered by the Cape Light Compact in 2009. Impact

factors shown below for most programs repr esent the common assumptions developed by

Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information

on measures in statewide programs. The Resi dential Lighting program impact factors in

bold were updated in 2009.

Table A2.2 Residential Program Evaluation Impact Factors

BCR Activity Measure Measure

Life Free

Ridership

Rate Spillover

[Participant]

Rate Spillover

[NonParticipant]

Rate InService

Rate

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart AC SEER 14 (Equip) - EER 11.5-11.99 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart HP SEER 14 (Equip) - 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart AC SEER 14 => (Equip) - EER>=12 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart HP SEER 14=> (Equip) 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart AC SEER 14.5 (Equip) - EER 12 (Jan 09 ES Spec) 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart HP SEER 14.5 (Equip) - EER 12 (Jan 09 ES Spec) 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart AC SEER 15.0 => (Equip) - EER>=12.5 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart HP SEER 15.0 => (Equip) 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart AC QIV NES 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart AC QIV ES 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart HP QIV NES 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart HP QIV ES 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart AC Digital Check-up/Tune-up 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart HP Digital Check-up/Tune-up 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC CoolSmart Wm Air Furnace ECM (GN Reb) 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Duct Sealing - 100 CFM redcution in leaks 20% of flow to 10% 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Down Size 1/2 ton 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Mini Splits (Ductless) 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Mini Split HP SEER 14.5, EER 12 (Ductless) 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Equipt Tier I or II >= 12 EER w/ Sizing 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Early Replacement of equip age 13 years old, rmng life 7 years wit h 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Early Retirement w/ Energy Star QI 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Early Retirement E*QI w/ Duct modifications 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Brushless Furnace Fan Motor 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC TXV rplcment of fixed orifice 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Rightsizing Tier 2 14.5/12 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02b Residential HVAC Rightsizing Top Tier 15/12.5 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%



## BCR Activity Measure Measure

Life Free

Ridership

Rate Spillover

[Participant]

Rate Spillover

[NonParticipant]

Rate InService

Rate

A04b Residential Appliances AC (retirement value) 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances AC (energy star value) 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances AC (retirement value) turn-in 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances AC (energy star value) turn-in 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances ECM Heat (CLC-specific) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances Clothes Washer - oil 11 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27%

A04b Residential Appliances Clothes Washer - gas 11 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27%

A04b Residential Appliances Clothes Washer - electric 11 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27%

A04b Residential Appliances Dehumidifiers (retirement value) turn-in 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances Dehumidifiers (energy star value) turn-in 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances Refrigerator (savings over full life compar e 13 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances 2nd Refrigerator Removal 5 35.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances Consumer Electronics - TVs 6 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances Consumer Electronics - Set Top Boxes 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A04b Residential Appliances Consumer Electronics - Smart Strips 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75%

A04b Residential Appliances Pool Pumps 10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%BCR Activity Measure Measure

Life Free

Ridership

Rate Spillover

[Participant]

Rate Spillover

[NonParticipant]

Rate InService

Rate

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 1 (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 1 (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 1 (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 2 (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 2 (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 2 (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 3 (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 3 (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity RNC ES Homes 3 (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity CP ES Homes (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity CP ES Homes (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity CP ES Homes (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to new baseline equipment) 13 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100 %

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Dishwashers 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Fixtures 11 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity ES Homes Screw-in Bulbs 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 1 Cooling 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 1 Heating 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 1 Water Heating 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 1 Lighting 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 1 Appliances 14 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 2 Cooling 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 2 Heating 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 2 Water Heating 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 2 Lighting 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 2 Appliances 14 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 3 Cooling 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 3 Heating 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 3 Water Heating 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 3 Lighting 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 3 Appliances 14 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 4 Cooling 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 4 Heating 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 4 Water Heating 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 4 Lighting 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity GAF - Efficiency Tier 4 Appliances 14 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 1 (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 1 (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 1 (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 2 (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 2 (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 2 (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 3 (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 3 (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI RNC ES Homes 3 (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI CP ES Homes (Heating) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI CP ES Homes (Cooling) 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI CP ES Homes (Water Heating) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to new baseline equipment) 13 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI Dishwashers 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI Interior Fixtures 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 96%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity LI ES Homes Screw-in Bulbs 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Free CFL 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 90%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Insulation, Oil 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Insulation, Gas 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Insulation, Electric 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Insulation, Other Fuels 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Air Sealing, Oil 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Air Sealing, Gas 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Air Sealing, Electric 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Air Sealing, Other Fuels 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Seal, Oil 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Seal, Gas 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Seal, Electric 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Seal, Other FF 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Insulation, Oil 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Insulation, Gas 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Insulation, Electric 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Duct Insulation, Other FF 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Thermostats, Oil 10 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Thermostats, Electric 10 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Heating System Replacement, Oil 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Heating System Replacement, Gas 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Heating System Replacement, Other Fuels 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Indirect Water Heater, Oil 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Solar Hot Water, Electric (2-person) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Solar Hot Water, Electric (3-person) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Solar Hot Water, Electric (4-person) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - DHW ISMs, Oil 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - DHW ISMs, Gas 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - DHW ISMs, Electric 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - DHW ISMs, Other Fuels 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - ES Window, Oil 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - ES Window, Gas 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - ES Window, Electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - ES Window, Other Fuels 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Refrigerator (savings over remaining life of existing 1 35.00% 36.00% 0. 00% 100%

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Major Renovation Pilot - Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to ne w 13 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100%

### BCR Activity Measure Measure

Life Free

Ridership

Rate Spillover

[Participant]

Rate Spillover

[NonParticipant]

Rate InService

Rate

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Free CFL 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 90%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Free CFL (piggyback on other utility audits) 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 90%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Torchiere 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Oil 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Gas 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Electric 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Insulation, Other Fuels 25 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Oil 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Gas 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Electric 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Air Sealing, Other Fuels 15 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Seal, Oil 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Seal, Gas 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Seal, Electric 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Seal, Other FF 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Insulation, Oil 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Insulation, Gas 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Insulation, Electric 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Duct Insulation, Other FF 20 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Thermostats, Oil 10 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Thermostats, Electric 10 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Hot Water Boiler 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Heating System Replacement, Oil 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Heating System Replacement, Gas 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Heating System Replacement, Other Fuels 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Indirect Water Heater, Oil 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Appliance/Pool Timers 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Solar Hot Water, Electric (2-person) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Solar Hot Water, Electric (3-person) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Solar Hot Water, Electric (4-person) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 DHW ISMs, Oil 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 DHW ISMs, Gas 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 DHW ISMs, Electric 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 DHW ISMs, Other Fuels 7 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Oil 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Gas 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Other Fuels 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (savings over remaining life of exi s 1 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to 13 35.00% 36.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Deep Retrofit Pilot - Electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Deep Retrofit Pilot - Gas 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Deep Retrofit Pilot - Oil 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Deep Retrofit Pilot - Propane/Other 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 CHP 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Waterbed Replacement 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Weather Responsive Controls (Boiler Reset) 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%



## BCR Activity Measure Measure

Life Free

Ridership

Rate Spillover

[Participant]

Rate Spillover

[NonParticipant]

Rate InService

Rate

A04a Residential Lighting Screw-in Bulbs (incl. NCP and rebates) 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40%

A04a Residential Lighting Indoor Fixture 20 8.00% 4.00% 0.00% 95%

A04a Residential Lighting Outdoor Fixture 6 12.00% 7.00% 0.00% 87%

A04a Residential Lighting Torchiere 8 6.00% 3.00% 0.00% 83%

A04a Residential Lighting LED Fixtures 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 73%



# Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% for the In-Service Rate nor 0% for the

Free Ridership, Participant Spillover, or Non-Participant Spillover Rates.



# The table below presents the impact factors that were used to calculate the evaluated

savings for low income programs offered by the Cape Light Compact in 2009. Impact

factors shown below for most programs repr esent the common assumptions developed by

Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information

# on measures in statewide programs. Low Inco me impact factors were not evaluated in

2009.

Table A2.3 Low Income Program Evaluation Impact Factors

BCR Activity Measure Measure

Life Free

Ridership

Rate Spillover

[Participant]

Rate Spillover

[NonParticipant]

Rate InService

Rate

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Baseload 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Other Wx 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Gas Wx 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Electric Wx 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Oil Wx 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Heating System Retrofit - Oil 18 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 CFL's 16 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Fixtures 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Torchiere 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (savings over remainin 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Refrigerator (savings over full life c o 19 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Replacement Freezer 19 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Oil 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Gas 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 ES Window, Other Fuels 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 DHWater Measure (elec) 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 DHWater Measure (OIL) 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 DHWater Measure (gas&other) 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 AC or POOL Timer 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Dehumidifiers retirement value (CL C 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Dehumidifiers energy star value (C L 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Fuel switching (CLC-specific) 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Window AC Replacements 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Tstats - Electric 10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Tstats - Oil 10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Tstats - Other 10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily CFL 16 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily ES Window, Oil 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily ES Window, Gas 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily ES Window, Electric 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily ES Window, Other Fuels 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Refrigerator (savings over remainin 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Refrigerator (savings over full life c o 13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily DHWs 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Dehumidifiers retirement value (CL C 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Dehumidifiers energy star value (C L 12 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Insulation & Air Sealing - electric 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Insulation & Air Sealing - oil 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Insulation & Air Sealing - gas 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Insulation & Air Sealing - propane 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%



# Note: Shaded cells indicate impact factors that are neither 100% for the In-Service Rate nor 0% for the

Free Ridership, Participant Spillover, or Non-Participant Spillover Rates.

# Appendix 3. Detailed Benefits and Costs by BCR Activity

Appendix 3 is comprised of three tables: Ta ble 1, Table 2, and Table 3. All tables are

organized by BCR Activity. All tables provide planned and re ported values, as well as the

difference between the repor ted and planned values.

• Table 1 provides a summary of the total resource cost (TRC) benefit cost ratios as

well as the TRC benefits and TRC costs that comprise the ratios.

• Table 2 provides the total costs as we ll as various subtotals of the cost

components.

• Table 3 provides the total benefits as well as totals for the co mponents of the total

benefits.BCR-Activity by SectorBenefit / CostRatioSum of NetBenefitsSum of TRCBenefitsSum of TRCCosts Sum of PA CostsResidentialA02a Residential Lost Opportunity Total 3.10 $2,474,675 $3,650,409 $1,175,734 $1,028,413A02b Residential HVAC Total 2.41 $559,301 $956,954 $397,653 $347,753A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Total 4.51 $13,753,587 $17,668,466 $3,914,879 $2,360,062A04a Residential Lighting Total 12.50 $9,391,758 $10,208,585 $816,827 $633,615A04b Residential Appliances Total 1.39 $218,816 $774,119 $555,302 $255,804A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NASubtotal: Residential4.85 $26,398,137 $33,258,532 $6,860,395 $4,625,647Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 3.16 $2,427,441 $3,550,402 $1,122,962 $1,122,962B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily5.74 $1,940,781 $2,349,996 $409,214 $409,214B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NASubtotal: Low Income3.85 $4,368,222 $5,900,398 $1,532,176 $1,532,176Commercial & IndustrialC02a C&I Lost Opportunity Total 2.92 $773,129 $1,175,997 $402,867 $359,183C03a Large C&I Retrofit Total 2.80 $1,634,784 $2,540,552 $905,768 $740,775C03b Small C&I Retrofit Total 3.31 $7,464,552 $10,695,408 $3,230,856 $2,809,853C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NANANANANASubtotal: C&I3.17 $9,872,466 $14,411,957 $4,539,491 $3,909,811Grand Total 4.14$40,638,825$53,570,887$12,932,063$10,067,635Appendix 3: Table 1Summary of Benefit/Cost Ratios by ProgramLifetime Impacts of Measures Installed in 2009PlannedBCR-Activity by SectorBenefit / CostRatioSum of NetBenefitsSum of TRCBenefitsSum of TRCCostsSum of PACostsResidentialA02a Residential Lost Opportunity Total 2.62 $719,813 $1,163,373 $443,560 $442,635A02b Residential HVAC Total 4.22 $201,663 $264,201 $62,539 $62,539A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Total 4.12 $10,411,383 $13,745,762 $3,334,379 $2,826,273A04a Residential Lighting Total 4.30 $1,362,705 $1,775,504 $412,799 $404,361A04b Residential Appliances Total 6.63 $1,285,098 $1,513,556 $228,457 $226,509A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NASubtotal: Residential4.12 $13,980,662 $18,462,396 $4,481,734 $3,962,316Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 4.19 $2,629,573 $3,454,183 $824,610 $824,610B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily5.36 $739,728 $909,542 $169,814 $169,814B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NASubtotal: Low Income4.39 $3,369,301 $4,363,725 $994,424 $994,424Commercial & IndustrialC02a C&I Lost Opportunity Total 5.78 $2,246,500 $2,716,446 $469,945 $466,762C03a Large C&I Retrofit Total 4.08 $3,849,625 $5,098,054 $1,248,429 $448,602C03b Small C&I Retrofit Total 3.00 $6,783,742 $10,178,248 $3,394,506 $3,029,003C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NANANANANASubtotal: C&I3.52 $12,879,867 $17,992,748 $5,112,881 $3,944,366Grand Total 3.85$30,229,831$40,818,869$10,589,038$8,901,106Appendix 3: Table 1Summary of Benefit/Cost Ratios by ProgramLifetime Impacts of Measures Installed in 2009ReportedBCR-Activity by SectorBenefit /CostRatioSum of NetBenefitsSum of TRCBenefitsSum of TRCCostsSum of PACostsResidentialA02a Residential Lost Opportunity Total -0.48 -$1,754,862 -$2,487,036 -$732,174 -$585,778A02b Residential HVAC Total 1.82 -$357,638 -$692,753 -$335,115 -$285,215A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Total -0.39 -$3,342,204 -$3,922,704 -$580,500 $466,212A04a Residential Lighting Total -8.20 -$8,029,053 -$8,433,081 -$404,028 -$229,254A04b Residential Appliances Total 5.23 $1,066,282 $739,437 -$326,845 -$29,295A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NASubtotal: Residential-0.73 -$12,417,475 -$14,796,136 -$2,378,662 -$663,331Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 1.03 $202,132 -$96,220 -$298,352 -$298,352B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily-0.39 -$1,201,053 -$1,440,453 -$239,400 -$239,400B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NASubtotal: Low Income0.54 -$998,921 -$1,536,673 -$537,752 -$537,7520.00 $0 $0 $0 $0Commercial & Industrial0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0C02a C&I Lost Opportunity Total 2.86 $1,473,371 $1,540,449 $67,078 $107,578C03a Large C&I Retrofit Total 1.28 $2,214,841 $2,557,502 $342,661 -$292,173C03b Small C&I Retrofit Total -0.31 -$680,810 -$517,160 $163,650 $219,150C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NANANANANASubtotal: C&I0.34 $3,007,402 $3,580,791 $573,390 $34,555Grand Total -0.29 -$10,408,994 -$12,752,018 -$2,343,024 -$1,166,529Appendix 3: Table 1Summary of Benefit/Cost Ratios by ProgramLifetime Impacts of Measures Installed in 2009VarianceBCR-Activity ProgramTotal TRCCostsTotal PA CostsProgramImplementationCustomer EvaluationShareholderIncentiveA02a Residential Lost Opportunity A02a Energy Star Homes $1,175,734 $1,028,413 $995,172 $530,177 $33,241 NA$1,175,734 $1,028,413 $995,172 $530,177 $33,241 $0A02b Residential HVAC A02b Energy Star HVAC $397,653 $347,753 $338,257 $195,875 $9,496 NA$397,653 $347,753 $338,257 $195,875 $9,496 $0A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 A03a Residential Conservation Service $3,914,879 $2,360,062 $2,286,397 $1,391,090 $73,665 NA$3,914,879 $2,360,062 $2,286,397 $1,391,090 $73,665 $0A04a Residential Lighting A04a Energy Star Lighting (Includes Catalog) $816,827 $633,615 $613,771 $361,810 $19,844 NA$816,827 $633,615 $613,771 $361,810 $19,844 $0A04b Residential Appliances A04b Energy Star Appliance $555,302 $255,804 $221,651 $80,150 $34,153 NA$555,302 $255,804 $221,651 $80,150 $34,153 $0A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability A07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA$6,860,395 $4,625,647 $4,455,247 $2,559,102 $170,400 $0B03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 B03a Low-Income Single-Family Program $1,122,962 $1,122,962 $1,078,322 $722,022 $44,640 NA$1,122,962 $1,122,962 $1,078,322 $722,022 $44,640 $0B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily B03b Low-Income Multi-Family Program $409,214 $409,214 $404,254 $316,169 $4,960 NA$409,214 $409,214 $404,254 $316,169 $4,960 $0B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability B07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA$1,532,176 $1,532,176 $1,482,576 $1,038,191 $49,600 $0C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction $172,956 $164,050 $157,385 $127,694 $6,665 NAC02b C&I Govt New Construction $66,777 $65,384 $61,784 $48,011 $3,600 NAC04c C&I Products & Services $163,135 $129,749 $125,799 $47,117 $3,950 NA$402,867 $359,183 $344,968 $222,823 $14,215 $0C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit $365,756 $219,990 $210,264 $122,159 $9,725 NAC03c C&I Govt Large $540,012 $520,786 $491,986 $364,141 $28,800 NA$905,768 $740,775 $702,250 $486,300 $38,525 $0C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit $2,314,781 $1,925,554 $1,847,164 $1,476,057 $78,390 NAC03d C&I Govt Small $916,075 $884,299 $835,429 $665,329 $48,870 NA$3,230,856 $2,809,853 $2,682,593 $2,141,386 $127,260 $0C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability C07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA$4,539,491 $3,909,811 $3,729,811 $2,850,509 $180,000 $0$12,932,063 $10,067,635 $9,667,635 $6,447,802 $400,000 $0Appendix 3: Table 2Detail Summary of Costs by ProgramPlannedCost CategoriesA02a Residential Lost Opportunity TotalA02b Residential HVAC TotalA03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 TotalA04a Residential Lighting TotalA04b Residential Appliances TotalA07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalResidential TotalB03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 TotalB07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalLow-Income TotalGrand TotalC03b Small C&I Retrofit TotalC07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalB03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamilyCommercial & Industrial TotalC02a C&I Lost Opportunity TotalC03a Large C&I Retrofit TotalBCR-Activity ProgramTotal TRCCostsTotal PA CostsProgramImplementationCustomer EvaluationShareholderIncentiveA02a Residential Lost Opportunity A02a Energy Star Homes $443,560 $442,635 $433,934 $925 $8,701 NA$443,560 $442,635 $433,934 $925 $8,701 $0A02b Residential HVAC A02b Energy Star HVAC $62,539 $62,539 $61,309 $0 $1,229 NA$62,539 $62,539 $61,309 $0 $1,229 $0A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 A03a Residential Conservation Service $3,334,379 $2,826,273 $2,770,716 $508,105 $55,558 NA$3,334,379 $2,826,273 $2,770,716 $508,105 $55,558 $0A04a Residential Lighting A04a Energy Star Lighting (Includes Catalog) $412,799 $404,361 $396,412 $8,438 $7,949 NA$412,799 $404,361 $396,412 $8,438 $7,949 $0A04b Residential Appliances A04b Energy Star Appliance $228,457 $226,509 $222,056 $1,948 $4,453 NA$228,457 $226,509 $222,056 $1,948 $4,453 $0A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability A07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA$4,481,734 $3,962,316 $3,884,427 $519,417 $77,890 $0B03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 B03a Low-Income Single-Family Program $824,610 $824,610 $808,538 $0 $16,072 NA$824,610 $824,610 $808,538 $0 $16,072 $0B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily B03b Low-Income Multi-Family Program $169,814 $169,814 $166,614 $0 $3,200 NA$169,814 $169,814 $166,614 $0 $3,200 $0B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability B07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA$994,424 $994,424 $975,152 $0 $19,272 $0C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction $103,660 $103,660 $101,623 $0 $2,038 NAC02b C&I Govt New Construction $318,194 $318,194 $311,939 $0 $6,255 NAC04c C&I Products & Services $48,091 $44,908 $44,025 $3,184 $883 NA$469,945 $466,762 $457,586 $3,184 $9,175 $0C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit $346,759 $316,932 $310,702 $29,827 $6,230 NAC03c C&I Govt Large $901,670 $131,670 $129,082 $770,000 $2,588 NA$1,248,429 $448,602 $439,783 $799,827 $8,818 $0C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit $2,305,859 $1,940,355 $1,902,212 $365,504 $38,143 NAC03d C&I Govt Small $1,088,647 $1,088,647 $1,067,247 $0 $21,400 NA$3,394,506 $3,029,003 $2,969,460 $365,504 $59,543 $0C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability C07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA$5,112,881 $3,944,366 $3,866,829 $1,168,515 $77,537 $0$10,589,038 $8,901,106 $8,726,408 $1,687,932 $174,698 $0Appendix 3: Table 2Detail Summary of Costs by ProgramReportedCost CategoriesA02a Residential Lost Opportunity TotalA02b Residential HVAC TotalA03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 TotalA04a Residential Lighting TotalA04b Residential Appliances TotalA07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalResidential TotalB03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 TotalC03a Large C&I Retrofit TotalB07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalLow-Income TotalGrand TotalC03b Small C&I Retrofit TotalC07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalB03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamilyCommercial & Industrial TotalC02a C&I Lost Opportunity TotalBCR-Activity ProgramTotal TRCCostsTotal PA CostsProgramImplementationCustomer EvaluationShareholderIncentiveA02a Residential Lost Opportunity A02a Energy Star Homes -$732,174 -$585,778 -$561,238 -$529,252 -$24,540 NA-$732,174 -$585,778 -$561,238 -$529,252 -$24,540 $0A02b Residential HVAC A02b Energy Star HVAC -$335,115 -$285,215 -$276,948 -$195,875 -$8,267 NA-$335,115 -$285,215 -$276,948 -$195,875 -$8,267 $0A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 A03a Residential Conservation Service -$580,500 $466,212 $484,319 -$882,985 -$18,107 NA-$580,500 $466,212 $484,319 -$882,985 -$18,107 $0A04a Residential Lighting A04a Energy Star Lighting (Includes Catalog) -$404,028 -$229,254 -$217,359 -$353,372 -$11,895 NA-$404,028 -$229,254 -$217,359 -$353,372 -$11,895 $0A04b Residential Appliances A04b Energy Star Appliance -$326,845 -$29,295 $406 -$78,202 -$29,701 NA-$326,845 -$29,295 $406 -$78,202 -$29,701 $0A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability A07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA-$2,378,662 -$663,331 -$570,820 -$2,039,685 -$92,510 $0B03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 B03a Low-Income Single-Family Program -$298,352 -$298,352 -$269,784 -$722,022 -$28,568 NA-$298,352 -$298,352 -$269,784 -$722,022 -$28,568 $0B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily B03b Low-Income Multi-Family Program -$239,400 -$239,400 -$237,640 -$316,169 -$1,760 NA-$239,400 -$239,400 -$237,640 -$316,169 -$1,760 $0B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability B07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA-$537,752 -$537,752 -$507,424 -$1,038,191 -$30,328 $0C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction -$69,295 -$60,390 -$55,762 -$127,694 -$4,627 NAC02b C&I Govt New Construction $251,417 $252,810 $250,155 -$48,011 $2,655 NAC04c C&I Products & Services -$115,044 -$84,842 -$81,775 -$43,933 -$3,067 NA$67,078 $107,578 $112,618 -$219,639 -$5,039 $0C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit -$18,996 $96,942 $100,437 -$92,331 -$3,495 NAC03c C&I Govt Large $361,658 -$389,116 -$362,904 $405,859 -$26,212 NA$342,661 -$292,174 -$262,467 $313,527 -$29,707 $0C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit -$8,922 $14,801 $55,048 -$1,110,554 -$40,247 NAC03d C&I Govt Small $172,572 $204,348 $231,818 -$665,329 -$27,470 NA$163,650 $219,150 $286,867 -$1,775,882 -$67,717 $0C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability C07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA$573,390 $34,555 $137,018 -$1,681,994 -$102,463 $0-$2,343,024 -$1,166,529 -$941,227 -$4,759,870 -$225,302 $0Appendix 3: Table 2Detail Summary of Costs by ProgramVarianceCost CategoriesA02a Residential Lost Opportunity TotalA02b Residential HVAC TotalA03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 TotalA04a Residential Lighting TotalA04b Residential Appliances TotalA07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalResidential TotalB03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 TotalC03a Large C&I Retrofit TotalB07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalLow-Income TotalGrand TotalC03b Small C&I Retrofit TotalC07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability TotalB03b Low-Income Retrofit MultifamilyCommercial & Industrial TotalC02a C&I Lost Opportunity Total

## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Planned

Summer Winter

BCR Activit y

A - Residential $33,258,532 $3,948,939 $0 $786,957 $4,820,201 $658,584

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity $3,650,409 $160,669 $0 $31,378 $192,195 $22,948

A02b Residential HVAC $956,954 $291,741 $0 $59,421 $363,961 $54,879

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 $17,668,466 $2,865,056 $0 $549,643 $3,366,623 $344,780

A04a Residential Lighting $10,208,585 $555,612 $0 $129,696 $794,403 $216,597

A04b Residential Appliances $774,118 $75,861 $0 $16,819 $103,019 $19,380

B - Low Income $5,900,398 $56,910 $0 $13,234 $81,055 $18,145

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 $3,550,402 $48,264 $0 $11,223 $68,739 $16,460

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily $2,349,996 $8,646 $0 $2,011 $12,316 $1,685

C - Commercial & Industrial $14,411,957 $2,359,360 $0 $480,732 $2,944,531 $467,161

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity $1,175,997 $224,934 $0 $45,063 $276,018 $39,573

C03a Large C&I Retrofit $2,540,552 $418,265 $0 $85,173 $521,691 $82,488

C03b Small C&I Retrofit $10,695,408 $1,716,162 $0 $350,496 $2,146,822 $345,100

TOTA L $53,570,887 $6,365,209 $0 $1,280,923 $7,845,787 $1,143,890



## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Reported

Summer Winter

A - Residential $18,462,396 $2,040,230 $0 $401,993 $2,462,250 $314,050

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity $1,163,373 $109,125 $0 $20,942 $128,272 $13,251

A02b Residential HVAC $264,201 $84,609 $0 $16,522 $101,202 $12,118

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 $13,745,762 $1,690,646 $0 $329,627 $2,019,002 $237,601

A04a Residential Lighting $1,775,504 $107,065 $0 $24,866 $152,306 $40,922

A04b Residential Appliances $1,513,556 $48,786 $0 $10,035 $61,468 $10,158

B - Low Income $4,363,725 $195,254 $0 $38,774 $237,494 $31,033

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 $3,454,183 $193,975 $0 $38,501 $235,823 $30,805

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily $909,542 $1,279 $0 $273 $1,671 $228

C - Commercial & Industrial $17,992,748 $2,708,921 $0 $548,802 $3,361,471 $515,986

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity $2,716,446 $483,291 $0 $97,203 $595,377 $87,482

C03a Large C&I Retrofit $5,098,054 $586,242 $0 $118,181 $723,868 $107,873

C03b Small C&I Retrofit $10,178,248 $1,639,388 $0 $333,419 $2,042,226 $320,631

TOTA L $40,818,869 $4,944,405 $0 $989,569 $6,061,216 $861,069



## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

V ariance

Summer Winter

A - Residential (14,796,136) $ (1,908,709) $ - $ (384,964) $ (2,357,951) $ (344,534) $

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity (2,487,036) $ (51,544) $ - $ (10,436) $ (63,923) $ (9,697) $

A02b Residential HVAC (692,753) $ (207,132) $ - $ (42,899) $ (262,759) $ (42,761) $

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 (3,922,704) $ (1,174,410) $ - $ (220,016) $ (1,347,621) $ (107,179) $

A04a Residential Lighting (8,433,081) $ (448,547) $ - $ (104,830) $ (642,097) $ (175,675) $

A04b Residential Appliances 739,438 $ (27,075) $ - $ (6,784) $ (41,551) $ (9,222) $

B - Low Income (1,536,673) $ 138,344 $ - $ 25,540 $ 156,439 $ 12,888 $

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 (96,219) $ 145,711 $ - $ 27,278 $ 167,084 $ 14,345 $

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily (1,440,454) $ (7,367) $ - $ (1,738) $ (10,645) $ (1,457) $

C - Commercial & Industrial 3,580,791 $ 349,560 $ - $ 68,071 $ 416,940 $ 48,825 $

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 1,540,449 $ 258,357 $ - $ 52,139 $ 319,359 $ 47,909 $

C03a Large C&I Retrofit 2,557,502 $ 167,977 $ - $ 33,008 $ 202,177 $ 25,385 $

C03b Small C&I Retrofit (517,160) $ (76,774) $ - $ (17,077) $ (104,597) $ (24,469) $

TOTA L (12,752,018) $ (1,420,804) $ - $ (291,353) $ (1,784,572) $ (282,821) $ Capacity Total Benefits

Total Benefits

Total Benefits Capacity Generation

Total Benefits DRIPE Trans MDC

Trans Total Benefits Capacity

Generation

Trans MDC DRIPE

Total Benefits

Generation

MDC DRIPE

## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Planned

BCR Activit y

A - Residential

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

A02b Residential HVAC

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A04a Residential Lighting

A04b Residential Appliances

B - Low Income

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

C - Commercial & Industrial

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

TOTA L



## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Reported

A - Residential

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

A02b Residential HVAC

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A04a Residential Lighting

A04b Residential Appliances

B - Low Income

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

C - Commercial & Industrial

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

TOTA L



## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

V ariance

A - Residential

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

A02b Residential HVAC

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A04a Residential Lighting

A04b Residential Appliances

B - Low Income

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

C - Commercial & Industrial

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

TOTA L Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak

$3,040,502 $3,121,197 $2,161,996 $1,691,288 $518,264 $592,302 $527,157 $281,480

$149,550 $132,966 $117,854 $77,479 $15,904 $15,868 $18,618 $8,102

$88,405 $20,873 $44,833 $12,475 $7,878 $2,059 $8,924 $1,505

$644,937 $676,324 $919,153 $492,299 $56,676 $65,828 $119,415 $41,643

$2,087,729 $2,217,133 $1,044,539 $1,072,988 $426,877 $495,853 $370,709 $224,483

$69,881 $73,901 $35,617 $36,047 $10,929 $12,694 $9,491 $5,747

$197,934 $209,254 $101,222 $101,998 $30,323 $35,222 $26,331 $15,945

$166,583 $176,171 $85,095 $85,807 $26,892 $31,237 $23,353 $14,142

$31,351 $33,083 $16,127 $16,191 $3,431 $3,985 $2,978 $1,803

$2,442,445 $1,579,733 $1,705,713 $972,332 $288,678 $205,662 $349,618 $118,666

$190,704 $105,127 $140,948 $64,332 $20,194 $12,103 $24,834 $6,742

$428,107 $279,644 $293,309 $164,707 $50,428 $36,248 $58,854 $19,710

$1,823,633 $1,194,962 $1,271,455 $743,293 $218,056 $157,311 $265,931 $92,215

$5,680,881 $4,910,184 $3,968,931 $2,765,618 $837,265 $833,186 $903,106 $416,091

Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak

$1,175,016 $1,236,766 $1,025,166 $719,446 $203,573 $235,755 $228,955 $115,553

$51,475 $54,143 $27,078 $26,659 $6,248 $7,258 $5,484 $3,296

$8,932 $2,109 $26,046 $7,197 $787 $206 $3,828 $646

$642,349 $680,301 $733,564 $442,486 $113,240 $131,534 $147,306 $67,808

$353,034 $374,787 $176,810 $181,482 $71,006 $82,479 $61,663 $37,340

$119,227 $125,427 $61,669 $61,622 $12,292 $14,279 $10,675 $6,464

$115,756 $122,214 $59,605 $59,771 $16,252 $18,878 $14,138 $8,550

$110,879 $117,087 $57,075 $57,252 $15,797 $18,349 $13,743 $8,311

$4,877 $5,128 $2,530 $2,519 $455 $528 $395 $239

$3,614,968 $1,731,030 $2,809,253 $1,238,316 $410,500 $222,584 $539,258 $146,195

$368,585 $169,799 $544,072 $177,485 $39,944 $20,003 $97,066 $19,056

$1,500,680 $412,761 $941,572 $273,548 $163,642 $52,725 $174,019 $31,805

$1,745,703 $1,148,471 $1,323,608 $787,284 $206,915 $149,856 $268,173 $95,334

$4,905,740 $3,090,011 $3,894,024 $2,017,533 $630,325 $477,217 $782,351 $270,299

Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak Peak Off Peak

(1,865,486) $ (1,884,431) $ (1,136,830) $ (971,842) $ (314,691) $ (356,547) $ (298,202) $ (165,927) $

(98,075) $ (78,823) $ (90,776) $ (50,820) $ (9,656) $ (8,610) $ (13,134) $ (4,806) $

(79,473) $ (18,764) $ (18,787) $ (5,278) $ (7,091) $ (1,853) $ (5,096) $ (859) $

(2,588) $ 3,977 $ (185,589) $ (49,813) $ 56,564 $ 65,706 $ 27,891 $ 26,165 $

(1,734,695) $ (1,842,346) $ (867,729) $ (891,506) $ (355,871) $ (413,374) $ (309,046) $ (187,143) $

49,346 $ 51,526 $ 26,052 $ 25,575 $ 1,363 $ 1,585 $ 1,184 $ 717 $

(82,178) $ (87,040) $ (41,617) $ (42,227) $ (14,071) $ (16,344) $ (12,193) $ (7,395) $

(55,704) $ (59,084) $ (28,020) $ (28,555) $ (11,095) $ (12,888) $ (9,610) $ (5,831) $

(26,474) $ (27,955) $ (13,597) $ (13,672) $ (2,976) $ (3,457) $ (2,583) $ (1,564) $

1,172,523 $ 151,297 $ 1,103,540 $ 265,984 $ 121,822 $ 16,922 $ 189,640 $ 27,529 $

177,881 $ 64,671 $ 403,124 $ 113,152 $ 19,750 $ 7,900 $ 72,232 $ 12,315 $

1,072,573 $ 133,116 $ 648,263 $ 108,841 $ 113,214 $ 16,478 $ 115,165 $ 12,095 $

(77,930) $ (46,491) $ 52,154 $ 43,991 $ (11,142) $ (7,455) $ 2,242 $ 3,119 $

(775,140) $ (1,820,174) $ (74,907) $ (748,085) $ (206,940) $ (355,969) $ (120,755) $ (145,792) $ Energy Energy

Winter DRIPE Summer DRIPE

Winter DRIPE Summer DRIPE Total Benefits

Summer

Energy Energy

Winter DRIPE Summer DRIPE Summer

Winter Energy Energy Winter

Total Benefits

Winter Summer Total Benefits

## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Planned

BCR Activit y

A - Residential

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

A02b Residential HVAC

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A04a Residential Lighting

A04b Residential Appliances

B - Low Income

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

C - Commercial & Industrial

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

TOTA L



## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Reported

A - Residential

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

A02b Residential HVAC

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A04a Residential Lighting

A04b Residential Appliances

B - Low Income

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

C - Commercial & Industrial

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

TOTA L



## Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

V ariance

A - Residential

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity

A02b Residential HVAC

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4

A04a Residential Lighting

A04b Residential Appliances

B - Low Income

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

C - Commercial & Industrial

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity

C03a Large C&I Retrofit

C03b Small C&I Retrofit

TOTA L $10,583,588 $526,077 2,159 3,434 34,040 13,579 120,825

$2,648,119 $58,759 74 502 1,376 404 5,975

$0 $0 186 57 2,485 119 1,895

$7,508,475 $17,614 1,123 229 24,530 2,072 34,282

$0 $571,966 699 2,629 4,984 10,710 76,019

$426,994 -$122,262 77 16 666 274 2,654

$2,170,801 $2,842,024 74 182 525 821 7,554

$971,703 $1,824,733 60 160 443 675 6,339

$1,199,098 $1,017,291 15 22 81 146 1,215

$0 $497,325 1,507 843 19,531 6,178 79,716

$0 $25,424 128 70 1,860 399 5,936

$0 $101,929 266 132 3,458 1,064 13,883

$0 $369,972 1,113 640 14,213 4,715 59,896

$12,754,389 $3,865,426 3,740 4,459 54,096 20,577 208,095

$8,438,630 -$134,988 1,020 1,273 17,531 5,544 49,928

$704,686 $5,457 43 61 942 157 2,023

$0 $0 39 1 704 28 498

$6,367,564 $142,736 773 659 14,522 3,269 29,838

$0 $111,745 132 497 958 1,781 12,885

$1,366,380 -$394,926 33 56 405 308 4,684

$1,472,854 $1,973,152 104 2,142 1,654 412 4,451

$981,317 $1,575,270 103 2,139 1,642 396 4,259

$491,537 $397,882 1 3 11 15 193

$0 $145,462 1,664 1,166 22,402 8,124 109,258

$0 $17,083 282 162 3,992 990 14,425

$0 $11,137 348 333 4,844 2,521 35,170

$0 $117,242 1,034 671 13,565 4,613 59,663

$9,911,484 $1,983,626 2,788 4,581 41,587 14,079 163,637

(2,144,958) $ (661,065) $ (1139) (2161) (16509) (8035) (70897)

(1,943,433) $ (53,302) $ (32) (441) (434) (247) (3952)

- $ - $ (147) (56) (1781) (91) (1397)

(1,140,911) $ 125,122 $ (350) 429 (10008) 1197 (4444)

- $ (460,221) $ (567) (2133) (4026) (8928) (63134)

939,386 $ (272,664) $ (44) 39 (260) 34 2030

(697,947) $ (868,872) $ 30 1960 1129 (409) (3103)

9,614 $ (249,463) $ 43 1979 1199 (278) (2080)

(707,561) $ (619,409) $ (13) (19) (70) (131) (1022)

- $ (351,863) $ 157 323 2871 1946 29542

- $ (8,341) $ 155 92 2133 591 8489

- $ (90,792) $ 82 200 1386 1457 21286

- $ (252,730) $ (79) 31 (648) (102) (233)

(2,842,905) $ (1,881,800) $ (952) 122 (12,509) (6,498) (44,457) Load Reduction

Non Electric Non-Resource

Summer MWh Saved

Load Reduction

Load Reduction Lifetime Lifetime

MWh Saved

Non Electric

Summer Winter Lifetime Resource

MWh Saved Non Electric

Summer Winter Lifetime Annual

Resource Winter Lifetime Non-Resource Annual

Resource Non-Resource Annual Lifetime

# Appendix 4. Comparison of Pl anned and Reported Outsourced

and In-House Expenditures

The following table provides the reported outsourced and in-house expenditures.

Planning was not conducted at th is level of detail. Therefor e, a comparison between 2009

planned and reported expenditures at this level of detail is not available.$ %$ % $ %Residential2009 54,918 16.4% 103,904 31.1% 175,460 52.5% 334,283Low Income2009 13,588 16.4% 25,708 31.1% 43,413 52.5% 82,709Commercial & Industrial2009 54,670 16.4% 103,434 31.1% 174,665 52.5% 332,768TOTAL2009 123,176 16.4% 233,046 31.1% 393,538 52.5% 749,760Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customerincentives.Outsourced ActivitiesTOTAL ($)ProgramProgram Planning and AdministrationCompetitivelyProcuredNon-CompetitivelyProcuredIn-House ActivitiesResidential2009Low Income2009Commercial & Industrial2009TOTAL2009Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customerincentives.Program$%$%$%65,331 56.5% 23,001 19.9% 27,294 23.6% 115,62516,164 47.7% 5,691 16.8% 12,025 35.5% 33,88065,035 56.5% 22,897 19.9% 27,170 23.6% 115,102146,530 55.4% 51,588 19.5% 66,489 25.1% 264,607In-House ActivitiesOutsourced ActivitiesTOTAL ($)Marketing and AdvertisingCompetitively ProcuredNon-CompetitivelyProcuredResidential2009Low Income2009Commercial & Industrial2009TOTAL2009Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customerincentives.Program$% $ % $ %189,910 14.6% 1,112,743 85.4% 260 0.0% 1,302,91346,988 21.1% 166,743 74.9% 8,786 3.9% 222,517189,050 32.4% 394,272 67.6% 0 0.0% 583,322425,948 20.2% 1,673,758 79.4% 9,046 0.4% 2,108,752In-House ActivitiesTOTAL ($)Competitively ProcuredNon-CompetitivelyProcuredSales, Technical Assistance & TrainingOutsourced ActivitiesResidential2009Low Income2009Commercial & Industrial2009TOTAL2009Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customerincentives.Program$% $ %$%0 0.0% 77,890 100.0% 0 0.0% 77,8900 0.0% 19,272 100.0% 0 0.0% 19,2720 0.0% 77,537 100.0% 0 0.0% 77,5370 0.0% 174,698 100.0% 0 0.0% 174,698Evaluation and Market ResearchOutsourced ActivitiesCompetitively ProcuredNon-CompetitivelyProcuredTOTAL($)In-House ActivitiesResidential2009Low Income2009Commercial & Industrial2009TOTAL2009Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customerincentives.Program$%$% $ %310,159 16.9% 1,317,538 72.0% 203,014 11.1% 1,830,71176,740 21.4% 217,414 60.7% 64,223 17.9% 358,377308,754 27.8% 598,139 53.9% 201,835 18.2% 1,108,728695,654 21.1% 2,133,090 64.7% 469,072 14.2% 3,297,817TOTAL Outsourced and Competitively Procured ServicesIn-House ActivitiesOutsourced ActivitiesTOTAL ($)Competitively Procured Non-Competitively Procured

# Appendix 5. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive

The Cape Light Compact does not receive a shareholder incentiv e. Therefore, this section

does not apply to the Cape Light Compact.

# Appendix 6. Energy Efficiency Evaluations & Studies

The following studies were used in prepari ng the reported results presented in this

Annual Report. The executive summaries and full reports for these studies are listed

below and provided in this Appendix.

1. Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR®

Program 2009 Findings and Anal ysis, NMR Group Inc., May 26, 2010.

Executive Summary.

Evaluation of the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR®

Program 2009 Findings and Analys is, NMR Group Inc., May 26, 2010. Full

Report.

2. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® 2009 COOL SMART

Quality Installation Verification Evaluation Report, ICF International,

February 24, 2010. Executive Summary.

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® 2009 COOL SMART

Quality Installation Verification Evaluation Report, ICF International,

February 24, 2010. Full Report.

3. Energy Savings Analysis for the Massac husetts New Homes with Energy Star,

ICF International, June 4, 2010. Executive Summary.

Energy Savings Analysis for the Massac husetts New Homes with Energy Star,

ICF International, June 4, 2010. Full Report.

4. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program, 2009

Progress Report, Dorothy Conant, May 26, 2010. Executive Summary.

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program, 2009

Progress Report, Dorothy Conant, May 26, 2010. Full Report.

5. Residential Central AC Regional Eval uation, ADM Associates, Inc., October

2009.

6. Energy Pay and Save Pilot Program Survey & Analysis, Black & Veatch,

March 2010.

7. 2009 Massachusetts Multi-Family Progr am Assessment, Nexus Market

Research, Inc., October 16, 2009.

8. The Market for CFLs in Massachus etts, NMR Group, Inc., January 28, 2010.

9. Results of the Multistate CFL Modeli ng Effort, NMR Group, Inc., February 4,

2010.

# 10. Market Assessment and Best Practic es for Delivering Plug-Load Energy

Efficiency in Business-Final Repor t, PA Consulting Group, June 14, 2010.

11. Cape Light Compact Residential Sm art Energy Monitoring Pilot, PA

Consulting, March 31, 2010.

# Appendix 7. Performance M etrics Related Documents and

Reports

The Cape Light Compact does not receive a shareholder incentiv e. Therefore, this section

does not apply to the Cape Light Compact.

# Appendix 8. Detailed Savings Ca lculations of the 2009 Programs

The following tables provide the deta il behind the savings calculations.YearProgramResidential Income Type(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpilloverRateSummerCoincidentWinterCoincidentDemandAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)EnergyAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)Net PeakkWNetSummerkWNetWinterkWAnnual NetMWhSavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWhMMBTUsGassavingsMMBTUsOil SavingsMMBTUsPropaneSavingsGallonsWaterSavingsResourceNon-EnergyBenefitNonResourceNon EnergyBenefit1RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Heating) 30 14.321 34,708 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 14.32 0.00 14.32 34.71 25 358.02 867.70 728.04 39.18 402.72 0.00 $420,235 $02RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Cooling) 19 8.157 5,810 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 8.16 8.16 0.00 5.81 25 203.94 145.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $03RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Water Heating) 30 0.000 12 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 15 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $04Fixtures2 0.098 88 0.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 100.00% 100.00% 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.09 11 1.08 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $75ES Homes Screw-in Bulbs 1,347 65.599 76,779 0.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 99.00% 99.00% 64.94 4.94 18.57 76.01 7 454.60 532.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $4,0416LI RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Heating) 93 21.284 -1,096 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 21.28 0.00 21.28 -1.10 25 532.11 -27.39 973.93 0.00 67.76 0.00 $262,116 $07LI RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Cooling) 40 26.561 7,733 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 26.56 26.56 0.00 7.73 25 664.03 193.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $08LI RNC ES Homes All Tiers (Water Heating) 93 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $09LI Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to new baseline equipment) 55 0.715 5,500 35.00% 36.00% 100.00% 82.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.72 0.72 0.59 5.56 13 9.39 72.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $010LI Dishwashers 55 0.000 2,368 0.00% 0.00% 74.60% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.37 12 0.00 28.41 110.00 0.00 0.08 23,650.00 $15,424 $011LI Interior Fixtures 43 2.107 1,892 0.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 96.00% 96.00% 2.02 0.15 0.58 1.82 20 40.45 36.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $14612LI ES Homes Screw-in Bulbs 421 20.503 23,997 0.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 99.00% 99.00% 20.30 1.54 5.81 23.76 7 142.08 166.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $1,26313Major Renovation Pilot - Insulation, Gas 1 0.678 317 2.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.31 25 16.61 7.77 27.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6,911 $02,229160.023158,109159.07 42.74 61.18 157.07 2,422.31 2,023.15 1,839.41 39.18 470.55 23,650.00 $704,686 $5,457Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of measures installed or the number of homes in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = Gross demand savings for all measures of this type.(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = Gross annual energy savings for all measures of this type.(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) Summer and Winter Coincident factors are based on seasonal impact of individual measures.(9), (10) Demand and Energy Adjustment Factors.(11) Net Peak kW = Net Max kW(12), (13) Net Summer and Winter kW = Diversified seasonal demand savings. Quantity * Total Gross kW * (1 - Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Seasonal Coincident * Demand Adjustment Factor(14) Annual Net MWh Savings = Annual energy savings reflecting all adjustment factors. Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership +Spillover) * Energy Adjustment Factor(15) Measure Life - The life of an energy consuming measure, including its equipment life and measure persistence (not savingspersistence)(16) kW Years = Measure Life * Net Peak kW(17) Lifetime MWh = Measure Life * Net kWh Reduction(18) Gas saved annually due to heating and water heating.(19) Oil saved annually due to heating and water heating.(20) Propane saved annually due to heating and water heating.(21) Gallons of water saved.(22) The Total Resource Benefits represents the value of benefits associated with natural gas, oil, propane and water savings.(23) The Total Non-Resource Benefits represents accounts for the longer replacement cycles of the CFLs, as well as other typesof benefits.2009Energy Star HomesStandardYearProgramResidential Income Type(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpilloverRateSummerCoincidentWinterCoincidentDemandAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)EnergyAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)Net PeakkWNetSummerkWNetWinterkWAnnual NetMWhSavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWhMMBTUsGassavingsMMBTUsOil SavingsMMBTUsPropaneSavingsGallonsWaterSavingsResourceNon-EnergyBenefitNonResourceNon EnergyBenefit1CoolSmart AC SEER 14 => (Equip) - EER>=12 9 2.455 445 0.00% 0.00% 85.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2.45 2.09 0.00 0.45 18 44.18 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $02CoolSmart AC SEER 15.0 => (Equip) - EER>=12.5 43 16.887 3,969 0.00% 0.00% 85.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 16.89 14.35 0.00 3.97 18 303.97 71.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $03CoolSmart HP SEER 15.0 => (Equip) 2 1.003 1,388 0.00% 0.00% 66.56% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.00 0.67 0.50 1.39 18 18.06 24.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $04CoolSmart Wm Air Furnace ECM (GN Reb) 12 1.396 7,200 0.00% 0.00% 66.56% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.40 0.93 0.70 7.20 18 25.13 129.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $05Mini Splits (Ductless)56 24.768 14,641 0.00% 0.00% 85.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 24.77 21.05 0.00 14.64 18 445.83 263.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $012246.50927,64446.51 39.09 1.20 27.64 837.17 497.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of measures installed or the number of homes in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = Gross demand savings for all measures of this type.(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = Gross annual energy savings for all measures of this type.(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) Summer and Winter Coincident factors are based on seasonal impact of individual measures.(9), (10) Demand and Energy Adjustment Factors.(11) Net Peak kW = Net Max kW(12), (13) Net Summer and Winter kW = Diversified seasonal demand savings. Quantity * Total Gross kW * (1 - Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Seasonal Coincident * Demand Adjustment Factor(14) Annual Net MWh Savings = Annual energy savings reflecting all adjustment factors. Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership +Spillover) * Energy Adjustment Factor(15) Measure Life - The life of an energy consuming measure, including its equipment life and measure persistence (not savingspersistence)(16) kW Years = Measure Life * Net Peak kW(17) Lifetime MWh = Measure Life * Net kWh Reduction(18) Gas saved annually due to heating and water heating.(19) Oil saved annually due to heating and water heating.(20) Propane saved annually due to heating and water heating.(21) Gallons of water saved.(22) The Total Resource Benefits represents the value of benefits associated with natural gas, oil, propane and water savings.(23) The Total Non-Resource Benefits represents accounts for the longer replacement cycles of the CFLs, as well as other typesof benefits.2009Energy Star HVACStandardYearProgramResidential Income Type(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpilloverRateSummerCoincidentWinterCoincidentDemandAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)EnergyAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)Net PeakkWNetSummerkWNetWinterkWAnnual NetMWhSavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWhMMBTUsGassavingsMMBTUsOil SavingsMMBTUsPropaneSavingsGallonsWaterSavingsResourceNon-EnergyBenefitNonResourceNon EnergyBenefit1Free CFL 38,419 1,882.531 2,189,883 2.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 90.00% 90.00% 1,660.39 126.19 474.87 1,931.48 7 11,622.75 13,520.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $102,6882Free CFL (piggyback on other utility audits) 11,582 567.518 660,174 2.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 90.00% 90.00% 500.55 38.04 143.16 582.27 7 3,503.86 4,075.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $30,9573Torchiere57 6.601 7,923 0.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 100.00% 100.00% 6.60 0.50 1.89 7.92 8 52.80 63.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $04Insulation, Oil 313 212.214 99,221 2.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 207.97 207.97 0.00 97.24 25 5,199.24 2,430.91 0.00 7,975.24 0.00 0.00 $2,502,404 $05Insulation, Gas 241 163.398 76,397 2.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 160.13 160.13 0.00 74.87 25 4,003.25 1,871.73 6,613.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,665,437 $06Insulation, Electric 74 69.782 179,894 2.00% 0.00% 72.00% 28.00% 100.00% 100.00% 68.39 49.24 19.15 176.30 25 1,709.66 4,407.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $07Insulation, Other Fuels 21 14.238 6,657 2.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 13.95 13.95 0.00 6.52 25 348.83 163.10 0.00 0.00 308.70 0.00 $185,887 $08Air Sealing, Oil 291 79.152 36,957 2.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 77.57 77.57 0.00 36.22 15 1,163.53 543.27 0.00 1,711.08 0.00 0.00 $343,177 $09Air Sealing, Gas 229 62.288 29,083 2.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 61.04 61.04 0.00 28.50 15 915.63 427.52 1,346.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 $217,561 $010Air Sealing, Electric 67 25.259 65,057 2.00% 0.00% 72.00% 28.00% 100.00% 100.00% 24.75 17.82 6.93 63.76 15 371.31 956.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $011Air Sealing, Other Fuels 19 5.168 2,413 2.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 5.06 5.06 0.00 2.36 15 75.97 35.47 0.00 0.00 93.10 0.00 $36,634 $012Thermostats, Oil 299 0.000 0 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,289.29 0.00 0.00 $180,226 $013Thermostats, Electric 129 3.999 18,447 2.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3.92 0.12 3.92 18.08 10 39.19 180.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $014Hot Water Boiler 273 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,260.44 0.00 0.00 $584,966 $015Heating System Replacement, Oil 29 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 240.12 0.00 0.00 $56,642 $016Indirect Water Heater, Oil 137 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,096.00 0.00 0.00 $283,627 $017Appliance/Pool Timers 15 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $018Solar Hot Water, Electric (2-person) 1 1.033 1,550 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.03 1.03 0.00 1.55 20 20.67 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00$0 $3,03019Solar Hot Water, Electric (3-person) 1 1.550 2,325 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.55 1.55 0.00 2.33 20 31.00 46.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00$0 $3,03020Solar Hot Water, Electric (4-person) 1 2.067 3,100 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2.07 2.07 0.00 3.10 20 41.33 62.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00$0 $3,03021DHW ISMs, Electric 101 0.909 7,373 2.00% 0.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.89 0.67 0.89 7.23 7 6.24 50.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 869,539.30 $50,094 $022ES Window, Oil 1,309 0.000 17,017 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.02 25 0.00 425.43 0.00 431.97 0.00 0.00 $135,540 $023ES Window, Gas 127 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $024ES Window, Electric 37 1.480 4,070 0.00% 0.00% 70.00% 30.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.48 1.04 0.44 4.07 25 37.00 101.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $025ES Window, Other Fuels 1 0.000 13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 25 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 $199 $026Refrigerator (savings over remaining life of existing equipment) 212 6.360 187,408 35.00% 36.00% 100.00% 82.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6.42 6.42 5.27 189.28 1 6.42 189.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $027Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to new baseline equipment) 181 2.353 18,100 35.00% 36.00% 100.00% 82.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2.38 2.38 1.95 18.28 13 30.89 237.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $028Waterbed Replacement 1 0.109 872 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $029Weather Responsive Controls (Boiler Reset) 79 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,653.43 125.66 472.88 1,689.37 15 24,801.45 11,825.62 0.00 624.10 0.00 0.00 $125,170 $054,2463,108.0093,613,9344,459.58 898.46 1,131.35 4,957.75 ######## 41,646.29 7,959.56 15,628.24 402.13 869,539.30 $6,367,564 $142,736Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of measures installed or the number of homes in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = Gross demand savings for all measures of this type.(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = Gross annual energy savings for all measures of this type.(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) Summer and Winter Coincident factors are based on seasonal impact of individual measures.(9), (10) Demand and Energy Adjustment Factors.(11) Net Peak kW = Net Max kW(12), (13) Net Summer and Winter kW = Diversified seasonal demand savings. Quantity * Total Gross kW * (1 - Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Seasonal Coincident * Demand Adjustment Factor(14) Annual Net MWh Savings = Annual energy savings reflecting all adjustment factors. Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership +Spillover) * Energy Adjustment Factor(15) Measure Life - The life of an energy consuming measure, including its equipment life and measure persistence (not savingspersistence)(16) kW Years = Measure Life * Net Peak kW(17) Lifetime MWh = Measure Life * Net kWh Reduction(18) Gas saved annually due to heating and water heating.(19) Oil saved annually due to heating and water heating.(20) Propane saved annually due to heating and water heating.(21) Gallons of water saved.(22) The Total Resource Benefits represents the value of benefits associated with natural gas, oil, propane and water savings.(23) The Total Non-Resource Benefits represents accounts for the longer replacement cycles of the CFLs, as well as other typesof benefits.2009Residential ConservationStandardYearProgramResidential Income Type(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpilloverRateSummerCoincidentWinterCoincidentDemandAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)EnergyAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)Net PeakkWNetSummerkWNetWinterkWAnnual NetMWhSavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWhMMBTUsGassavingsMMBTUsOil SavingsMMBTUsPropaneSavingsGallonsWaterSavingsResourceNon-EnergyBenefitNonResourceNon EnergyBenefit1Screw-in Bulbs (incl. NCP and rebates) 90,380 4,157.480 4,247,860 0.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 39.77% 39.77% 1,653.43 125.66 472.88 1,689.37 7 11,574.01 11,825.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $108,9262Indoor Fixture 671 32.879 29,524 8.00% 4.00% 7.60% 28.60% 95.00% 95.00% 29.99 2.28 8.58 26.93 20 599.71 538.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $2,1643Outdoor Fixture 29 2.755 4,524 12.00% 7.00% 7.60% 28.60% 87.00% 87.00% 2.28 0.17 0.65 3.74 6 13.66 22.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $854Torchiere543 62.988 75,477 6.00% 3.00% 7.60% 28.60% 83.00% 83.00% 50.71 3.85 14.50 60.77 8 405.69 486.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $05LED Fixtures 18 0.697 864 0.00% 0.00% 7.60% 28.60% 73.00% 73.00% 0.51 0.04 0.15 0.63 20 10.17 12.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $57191,6414,256.7994,358,2491,736.91 132.01 496.76 1,781.44 ######## 12,885.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $111,745Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of measures installed or the number of homes in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = Gross demand savings for all measures of this type.(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = Gross annual energy savings for all measures of this type.(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) Summer and Winter Coincident factors are based on seasonal impact of individual measures.(9), (10) Demand and Energy Adjustment Factors.(11) Net Peak kW = Net Max kW(12), (13) Net Summer and Winter kW = Diversified seasonal demand savings. Quantity * Total Gross kW * (1 - Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Seasonal Coincident * Demand Adjustment Factor(14) Annual Net MWh Savings = Annual energy savings reflecting all adjustment factors. Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership +Spillover) * Energy Adjustment Factor(15) Measure Life - The life of an energy consuming measure, including its equipment life and measure persistence (not savingspersistence)(16) kW Years = Measure Life * Net Peak kW(17) Lifetime MWh = Measure Life * Net kWh Reduction(18) Gas saved annually due to heating and water heating.(19) Oil saved annually due to heating and water heating.(20) Propane saved annually due to heating and water heating.(21) Gallons of water saved.(22) The Total Resource Benefits represents the value of benefits associated with natural gas, oil, propane and water savings.(23) The Total Non-Resource Benefits represents accounts for the longer replacement cycles of the CFLs, as well as other typesof benefits.Energy Star LightingStandard2009YearProgramResidential Income Type(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpilloverRateSummerCoincidentWinterCoincidentDemandAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)EnergyAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)Net PeakkWNetSummerkWNetWinterkWAnnual NetMWhSavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWhMMBTUsGassavingsMMBTUsOil SavingsMMBTUsPropaneSavingsGallonsWaterSavingsResourceNon-EnergyBenefitNonResourceNon EnergyBenefit1AC (energy star value) 281 29.505 13,769 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 29.51 8.85 0.00 13.77 12 354.06 165.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $02ECM Heat (CLC-specific) 320 76.800 115,200 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 76.80 0.00 38.40 115.20 20 1,536.00 2,304.00 0.00 5,280.00 0.00 0.00 $1,366,380 ($394,926)3Dehumidifiers (retirement value) turn-in 23 0.478 690 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.48 0.38 0.00 0.69 4 1.91 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $04Dehumidifiers (energy star value) turn-in 23 1.353 1,955 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.35 1.08 0.00 1.96 12 16.24 23.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $05Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to new baseline equipment) 1,601 20.813 160,100 35.00% 36.00% 100.00% 82.00% 100.00% 100.00% 21.02 21.02 17.24 161.70 13 273.27 2,102.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $06Consumer Electronics - Smart Strips 98 5.880 17,170 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 0.00% 75.00% 75.00% 4.41 1.32 0.00 12.88 5 22.05 64.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0$07Pool Pumps4 1.600 2,208 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.60 0.48 0.00 2.21 10 16.00 22.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $02,350136.428311,092135.17 33.14 55.64 308.40 2,219.53 4,684.03 0.00 5,280.00 0.00 0.00 $1,366,380 ($394,926)Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of measures installed or the number of homes in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = Gross demand savings for all measures of this type.(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = Gross annual energy savings for all measures of this type.(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) Summer and Winter Coincident factors are based on seasonal impact of individual measures.(9), (10) Demand and Energy Adjustment Factors.(11) Net Peak kW = Net Max kW(12), (13) Net Summer and Winter kW = Diversified seasonal demand savings. Quantity * Total Gross kW * (1 - Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Seasonal Coincident * Demand Adjustment Factor(14) Annual Net MWh Savings = Annual energy savings reflecting all adjustment factors. Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership +Spillover) * Energy Adjustment Factor(15) Measure Life - The life of an energy consuming measure, including its equipment life and measure persistence (not savingspersistence)(16) kW Years = Measure Life * Net Peak kW(17) Lifetime MWh = Measure Life * Net kWh Reduction(18) Gas saved annually due to heating and water heating.(19) Oil saved annually due to heating and water heating.(20) Propane saved annually due to heating and water heating.(21) Gallons of water saved.(22) The Total Resource Benefits represents the value of benefits associated with natural gas, oil, propane and water savings.(23) The Total Non-Resource Benefits represents accounts for the longer replacement cycles of the CFLs, as well as other typesof benefits.Standard2009Energy Star ProductsYearProgramResidential Income Type(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpilloverRateSummerCoincidentWinterCoincidentDemandAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)EnergyAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)Net PeakkWNetSummerkWNetWinterkWAnnual NetMWhSavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWhMMBTUsGassavingsMMBTUsOil SavingsMMBTUsPropaneSavingsGallonsWaterSavingsResourceNon-EnergyBenefitNonResourceNon EnergyBenefit1Baseload353 26.122 96,016 0.00% 0.00% 35.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 26.12 9.14 26.12 96.02 5 130.61 480.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $37,4182Other Wx2 1.366 110 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.37 0.04 1.37 0.11 20 27.32 2.20 0.00 0.00 38.86 0.00 $19,504 $7,7103Gas Wx16 2,049.083 880 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,049.08 61.47 2,049.08 0.88 20 40,981.66 17.60 480.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 $99,873 $75,4864Electric Wx6 0.222 1,782 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.22 0.01 0.22 1.78 20 4.44 35.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $22,0565Oil Wx36 0.252 1,980 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.25 0.01 0.25 1.98 20 5.04 39.60 0.00 907.20 0.00 0.00 $234,769 $365,1666Heating System Retrofit - Oil 63 0.441 3,465 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.44 0.01 0.44 3.47 18 7.94 62.37 0.00 2,557.80 0.00 0.00 $603,361 $874,6607CFL's5,297 47.673 180,098 0.00% 0.00% 35.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 47.67 16.69 47.67 180.10 16 762.77 2,881.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $83,2298Refrigerator (savings over remaining life of existing equipment) 158 13.114 98,592 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 92.00% 100.00% 100.00% 13.11 13.11 12.06 98.59 5 65.57 492.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $12,7919Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to new baseline equipment) 156 1.560 12,480 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 92.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.561.56 1.44 12.48 19 29.64 237.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $36,88910ES Window, Oil 10 0.000 130 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 25 0.00 3.25 0.00 3.30 0.00 0.00 $1,035 $7011ES Window, Gas 7 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $012DHWater Measure (elec)45 0.711 920 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.71 0.53 0.71 0.92 7 4.98 6.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 395,325.00 $22,775 $59,7966,1492,140.544396,4532,140.54 102.58 2,139.37 396.45 ######## 4,258.83 480.48 3,468.30 38.86 395,325.00 $981,317 $1,575,270Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of measures installed or the number of homes in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = Gross demand savings for all measures of this type.(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = Gross annual energy savings for all measures of this type.(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) Summer and Winter Coincident factors are based on seasonal impact of individual measures.(9), (10) Demand and Energy Adjustment Factors.(11) Net Peak kW = Net Max kW(12), (13) Net Summer and Winter kW = Diversified seasonal demand savings. Quantity * Total Gross kW * (1 - Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Seasonal Coincident * Demand Adjustment Factor(14) Annual Net MWh Savings = Annual energy savings reflecting all adjustment factors. Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership +Spillover) * Energy Adjustment Factor(15) Measure Life - The life of an energy consuming measure, including its equipment life and measure persistence (not savingspersistence)(16) kW Years = Measure Life * Net Peak kW(17) Lifetime MWh = Measure Life * Net kWh Reduction(18) Gas saved annually due to heating and water heating.(19) Oil saved annually due to heating and water heating.(20) Propane saved annually due to heating and water heating.(21) Gallons of water saved.(22) The Total Resource Benefits represents the value of benefits associated with natural gas, oil, propane and water savings.(23) The Total Non-Resource Benefits represents accounts for the longer replacement cycles of the CFLs, as well as other typesof benefits.2009Low Income Single FamilyLow IncomeYearProgramResidential Income Type(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpilloverRateSummerCoincidentWinterCoincidentDemandAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)EnergyAdjustmentFactor (InService Rate)Net PeakkWNetSummerkWNetWinterkWAnnual NetMWhSavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWhMMBTUsGassavingsMMBTUsOil SavingsMMBTUsPropaneSavingsGallonsWaterSavingsResourceNon-EnergyBenefitNonResourceNon EnergyBenefit1CFL178 1.602 6,052 0.00% 0.00% 35.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.60 0.56 1.60 6.05 16 25.63 96.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $2,7972ES Window, Gas 23 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $03Refrigerator (savings over remaining life of existing equipment) 7 0.581 4,368 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 92.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.58 0.58 0.53 4.37 1 0.58 4.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $1184Refrigerator (savings over full life compared to new baseline equipment) 4 0.040 320 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 92.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.32 13 0.52 4.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $9085DHWs10 0.158 204 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.20 7 1.11 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 87,850.00 $5,061 $13,2886Insulation & Air Sealing - oil 10 0.070 550 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.55 20 1.40 11.00 0.00 252.00 0.00 0.00 $65,214 $101,4357Insulation & Air Sealing - gas68 0.476 3,740 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.48 0.01 0.48 3.74 20 9.52 74.80 2,026.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 $421,263 $279,3363002.92715,2342.93 1.32 2.88 15.23 38.76 192.59 2,026.65 252.00 0.00 87,850.00 $491,537 $397,882Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of measures installed or the number of homes in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = Gross demand savings for all measures of this type.(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = Gross annual energy savings for all measures of this type.(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) Summer and Winter Coincident factors are based on seasonal impact of individual measures.(9), (10) Demand and Energy Adjustment Factors.(11) Net Peak kW = Net Max kW(12), (13) Net Summer and Winter kW = Diversified seasonal demand savings. Quantity * Total Gross kW * (1 - Free-Ridership + Spillover) * Seasonal Coincident * Demand Adjustment Factor(14) Annual Net MWh Savings = Annual energy savings reflecting all adjustment factors. Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership +Spillover) * Energy Adjustment Factor(15) Measure Life - The life of an energy consuming measure, including its equipment life and measure persistence (not savingspersistence)(16) kW Years = Measure Life * Net Peak kW(17) Lifetime MWh = Measure Life * Net kWh Reduction(18) Gas saved annually due to heating and water heating.(19) Oil saved annually due to heating and water heating.(20) Propane saved annually due to heating and water heating.(21) Gallons of water saved.(22) The Total Resource Benefits represents the value of benefits associated with natural gas, oil, propane and water savings.(23) The Total Non-Resource Benefits represents accounts for the longer replacement cycles of the CFLs, as well as other typesof benefits.2009Low Income Multi-FamilyLow IncomeYearProgram(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpillover RateNet PeakkWNet SummerkWNet WinterkWAnnual NetMWh SavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWh1Lighting 5 21.100 66,116 30.70% 6.20% 16.542 12.142 6.154 52 15 248.136 7785 21.100 66,116 16.542 12.142 6.154 52 248.136 778Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of sites in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = gross demand savings for all measures in each end use category(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = gross energy savings for all measures in each end use category(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) = Net summer demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership andspillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(9) = Net winter demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership and spillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(10) = Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership Rate + Spillover)(11) = Aggregate whole number rounded measure life for end use category, incorporating persistence as determined by most recentmeasure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime2009C02a C&I New ConstructionYearProgram(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpillover RateNet PeakkWNet SummerkWNet WinterkWAnnual NetMWh SavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWh1Lighting 4 76.580 270,654 0.00% 0.00% 78.801 57.840 29.314 279 15 1,182.012 4,1782Heating, ventilation and AC 1 36.000 283,740 0.00% 0.00% 37.044 31.487 0.000 292 15 555.660 4,3805 112.580 554,394 115.845 89.327 29.314 570 1,737.672 8,557Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of sites in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = gross demand savings for all measures in each end use category(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = gross energy savings for all measures in each end use category(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) = Net summer demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership andspillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(9) = Net winter demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership and spillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(10) = Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership Rate + Spillover)(11) = Aggregate whole number rounded measure life for end use category, incorporating persistence as determined by most recentmeasure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime2009C02b C&I Govt New ConstructionYearProgram(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpillover RateNet PeakkWNet SummerkWNet WinterkWAnnual NetMWh SavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWh1Lighting 320 15.680 18,240 27.90% 13.40% 13.814 12.239 9.953 16 15 207.211 2412Cool Choice 18 137.538 205,029 0.00% 0.00% 141.527 120.298 83.501 211 13 1,839.846 2,7433Motor Up 19 55.100 136,463 0.00% 0.00% 56.698 48.193 33.452 140 15 850.469 2,106357 208.318 359,732 212.039 180.730 126.906 367 2,897.526 5,090Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of sites in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = gross demand savings for all measures in each end use category(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = gross energy savings for all measures in each end use category(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) = Net summer demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership andspillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(9) = Net winter demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership and spillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(10) = Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership Rate + Spillover)(11) = Aggregate whole number rounded measure life for end use category, incorporating persistence as determined by most recentmeasure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime2009C04c C&I Products & ServicesYearProgram C03a C&I Large Retrofit(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpillover RateNet PeakkWNet SummerkWNet WinterkWAnnual NetMWh SavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWh1Lighting 7 216.222 1,193,969 5.70% 3.20% 217.086 159.341 80.756 1,199 13 2,822.123 15,5842Motors 8 30.900 249,415 0.00% 0.00% 31.796 25.437 28.585 257 15 476.942 3,8503Refrigeration 3 2.722 27,522 0.00% 0.00% 2.801 2.241 2.518 28 13 36.415 36818 249.844 1,470,906 251.684 187.019 111.859 1,484 3,335.479 19,802Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of sites in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = gross demand savings for all measures in each end use category(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = gross energy savings for all measures in each end use category(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) = Net summer demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership andspillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(9) = Net winter demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership and spillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(10) = Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership Rate + Spillover)(11) = Aggregate whole number rounded measure life for end use category, incorporating persistence as determined by most recentmeasure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime2009YearProgram C03c C&I Govt Large(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpillover RateNet PeakkWNet SummerkWNet WinterkWAnnual NetMWh SavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWh1Heating, ventilation and AC 1 20.000 62,215 0.00% 0.00% 20.580 17.493 0.000 64 12 246.960 7682Motors 1 22.400 55,900 0.00% 0.00% 23.050 18.440 20.722 58 15 345.744 8633CHP 1 243.000 889,999 0.00% 0.00% 250.047 125.024 200.038 916 15 3,750.705 13,7373 285.400 1,008,114 293.677 160.956 220.759 1,037 4,343.409 15,368Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of sites in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = gross demand savings for all measures in each end use category(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = gross energy savings for all measures in each end use category(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) = Net summer demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership andspillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(9) = Net winter demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership and spillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(10) = Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership Rate + Spillover)(11) = Aggregate whole number rounded measure life for end use category, incorporating persistence as determined by most recentmeasure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime2009YearProgram C03b C&I Small Retrofit(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpillover RateNet PeakkWNet SummerkWNet WinterkWAnnual NetMWh SavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWh1Lighting 240 952.380 3,047,261 5.70% 3.20% 822.323 603.585 305.904 2,631 13 ######## 34,2052Heating, ventilation and AC 4 16.000 34,116 43.30% 0.00% 9.536 8.106 0.000 20 10 95.360 2033Motors 11 16.051 118,481 0.00% 0.00% 16.516 13.213 14.848 122 15 247.747 1,8294Refrigeration 65 77.474 607,954 4.20% 0.00% 76.467 61.174 68.744 600 10 764.672 6,0015Hot Water 1 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 10 0.000 0321 1,061.906 3,807,812 924.843 686.078 389.497 3,373 ######## 42,237Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of sites in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = gross demand savings for all measures in each end use category(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = gross energy savings for all measures in each end use category(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) = Net summer demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership andspillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(9) = Net winter demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership and spillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(10) = Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership Rate + Spillover)(11) = Aggregate whole number rounded measure life for end use category, incorporating persistence as determined by most recentmeasure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime2009YearProgram C03d C&I Govt Small(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Measure Description QuantityTotal GrossMax kWSavingsTotal GrossAnnual kWhSavingsFreeRidershipRateParticipantSpillover RateNet PeakkWNet SummerkWNet WinterkWAnnual NetMWh SavingsMeasureLifekWYearsLifetimeMWh1Lighting 31 199.256 465,131 0.60% 3.40% 187.446 137.586 69.730 438 13 2,436.800 5,6882Heating, ventilation and AC 10 25.683 34,091 0.00% 0.00% 26.428 22.464 0.000 35 10 264.278 3513Motors 9 226.632 722,331 0.00% 0.00% 233.204 186.563 209.650 743 15 3,498.059 11,1494Refrigeration 8 1.942 23,114 0.00% 0.00% 1.998 1.599 1.796 24 10 19.983 23858 453.513 1,244,667 449.076 348.211 281.177 1,240 6,219.120 17,426Notes:(1) Measure Description = From the Cape Light Compact's program BCR screening tool.(2) Quantity = the number of sites in which the measure was installed.(3) Total Gross Max kW Savings = gross demand savings for all measures in each end use category(4) Total Gross Annual kWh Savings = gross energy savings for all measures in each end use category(5), (6) Free-Ridership and Spillover estimates.(7), (8) = Net summer demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership andspillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(9) = Net winter demand reduction consistent with ISO FCM on-peak resources; incorporates coincidence, free ridership and spillover factors from most recent program impact evaluation(10) = Total Gross kWh * (1 - Free Ridership Rate + Spillover)(11) = Aggregate whole number rounded measure life for end use category, incorporating persistence as determined by most recentmeasure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime2009

# Appendix 9. Progress Report Updates on Compliance Items

Consistent with the Department’s Order in D.P.U. 09-119

This Appendix provides Progress Report Upda tes on compliance items consistent with

the Department’s Order in D.P.U. 09-119. Th e following is a list of the materials

provided in this Appendix:

1. Progress Report

2. Attachment A - May 10, 2010 OBR Working Group Report to EEAC

3. Attachment B - National Grid Government Grants

4. Attachment C - NSTAR EE Grant Presentation

# Progress Report and Updates on Compliance Items

Consistent with the Department’s Orders in

D.P.U. 09-116, D.P.U. 09-117, D.P.U. 09-118, D.P.U. 09-119, D.P.U. 09-120, D.P.U. 09-121,

D.P.U. 09-122, D.P.U. 09-123, D.P.U. 09-124, D.P.U. 09-125, D.P.U. 09-126, D.P.U. 09-127,

D.P.U. 09-128

On January 28, 2010, the Department of Public Utili ties (“Department”) issued Orders in D.P.U.

09-116 through D.P.U. 09-128, approving Energy E fficiency Plans for 2010 through 2012 filed

by the Massachusetts Program Admin istrators. In these Orders, and in a June 22, 2010 Hearing

Officer Memorandum, the Department included directives regarding information that the

Program Administrators are required to includ e in their 2009 Energy Efficiency Annual Reports,

as follows:

1. a status update on the evaluatio n, measurement and verification study

regarding free ridership and spillover. Gas Three Year Plan Order at 124-125.

2. a progress report on the development of consistent statewide program

planning and administrative cost categor ies, including the identification of

unresolved issues. Electric Three-Year Plan Order at 45; Gas Three-Year Plan

Order at 42.

3. a progress report on the development of avoided cost factors that improve the

reliability of transmission and distribution benefits as well as an explanation

of any differences in the models and underlying assumptions by Program

Administrators (to be include d in the benefit/cost ratio for the next three-year

plans). Electric Three-Year Plan Order at 54.

4. documentation regarding efforts to s ecure outside funding for 2011 and 2012.

Electric Three-Year Plan Order at 69; Gas Three-Year Plan Order at 62.

5. the results of the non-electric benefits study that is to be conducted in 2010.

Electric Three-Year Plan Order at 130-131; Gas Three-Year Plan Order at

121.

6. a progress report on the developmen t of updated and fully documented

assumptions regarding savings from heating oil measures and other nonelectric benefits. Electric Three-Year Plan Order at 131.

7. either a copy of the Technical Refe rence Manual, or if the Technical

Reference Manual is not available as of the filing date, a report that details its

current status and anticipated completion date.

The Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Program Administrators are pleased to provide the

Department and all interested stakeholders wi th the following up-to-date information on these

issues.

# 1. Evaluation, Measurement & Verification Study on Free Ridership and Spillover

An entity named PA Consulting was selected to conduct this study. A kick-off meeting was held

on June 15, 2010. The 2010 initiative is to review the existing methodology developed in 2003

for determining Free Ridership and Spillover in th e C&I Sector. This new initiative will entail a

broader study of how to measure what results would have occurred absent the program.

Although the new initiative may ulti mately conclude that Free Ride rship and Spillover are still

the most valid methodologies, other methods, such as looking at comparison areas, will be

investigated. This portion of the stud y is to be completed in December 2010.

For residential programs, the Program Admini strators plan to assess free-ridership,

spillover and/or net savings in the individual re sidential process and impact evaluation studies

which will be conducted jointly. For some program s, such as residentia l lighting, an overall net

to gross ratio will be developed, while for othe r programs individual free-ridership and spillover

values will be determined.

2. Consistent Statewide Program Planni ng & Administrative Cost Categories

A Program Administrator worki ng group, dedicated to ensuring co nsistent statewide Program

Planning & Administrative (“PP&A” ) cost categories, has identified some discrepancies among

the Program Administrators regarding how co sts are assigned to certain categories.

The most significant difference is in the category in which internal labor a nd related expenses are

assigned. Some Program Administra tors are assigning all internal labor and related expenses to

the PP&A cost category. Other Program Administ rators are assigning some internal labor and

related expenses (specifically for staff members dedicated to marketing, sales technical

assistance and training, or evaluation meas urement and verification (“EM&V”)) to the

Marketing, Sales Technical Assistance & Tr aining or EM&V cost categories.

The only other discrepancy identified by th e working group was that some Program

Administrators are assigning database tracki ng improvements to the PP&A cost category, while

others are assigning this cost to the Sales, Training and Technical Assistance cost category.

A follow-up meeting of the working group will be held in August 2010 (prior to 2011 mid-term

modification plan filings) to determine a consistent approach to tracking these types of expenses

and to set a timeframe to implement a consistent statewide approach.

3. Avoided Cost Factors to Improve Relia bility of Transmission and Distribution

Benefits

I. Introduction

In 2005, the Program Administrators contracted ICF International, In c. (“ICF”) to develop a tool

to calculate the benefits on the transmission and distribution (“T&D”) systems as a result of the

2

# energy efficiency programs that are offered. As part of th e 2009 Avoided Energy Supply Cost

(“AESC”) Avoided Cost Analysis, Synapse Ener gy Economics, Inc. reviewed ICF’s tool and

identified inconsistencies in how each Pr ogram Administrator utilizes the tool.

Below is a progress report relate d to Synapse’s comments. They are categorized according to

spreadsheet errors and input inconsistencies. Some of the points lead to simple fixes or updates,

while others will need collaboration and c onsensus among the Program Administrators.

Synapse’s report focused on models used by Nati onal Grid and NSTAR Electric. As these two

Program Administrators work through these issues, they will share their findings and

recommendations with the other Program Administrators to increase consistency in the valuation

of T&D benefits.

II. Spreadsheet Errors

1. “Insurance expense. The ICF model incorr ectly cites page 323, line 156 of the FERC

form 1 as the source of Total Plant Annual In surance Costs. The correct citation is page

323, line 185 of the FERC form 1”

• As noted by Synapse, National Grid and NSTAR Electric have corrected

the citation in their spreadsheets.

2. Carrying charge calculation. “The ICF model spreadsheet contains cell-reference errors

that excludes depreciation expe nse and the cost of capital fr om the distribution carrying

charge, but adds in the state income tax rate.”

• As noted by Synapse, National Grid corrected all three errors on its

spreadsheet.

• NSTAR Electric has corrected its model so that Line 7 of Carrying Charge

Schedule 3 (DS) sums the percentage s found on lines 1 through 6 and that

it matches the formula used on Line 7 of Carrying Charge Schedule 3

(TR).

3. Financing Errors. Synapse pointed out two financing errors havi ng to do with the

calculation of income taxes a nd interest deductions. First, Synapse noted that WACC is

already adjusted for taxes but in the formul a below, it appears that the WACC is again

multiplied (and further reduced) by the effective state and federal income tax rate.

Synapse also questioned the use of real versus nominal interest rates and return on equity

. )/*1(*)/1 (*))1(( WACCFdRr lifedeWACC TfTf

− − + −÷



# Symbol Description Line

Tf Effective State & Federal Income Tax Rate Line 1f

WACC After Tax Cost of Financing Line 1

de Depreciation Expense Line 4

3

# Life Depreciation Life Line 4a

Rr Real interest rate on debt Line 1b

Fd Share of project financed through debt Line 1a

• National Grid and NSTAR Electric are awaiting clarification from

Synapse due to contradicting suggesti ons in the report. In one instance,

Synapse suggests that the income tax expense formula use the real interest

rate, and in another point suggests th at income tax be assessed using the

nominal value.

• The tax expense formula is not the same for both transmission and

distribution. The transmission tax expense formula uses the nominal

interest rate, whereas the distributio n tax expense formula uses the real

interest rate. These formul ae need to be reconciled.

• National Grid and NSTAR Electric are awaiting further clarification from

Synapse before taking action to correct either of these formulae.

III. Input Inconsistencies

1. T&D Inputs and Capital Investments. S ynapse noted that both National Grid and

NSTAR Electric used equal lives for tran smission and distribution plants. NSTAR

Electric used a life of 30 years, while National Grid used 45 years. Synapse argued that a

transmission plant generally has a longer aver age life than a distribution plant, and that

the use of equal lives is non-standard.

• National Grid and NSTAR Electric have recalculated the average life by

first dividing the depreciation expense for the current calendar year by the

average plant value of the two most recent calendar years to determine the

depreciation rate. The ratio of 1 divided by the deprec iation rate is equal to

the average life.

• As a result, National Grid’s new averag e life for a distribution plant is 26

years, and the average life for a transmission plant is 45 years. National

Grid is waiting to hear back from the plant accounting department on how

often these inputs should be updated.

• NSTAR Electric’s new averag e life is 31 years for a distribution plant and

45 years for a transmission plant when using average gross plant value to

determine the depreciation rate.

• These calculations will be company-specific, but all Program

Administrators should use a consiste nt formula for calculating average

life.

4

# 2. Percentage of capital investments avoidabl e due to increasing load. According to

Synapse, NSTAR Electric’s treatment of 100% of investments avoidable is implausible,

while National Grid’s usage of 25% seems too low.

• National Grid will review its percenta ge for 2011. National Grid typically

looked at its capital budget and de termined that transmission and

distribution expenses labe led as new business or load relief were the types

of expenses deemed “avoidable.” The calculation needs to be updated for

2011, but National Grid does not expect the percenta ge to vary greatly

from the 25%.

• Synapse misinterpreted NSTAR Elect ric’s input of 100% for avoidable

investment. NSTAR Electric already excluded the non-avoidable costs in

its capital investment figures on a year by year basis. That calculation was

conducted outside of the model and th en inputted for each year. This

method differs slightly from Nati onal Grid where a single average

percentage was applied to the sum of the incremental investments across

all years. The average percentage used by NSTAR Electric is

approximately 23% for distribut ion and 34% for transmission.

3. Weighting of historical and forecast investment costs. Synapse has suggested that

summing historical and forecast investment and dividing by the sum of historical and

forecast load growth (as Nati onal Grid does) may yield a more accurate result than the

inputting of specific weighting factors as al lowed for by ICF. NSTAR Electric uses the

weighting method as recommended by ICF.

• Reconciliation of this issue has not yet been discussed.

4. Load Growth Assumptions. Synapse noted that the basis for the load forecast and the

DSM savings estimates should be consistent. Since DSM savings are generally estimated

for normal peak weather, the divisor in th e $/kW computation s hould be normal peak

growth.

• National Grid is currently using normal peak load data in its analysis.

NSTAR is currently using actual peak load data in its analysis;

Reconciliation of this issue has not yet been discussed.

5. Avoidable Operations & Maintenance (“O&M” ) Costs. Avoidable O&M expenses will

vary from company to company. However, IC F does not offer any explanations for the

percentages they loaded in the tool. Synapse suggested that avoidable O&M expenses

should be more in lin e with the percentage of avoidable capital investments due to

increasing load. The line with the greates t variance between Nati onal Grid and NSTAR

falls under transmission O&M: (565) – Transm ission of Electricity by Others. NSTAR

had 0% of this cost as avoidable, while Nationa l Grid had 100% of this cost as avoidable.

5

# • In the past, National Grid supported th e treatment of th ese costs as 100%

avoidable, per ICF’s original recommendation because energy efficiency

has a direct relationship with lowe ring the amount of transmission of

electricity by others—the more ener gy efficiency there is, the less

transmission by others is necessary. In practice, there are considerations

which suggest the percenta ge should be lowered:

⇒ Geographic. For example, if most of the Energy Efficiency

actions/measures are implemented in the eastern part of

Massachusetts, but the majority of transmission of electricity

by others occurs in the wester n part of Massachusetts, then

not all of those transmission costs are avoidable.

⇒ Corporate Accounting. Utilitie s also collect revenue for

transmitting electricity on behalf of other utilities. This

revenue will offset some of the costs and this could be

reflected by modifying the pe rcentage avoidable downward.

• Taking the above into consideration, National Grid proposes lowering its

percentage of avoidable costs for Tr ansmission of Electricity by Others

from 100% to 20%.

• NSTAR Electric supports the use of 0% for avoidable O&M costs in the

category of Transmission of Electri city by Others. NSTAR Electric

believes that this is a generation-rela ted cost and therefore not avoidable

as transmission. Effective energy effici ency measures, as they relate to

this category, decrease the need for additional generation investment the

benefit of which is incorporated in avoided generation costs.

• Further reconciliation of these as sumptions has not been discussed

4. Efforts to secure outside funding for 2011 and 2012

As the Program Administrators were developing their Three-Year Plans, and prior to the

Department’s final orders on the Three-Year Plan s, the Program Administrators were engaged in

initial discussions with the Department of Ener gy Resources, members of the Energy Efficiency

Advisory Council, other interested parties, an d the banking industry rega rding outside financing

(i.e., loans that are to be repaid) and funding (i.e., grants/funds that directly off-set program costs

and that do not need to be repaid) with specific attention to the following:

• discovering lessons learned from other utilities across the nation;

• having on-going discussions with customers and lending institutions to develop

prescriptive and customized financ ing solutions for energy efficiency

investments; and

6

# • engaging consultants supporting fi nancing for this industry.

Based on these initial efforts, in the Thre e-Year Plans for elect ric and gas Program

Administrators, statewide targets for outside fi nancing and funding were established for 2011

and 2012 at the following levels: $100 million for the 2011 electric budgets and $20 million for

the 2011 gas budgets; and $200 million for the 2012 electric budgets and $40 million for the

2012 gas budgets, with the operating assumption in each instance that 60% of such total amounts

would be in the form of funding and 40% of such amounts would be in the form of financing. In

its January 28, 2010 Orders on the electric and gas Three-Year Plan s, the Department instructed

the Program Administrators to provide documenta tion of their efforts to secure outside funding

in this annual report. The fo llowing narrative provi des such documentation of ongoing efforts to

secure both outside funding and, closely related thereto, outsi de financing. These efforts

continue and will help inform any midterm modifications that will be proposed at the

Department by the Program Admini strators after review with th e Energy Efficiency Advisory

Council (“EEAC”). The Program Administrators and the EEAC’s consu ltants have adopted a

proposed target date of October 29, 2010 for the filing of any proposed midterm modifications

with the Department. (As of this date, th e Program Administrators do not have midterm

modifications for effect in 2011 th at they are currently proposing, but will continue to work with

the EEAC and, where applicable, the D.P.U. 08-50 Annual Report Working Group, on potential

modifications.)

As discussed in more detail below, with respect to financing, the Progra m Administrators have

segmented the market to better understand custom er needs and have identif ied specific financial

tools that are readily available and can be adap ted and adopted for Massachusetts. The Program

Administrators have engaged in extensive efforts in the Department of Energy Resources

(“DOER”) On-Bill Repayment (“OBR”) Working Group, which efforts yielded a detailed report

dated May 10, 2010, which is attached as Att achment A, and which provides extensive

information on OBR options. The Program Admini strators have also e ngaged in requests for

information (“RFI”) and requests for proposal (“R FP”) activities related to outside financing.

Further, the Program Administrators have met extensively with banks, lenders, state agencies,

and industry experts to pursue e ffective financing opportunities and these efforts, including

efforts with the Massachusetts Bank ers Association, actively continue.

As discussed in more detail below and in A ttachments B and C, following the Department’s

Orders, over the last several months, the Program Administrators have also coordinated with

each other and with several EEAC members and organizations to identify and pursue grants for

funding. Obtaining grants to help off-set energy efficiency charges for customers has presented

a challenge for the Program Administrators, as nearly all current federal grants for energy

efficiency have been exhausted. However, the Program Administrators continue to work with

councilors and multiple other intere sted parties in identifying alte rnative approaches to accessing

grant funding. Among other efforts, the Program Administrators have researched, identified, and

contacted multiple possible funding sources at the federal, state, and private level. Detailed

documentation of outside funding sources reviewed that have been prepared by National Grid

(Attachment B) and by NSTAR (Attachment C) illustrate the depth of this effort, with over 70

possible government grants and multiple possi ble private foundation grants identified.

7

# Relatedly, the Program Administrato rs have reviewed Internal Re venue Code matters related to

funding and optimal approaches to securing outside gran ts, including looking to match customers

with customized grant opportunities. The Pr ogram Administrators are engaged with the

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (“NEEP”) to ensure that they have not missed any

potential funding opportunities, an d will continue to pursue out side funding aggressively.

Nonetheless, to date, material new government sources of outside funding (such as “cap and

trade” initiatives under discussion as the Thr ee-Year Plans were in development) have not

materialized and securing material outside funding remains a challenge for the Program

Administrators and othe r interested parties.

The following chronology highlights the Program Ad ministrators’ activities regarding efforts to

secure outside funding and financing. The bullete d items represent key in itiatives, and reflect

significant work undertaken by the Program Admini strators in pursuit of these activities:

December 2009/January 2010:

Starting in December 2009, the Program Admini strators actively participated in the

DOER’s OBR Working Group and have collaborat ively worked with other stakeholders

to develop “business rules” for on-bill repaym ents for residential and small C&I customer

segments. Program Administrators have also extensively participated in the Rental OBR

task force convened by the DOER. There ha ve been over twelve such OBR meetings

since December, and they ha ve continued through July.

In addition, during December 2009, NSTAR initiated discussi ons with other utilities

nationally regarding OBR programs and success/failures.

With regard to outside funding, NSTAR and National Grid, in collaboration with the

DOER, applied for Federal Energy Effi ciency Conservation Block Grants.

February 2010:

National Grid initiates a Request for Informa tion process regarding the availability of

federal funds. National Grid identifies and sends the RFI to 45 banks, investment firms

and specialty finance firms.

NSTAR determines that OBR has not been te sted on a large scale anywhere in the

country. Only California has OBR for sm all business on a limited basis. Other

jurisdictions are only pilot phases. Mani toba Hydro (Canada) has an OBR program,

backed by customer dollars and has a safety clause for banks at risk to customers.

NSTAR investigates Metrus Ener gy for Large C&I financing.

The Program Administrators continue to be engaged in the OBR Working Group

providing DOER with a consensus memora ndum on key issues on February 9, 2010, and,

where applicable, collaboratively exchanging funding and financing information based on

their efforts. This collaboration is a hallm ark of the Program Admi nistrators’ efforts and

has continued through the pr esent and benefits all Program Administrators.

8

# March 2010:

National Grid chooses to continue conversatio ns with the top five respondents to their

RFI. They are each invited to present their financing solutions.

NSTAR reaches out to the National Renewabl e Energy Laboratory for federal financing

for customers. NSTAR also reaches out to the Mass Bankers Associ ation to gauge local

interest in energy efficiency financing. NSTAR explores financing for municipalities,

universities, schools and hospitals. The Ca pe Light Compact enga ged in the Property

Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) program. New England Gas Company reaches out to

a major local lender with e xperience in lendi ng in the economically challenged and

unique New England Gas Company service area.

The Program Administrators re view and discuss financing pr esentation of DOER made at

the March EEAC meeting.

The Program Administrators continue to be engaged in the OBR Working Group and

continue collaboration efforts.

April 2010:

NSTAR makes its first presenta tion to the Mass Bankers A ssociation. NSTAR/Metrus

identify possible pilot project financing.

NSTAR and National Grid support MIT’s re quest to secure a $129 million multi-year

grant for its Center for Advancement of Building Systems.

National Grid meets with all five respondent s to its RFI, which include four leading

banks and a firm that specializes in th e securitization of “non-regular” loans.

The Program Administrators continue to be engaged in the OBR Working Group and

continue collaborative efforts, including an ad hoc Program Administrator group focusing

on financing solutions.

May 2010:

NSTAR, National Grid and DOER actively part icipate in the Amer ican Council for an

Energy Efficient Economy’s financing confer ence in Chicago to learn about different

approaches currently employed nationally relating to energy efficiency financing.

NSTAR and National Grid submit a bid to the City of Boston’s Renew Boston program

and secure a $900,000 grant for small C&I customers.

The Program Administrators continue to be engaged in the OBR Working Group and

continue collaborative efforts, including drafting work led by NS TAR on an RFP for a

financial consultant for a ll Program Administrators.

9

# June 2010:

The Program Administrators host a second mee ting with the Mass Ba nkers Association.

The meeting is a success, with local banks expressing interest in the energy efficiency

market. NSTAR reaches out to Mass Credit Union League for similar meeting. National

Grid reaches out to the Small Business Administration. NSTAR issues an RFP for a

financial consultant on behalf of all Program Administrato rs. NSTAR and National Grid

host a technology and finance seminar for C&I customers on energy efficiency finance

options and benefits. The Berkshire Gas Co mpany engages with a leading local credit

union, with expertise in serving customers in Western Massachuset ts, and internally

reviews possible issuance of a targeted request for proposals.

National Grid invites the DOER to meet w ith the Wall Street Securitization Firm

identified through the Company’s RFI.

The Program Administrators continue to be engaged in the OBR Working Group and

continue collaborative efforts. Afte r detailed comments from the Program

Administrators, a report of the OBR Work ing Group is submitted to the EEAC on May

10, 2010, and is provided here in as Attachment A.

July 2010:

The Mass Bankers Association invites the Program Administrators to an internal meeting

and both decide to initiate a task force to develop energy e fficiency-specific financing.

NSTAR initiates conversation with Bank of Am erica and Citizens Bank. The first task

force meeting is held in July. NSTA R engages in possible pilot financing for

municipal/state sector. Six-month statew ide HEAT loan targets on track. Capital

constraints have not b een sensed thus far

.



# In addition, with regard to funding, the Pr ogram Administrators held discussions with

NEEP and DOER to share ideas on possible funding sources from federal, state and

private sources. Information shared by Nati onal Grid and NSTAR with NEEP regarding

potential sources is provided herewith as Attachments B and C. NEEP confirms that

Program Administrators have been targe ting most likely sources and confirms the

challenges in securing further outside fundi ng. Discussions with NEEP will continue,

with follow-up planned for about one month.

MIT and NSTAR have received a preliminar y award for a DOE grant to work with

Lawrence Berkley Labs, which was also suppor ted by National Grid. Under this grant,

Program Administrators will have access to e xpertise from the DOE laboratories as well

as a number of firms under contract for th e program. NSTAR/MIT have the opportunity

to receive up to $500,000 for these services.

10

# The DOER and National Grid jointly meet w ith the Wall Street Securitization Firm in

New York City.

The Program Administrators continue to be engaged in the OBR Working Group and

continue collaborative efforts.

Customer-Specific Efforts

In addition to the efforts described above which seek financing solutions on a large-scale basis,

the Program Administrators have been successful in identifying financing solutions appropriate

for specific customers. For example, the Cape Light Compact has engaged consultants to design

unique financing solutions for specific customer s. In addition, tax-exempt leases, bonding and

savings-backed financing agreem ent opportunities have been id entified as possible financing

options for certain customers.

5. Non-Energy Benefits Study

An entity named PA Consulting was select ed to conduct a study on non-energy benefits

(“NEBs”). A kick-off meeting was held on June 16, 2010. Tasks for this evaluation include:

developing a list of measures/equipment for which NEBs could be quantified, conducting a

literature review of NEBs for measures with less quantifiable NEBs, interviews with Program

Administrator staff, program implementers, conduc ting participant surveys, and reporting. This

study is to be completed in December 2010.

6. Heating Oil Measures & Other No n-Electric Benefits Assumptions

These assumptions will be deve loped during the impact evalua tion phase of the Mass Save

program scheduled for 2011. Until these new assumptions are developed, the existing

assumptions will be documented in the 2011 TRM – Plan Version, discussed below.

7. Technical Reference Manual

.

The Program Administrators, the DOER, the Attorn ey General, the EEAC and other stakeholders

have been working collaborativel y to complete Version 1.0 of the Technical Reference Manual

(“TRM”) to be filed in the fa ll of 2010. This version will be called the “2011 MA TRM – Plan

Version”, and will contain the savings assumptions and algorithms for both electric and gas

prescriptive measures across all programs and sectors.

The Program Administrato rs will file the 2011 MA TRM – Pl an Version with the Department

along with major modifications to the 2011 program plans. The MA TRM – Plan Version

provides regulators and stakeholde rs with the assumptions and algorithms that the Program

Administrators will use to count savings for the 2011 program year. An update to this Plan

Version, which will incorporate results of evaluati ons completed in the next year, will be filed

11

# with the 2011 Energy Efficiency Annual Report. It will be called the 2011 MA TRM – Report

Version.

In the final months leading to the filing of the 2011 MA TRM – Plan Version (along with the

2011 Program Plans), all of the savings documen tation for residential, low-income and C&I

measures that have been completed by the working groups will be compiled and undergo a final

review by Optimal Energy Inc. The reviewed final draft will then be dist ributed to the Program

Administrators and representatives of the Depart ment, DOER and Attorney General’s offices for

comments and edits during August 2010. During th e fall of 2010, the Progr am Administrators

will be revising their tracking systems as necessary to conform to the specifications in the 2011

MA TRM – Plan Version.

12

# ATTACHMENT A

ON-BILL REPAYMENT WORKING GROUP

REPORT TO THE ENERGY E FFICIENCY ADVISORY COUNCIL

# ON‐BILL REPAYMENT WORKING GROUP

REPORT TO THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

ADVISORY COUNCIL

MAY 10, 2010

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.  O INTR DUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1. PRINCIPLES

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

1.2 Items Beyond OBR Working Group Scope

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

2. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES, OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY SEGMENT ( MATRICES) ................... 9

............................................................... 2.1 Summary of Issues

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

2.2 Status of the Issues

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

2.3 Issues Not Considered in OBR Working Group Discussions

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

2.4

. ..13 residential and C/I Matrices

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

2.4.1 RESIDENTIAL OWNER OCCUPIER MATRIX (from 4/29/2010 ver sion with comments

. 3 from Working Members)

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

2.4.2  SMALL C/I MATRIX (from 4/29/2010 version with comments from Working Members)

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

2.4.3. RESIDENTI AL RENTAL MATRIX (from 4/29/2010 version with comments from Working

Members)

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

3. ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY THE WORKING GROUP REPORT

............................................................... 32

3.1 Customers above 60% of statewide medianincome

............................................................... ....................32

3.2 Service to renters

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

3.3 Pay and Save Pilot and Report .............................................................................................................................3 4

4. COMMENTS ON RENTERS AND OTHER ISSUES:

............................................................... .............................35

4.1 At‐Risk Groups

.............................................................................................................................. ..............................35

PPENDIX A ‐CASH FLOW MODEL OF COSTS, SAVINGS AND FINANCE .......................................................38 A

# Page 3 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The On‐Bill Repayment (“OBR”) Working Group submits this report to the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council

(“EEAC” or “Council”). Today’s re port sets forth the results of a collaborative, broad‐base d working group that has

been meeting since September 20 09, with approximately 12 full m eetings since then.

The mission of the OBR working gr oup was to examine and determi ne repayment mechanisms that would facilitate

the use of outside funding, as envisioned in the Program Admini strator 2010‐2012 Statewi de Energy Efficiency

Investment Plans, beginning in 2 011.  The Working Group’s initi al charge was to examine both financing and

repayment mechanisms. However, the intensive nature of financin g and repayment, and the need for somewhat

different knowledge and skill sets , led the Working Group to co ncentrate on repayment i ssues and become known

as the OBR Working Group.

As with other EEAC Working Groups , the OBR Working Group was ch aired by DOER in its staffing capacity to the

Council.  Membership in the group consisted of voting EEAC memb ers, Program Administrators, other non‐voting

EEAC members, EEAC consultants, and other interested parties, s uch as members of the Green Justice Coalition,

and a weatherization contractor.  The meetings were formally no ticed as public meetings and were open to anyone

wishing to attend in person or participate by telephone.

The report sets forth the core p rinciples that have achieved full consensus of the working group and shows in

matrix format how the principles will be applied to residential and small commercial custo mers. These principles

include :

• Full disclosure in clear language regarding financing terms, de fault provisions, and remedies to any

efficiency program participant w ho considers and elects to use outside funding offered through the

Program Administrators.

• The adoption of appropriately inclusive standards in determining customer eligibility for participation.

The OBR Working Group recommends that inclusive standards be ap plied in determining eligibility for

participation and that individua l credit checks not be employed.  The exact underwriting standards that

will be applied will be determine d in negotiation with lenders and servicing entities in accordance with the

principles expressed here.

• Electric or gas service will not b e terminated upon a customer’ s failure to pay the energy efficiency portion

of a service bill, or failure to pay a companion bill. Partial payments will first be a llocated to the energy/

distribution portion of the bill.

• Program Administrators will be the conduits for outside financi ng and repayment including their normal

collections process, but do not a nticipate serving as the lende r.

• Customers who qualify for low‐in come programs will not be solic ited for any financing programs.

Although discussions within the Working Group have coalesced ar ound certain overarching principles, the group

recognizes that these principles and expectations are subject t o modification and will continue to evolve, depending

in part on the particular terms a nd requirements of outside len ders.   Outside financing opportunities that

materialize will need to be considered from a repayment (OBR) p erspective, and the OBR principles outlined in this

report are not intended to be ca tegorically fixed .  As experien ce is gained, strategies and efforts will evolve.

# Page 4 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 The report also sets forth detai led matrices detailing OBR approaches and issues in different customer categories,

reflectin g the group’s consensus that a segmented approach to O BR is appropriate. Key findings by sector are:

• Major customer segments such as Residential, Small Commercial & Industrial (Small C/I), Renters and

Owners, are distinct and require distinct provisions to meet th eir needs.  Within those groups, particularly

within the rental market, furthe r segmentation should be conduc ted, with an analysis of barriers facing the

articular segments and an exploration of the type of financing program that will address those barriers p

most effectively.

• Customer segmentation may  requi re additional tailoring of repa yment to meet household income,

business type, or other distinctive repayment requirements, whi ch will be discovered through

implementation.

• A robust residential OBR model has been established.  Renters, in residential and co mmercial properties

require substantial additional wo rk but the Working Group believes that the OBR work should move

forward in all sectors and subsectors to ensure that every clas s of customer is able to participate

appropriately  in deeper energy savings opportunities provided by the additional leverage of outside

funding.

• Work clearly need s to be done to address the needs of renters and households whose income exceeds 60%

of median income but for whom the burden of either customer cas h contributions or additional obligations

brought on through financing is considerable and may need ameli oration.  Addressing these needs should

be accomplished through other venues, which may include the EEA C and its Equity C ommittee, landlord

associations, the legislature, a nd the Department of Public Uti lities (“DPU”).

Finally, the report sets forth the following proposed next step s:

• Communicate the findings of the EEAC OBR Working Group to the D PU to determine, what processes and

actions, if any, are required in that venue to move the OBR and financing issues forward for 2011.

• Match the OBR concerns to the work being done by PA’s, DOER, other EEAC members and other parties on

financing to develop a complete and integrated financing/repaym ent implementable plan.

• Continue to develop the renter m atrices further in a small work ing group devoted to that issue. Set a

timeline for resolution but no l ater than September 1, 2010 for a further report to the EEAC.

• Continue to explore the question of households with incomes abo ve 60% but still experiencing

disproportional energy burdens, carefully describe this demogra phic, characterize relevant living

conditions, employment and other relevant factors, and develop cost‐effective solutions for addressing the

needs of this group.

• A phased implementation approach should be used that will help mitigate investment and other risk, and

that will allow for continuous v alidation of concepts and imple mentation strategies and details.

• Review the Pay and Save pilot pr ogram data and evaluation repor t for insights that may be useful for

design and implementation of  fu ll scale financing proposed for 2011 and beyond.

• Address additional concerns raise d by the EEAC, the DPU or Work ing Group members. (also see Section 4

for additional comments)

# Page 5 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# . INTRODUCTION 1

The OBR Working Group was established by the Division of Energy Resources (“DOER”), acting in its role as Chair

of the Council, to explore all options for on‐bill repayment in order to expand existing on‐bill financing options and

make energy efficiency programs more accessible to customers. The OBR Working Group has focused on ways to

work towards implementation of t he financing goals and principl es described in the Massachusetts Joint Statewide

Three‐Year Gas and Electric Ener gy Efficiency Plans (“Three‐Yea r Plans”) both prior t o and following their

approval by the Department of Public Utilities (the “Department ”) in its Orders, each dated January 28, 2010,

regarding the electric Program A dministrators’ Three‐Year Energ y Efficiency Plans and the gas Program

Administrators’ Three‐Year Energ y Efficiency Plans in dockets D .P.U. 09‐116 to D.P.U. 09‐120 (regarding electric

Program Administrators) and dock ets D.P.U. 121 to D.P.U. 09‐128 (regarding the gas Prog ram Administrators).

The Three‐Year Plans promote  financing mechanisms to help addr ess barriers associated with the potentially

substantial up‐front costs of in stalling energy efficiency meas ures ( see § II.B. of each Three‐Year Plan); the OBR

Working Group seeks to set forth and have the Program Administr ators adopt consensus‐based standards,

representing the views of multiple stakeholders, for the provis ion of on‐bill repayment fo r residential and Small

C/I customers over the next three years.

The OBR Working Group was endors ed by Council resolution on Jul y 28, 2009, in the overa ll resolution approving

the Statewide Electric and Gas E nergy Efficiency Programs.  As with other EEAC Working Groups, the OBR Working

Group was chaired by DOER in its staffing capaci ty to the Counc il.  Membership in the g roup consisted of voting

EEAC members, Program Administrators, other non‐voting EEAC mem bers, EEAC consultants, and other interested

parties, such as members of the Green Justice Coalition, and a weatherization contractor.  The meetings were

formally noticed as public meetings and were open to anyone wishing to attend in person or participate by

elephone. t



# .1. PRINCIPLES 1

Items Addressed by OBR Working Group

The OBR Working Group has addre ssed multiple aspects of on‐bill repayment and has agreed on the following

eleven core principles:

1. No Promotion of Loans to Low

­ Income Customers

The OBR Working Group has agreed that the Program Administrator s and others involved with implementation of

the Three‐Year Plans will not promote loans to customers elig ible for low‐income programs. C ustomers who are

eligible for low‐income programs should be directed in the care fully tailored low‐income programs, which provide

# Page 6 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 100% of the funding for energy e fficiency measures for eligible participants. All parties se ek to avoid over‐leverage

for any customer, including the m ost vulnerable customers in th e low‐income sector.

2. Repayment Tied to Customer for Residential and Small C/I Owned Properties

The OBR Working Group has also determined that, for residential owner customer segments and Small C/I(owner)

customers, repayment should be tied to the borrower and not to the meter. As detailed in th e residential matrix set

forth in Section   below, meter‐based repayment is not appropri ate at this time for this sector given that questions

still remain on how it would work and how paymen t obligations w ould be handled.  Repayment should instead be

tied to the customer who has initiated the energy efficiency me asures and accepted responsibility for payment.

3. No Termination for Non

­ Payment

The OBR Working Group has agreed that there will be no terminat ion of energy services based on non‐payment of

the energy efficiency loan portion of bill.  Termination rights could create customer bac klash, would be excessive,

and would risk violation of cust omer protection standards and p olicies established to e nsure the provision of

energy services to customers.  Similarly, in rental situations, rent increase and evictions protections are needed to

ensure tenants are not inappropri ately charged for the cost of the improvements or evicted for other than standard

non payment of rent provisions.  T hese problems argue for the d evelopment of robust “Green Leases” that provide

adequate statements of responsib ilities of landlords and tenant s and provide appropriate remedies for abuses in

apportioning the costs of financ ed energy efficiency improvemen ts through the PA programs.

4. Allocation of Partial Payment

The OBR Working Group has also r eached consensus on the allocat ion of partial payments, and has determined

that the energy/distribution port ion of the bill will be paid d own in full prior to the payment of the energy

efficiency loan portion. The OBR Working Group has also address ed additional items on the b ill, including services

and rental charges, and determin ed that these will also be paid down prior to the ene rgy efficiency loan.

5. Fixed Payments

The OBR Work Group has determined that any OBR re‐payments will be fixed over the term of the loan. The use of

fixed, monthly finance charges re duces customer concerns regard ing loan repayment and lends itself to succinct,

ar disclosure. Variable inter est rates will not be employed. [Please note, however, prepayment will be allowed.] cle

6. No Requirement of Positive Cash Flow/No Savings Guarantee

The OBR Working Group has agreed that there will be no absolute requirement of positive cash flow, and no

savings guarantee, with respect to any project for which financ ing is provided.  Although a ll participants of the OBR

Working Group aspire towards ach ieving net savings through on‐b ill repayment, it is understood that such savings

are dependent on many factors (i ncluding, for example, commodit y costs, weather, measure‐mix and building

occupancy) and accordingl y cannot be guaranteed.

7. Certain Customers at 60%

­ 120% of Statewide Median Income

# Page 7 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 The Working Group’s discussions i ncluded a question about the a bility of customers whos e income ranges from

60%‐120% of median income to part icipate in any financing, and suggestions that such customers should be

treated comparably to customers eligible for the low‐income pro grams. Some anecdotal evid ence suggests that this

income group is currently underse rved and harder to reach and a s such efforts will be made to design inititiatives

and explore ways to reach these valued customers.  However, whi le agreeing that there certainly are customers for

whom the costs of copayment and perhaps financing are substanti al barriers to participation, the Working Group

was not able to readily find and examine well documented eviden ce about the burden of energy and customer

copayments on this class of custo mers, or even determine where the upper end of the vulnerability range lies. We

note there is no specific mandate under the Green Communities A ct to reach these cust omers separately from

other residential or low‐income customers but agree that financ ial and other barriers that impede participation by

any segments of eligible customers are of concern and need to b e addressed.  The Working Group believes that

issues pertaining to targeted in come groups need primarily to b e addressed by other EEAC Committees ( i.e.

,Residential and/or Equity).

8. Customer Eligibility

With respect to customer eligibi lity, the OBR Working Group has determined that on‐bill repayment should be

available for all qualifying cus tomers including residential customers (other than low‐income, as described above)

who are either owners or renters, as well as for Small C/I cust omers.  However, due to the split incentive problem

(most often tenants pay utility costs but property owners bear the cost of capital investme nt) and the complexity of

meter‐based obligations in reside ntial rental markets, the work group has been unable to reach a consensus

opinion.  Discussions will continue with respect to on‐bill rep ayment issues specific to renters. A more detailed

discussion of issues related to OBR in the rental market is set forth in Sections 2.4.3.  (Re sidential) and  2.4.2(Small

C/I).  Large C&I customers will be eligible for uniquely tailor ed solutions and are not addressed in this report.

9. Credit Checks and Payment History

The OBR Working Group has also determined that credit checks wi ll not be used for qualification purposes in the

residential owner seg ment; in order to decre ase the risk of cus tomer defaults, however, payment history will be

relevant to qualification decisions and on‐bill repayment will only be available to customers who have been

current on their energy bill for a certain minimum period of ti me.  Credit checks may be used in rental or Small C/I

segments and/or where larger loan sizes require enhanced underw riting. , a subject that will need further

exploration once the lender commu nity is engaged. See Section 2 .4 for more detail.

10. Collection and Banking Laws

The OBR Working Group agrees tha t the Program Administrators wi ll not serve as collection agents for outside

loans (aside from standard utility bill collection procedures). The Program Administrators will provide a means of

repayment by enabling OBR on eith er a standard or sundry bill, but will not actually be in volved with the provision

of financing dollars or in any o ther way acting as a bank, lend er or guarantor.  The OBR Working Group agrees that

the Program Administrators shoul d not become regulated banking institutions that are required to comply with

banking laws as a result of OBR efforts, and is continuing to r eview compliance issues with respect to banking and

lending laws.

11. Full and Fair Disclosure

Finally, the OBR Working Group emphasizes that there must be fu ll and fair disclosure to all customers regarding

any financing of measures that u tilizes OBR, including estimate d loan costs, default prov isions, remedies, and use

# Page 8 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 of payment history or other qualifying standards, and that the disclosure must be clear and plainly written.

Although the  OBR Working Group will not assume primary respons ibility for drafting  dis closure language, the

group may review such language to ensure that it complies all a pplicable state and federal s tatutes and regulations.



# 1.2 ITEMS BEYOND OBR WORKING GROUP SCOPE

As detailed below, numerous core principles have been discussed and agreed upon, achieving full consensus of the

OBR Working Group.  We note that by consensus, Working Group do es not require 100% agreement on each and

every issue. However, the Working Group has taken pains to ensu re there is substantia l agreement on the

principles and the expression of the principles detailed in the matrices. Where there is si gnificant disagreement or

the members recognized an issue as unfinished, the Working Grou p and the report has noted such.  Resolution on

certain issues, however, has not been captured by this report, either because (1) the issues are beyond the

Working Group’s scope of inquiry and have not been part of OBR Working Group discussions , or (2) the issues have

not been resolved by consensus of the Working Group (these unresolved issues are addressed in Section 2.3 and in

comments in Section 4.1).

While outside financing is inter woven with, and related to, the purposes of the OBR Working Group, it is a separate

and distinct issue, and will be c oordinated with on‐bill repaym ent at an appropriate time.  Outside financing

opportunities that are presented to the parties will carry term s that will  necessarily need to be considered from an

OBR standpoint .It is anticipated that certain terms set forth herein will continue to evolve and may reflect lender

requirements or other conditions in the financing marketplace a nd the legal and regulatory oversight of that

marketplace. The Working Group, however, seeks to establish cor e guidelines and expec tations regarding OBR

matters, which will serve as a guide as outside financing oppor tunities are presented and evaluated.

Also excluded from the OBR Working Group Report are specific Pr ogram Administrator billing system issues

related to on‐bill repayment, and specific Department of Public Utilities issues, if any.   The Working Group

recognizes there are significant Program Administrator issues r egarding specific re payment mechanisms,

including issues relating to cost recovery and technical implem entation.  Many of these items are specific to the

individual PAs and therefore are not addressed in this report. All parties understand tha t sundry billing options

are a viable option fo r on‐bill repayment (a s opposed to totally integrated bills, which might require substantial

billing system expenditures).  There may be differing repayment solutions for different classes and groups of

customers and those solutions may differ as well among  the Pro gram Administrators, depending upon their

individual circunstances.

# Page 9 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# 2. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES, OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY SEGMENT

(MATRICES) 1



# 2 .1 SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The Working Group quickly found four distinct customer groups w ith different requirements and needs with

respect to OBR.  Attached are tab les (matrices) s ummarizing fin ancing and on‐bill repayment issues that should be

addressed in order to implement one or more effective financing offerings in the energy efficiency programs.  The

four customer groups are: residential owners, residential rente rs, small C&I renters, and s mall C&I owners.  For the

urposes of the Working Group, however, we created three matric es: p

• roperties Residential  owner‐o ccupied p

• ties Residential rental proper

• Small businesses rented

The Small business owner‐occupied category represents a very sm all percentage of that customer class, and while

small c/I owned properties resem ble residential owner‐occupied properties in some ways, the business

characteristics of small C/I cust omers are a stronger associati on than the differences between owned and rented

roperties. Thus three matrices were created by the working gro up. p

Residential owner

­ occupied properties. Much of the early OBR working group discussion focused on the i ssues

related to residential owner‐occu pied property, and overall, significant progress was achieved in terms of

1 

# The issues and matrices in this report section are derived from EEAC Consultant Draft Based on OBR Working Group Discussions

pril 29, 2010, and comments provided to DOER by Working Group members. A

# Page 10 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 ongoing discussion. resolving issues for residential owner‐occupied properties.  Ow ned residential real estate financing represents the

ost straightforward financing s egment and forme d the basis for other segment proposals. m

Small C&I

. With respect to small C&I customers, financed th rough owner obligations, the Working Group built

upon the residential owned obliga tion structure to address busi ness‐specific issues and c ollateral types.  Some

Program Administrators have been running successful financing p rograms with thousands of C&I customers for a

number of years. These programs have enjoyed very low default r ates, very high repayment levels and customer

satisfaction and strong associat ed energy savings.  The existin g C&I financing mechanisms have also involved

substantial customer incentives and bonuses for early repayment .  These programs have not, however, generally

financed measures that require substantial capital investment on the part of property owners, again leaving the

ssues around leased and rented property for further resolution

. i

Residential rental properties. Residential rental properties ga rnered considerable discussion, but achieved only

modest consensus due to the complexity of the problem. The “spl it incentive”, in which tenants pay utility costs but

property owners pay the capital costs of energy efficiency impr ovement and therefore have very little incentive to

make investments for which they realize no off‐setting energy s avings.  The Working Group reviewed a meter

approach involving landlord obli gation, but did not achieve a c lear consensus.  The matrix included in this report

reflects only preliminary discu ssions and is presented neither as a consensus view nor as an encapsulation of the

full Working Group’s current thin king.  In particular, the Prog ram Administrators’ comme nts on rental repayment

approaches are set forth separately in Section 4.

Additionally, the discussions conc erning rental properties and renters attempted to grapple with issues of

customer income and program leve l equity.   For example, a poin t was raised that renter s comprise 35% of the

residential population statewide but even the sparse evidence a vailable indicates that re nters are under‐served as

a percentage of non‐low income p rogram participants.  The Worki ng Group will continue t o assess the particular

challenges of the rental communi ty to ensure fu ll access to ene rgy efficiency opportunities.    A further set of

discussions related to customers whose income is above 60% of s tatewide median, the maximum level for

qualification for low income ene rgy efficiency programs.  While the Working Group agreed that  the questions of

equitably serving renters and eq uitably serving households whos e income is above 60% of median income (there

is likely considerable overlap be tween those two groups) need t o be addressed, no solutions were presented

within the context of the Working Group’s charge to explore and develop on‐bill repayment mechanisms.  Some

Working Group members recommende d that households falling above 60% of the state median household income 2



# should in effect be treated like households below 60% of median and not asked to take on energy efficiency

financing debt. Rather, those me mbers suggested that low‐income subsidies be extended to customers in the low‐

id income range. m

Given the concerns about where a nd how to attach the obligation in residential rented properties, the Working

Group was not able to reach a substantial consensus on a reside ntial renter matrix.   A preliminary residential

rental property proposal is atta ched in Section 2.4.3, but this should be viewed as a first attempt at solutions in an

2 

# ‐‐The GJC has referred to the group of customers whose househ old incomes are at 60‐120% of the median, but the 60‐120%

grouping was set indicatively ra ther than definitively. Further study about this issue is needed in other venues.

# Page 11 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# 2 .2 STATUS OF THE ISSUES

The Working Group operated on a consensus basis but strove to a void a lowest common denominator approach.

Where working group members expressed real differences, the Wor king Group has pointed up those issues and

will address them in further work .  In commercial and residenti al properties most of the individual issues are in

fact resolved but key issues, su ch as the structure of the obli gation in residential rentals remain unsettled at this

moment. On others, we have been able to craft acceptable soluti ons to parties. Thus for sma ll C/I rented properties,

some Working Group members felt it was essential to have custom er service termination as an option, primarily to

reduce perceived risk in the eyes of any potential lender. Prog ram Administrators believe d this requirement could

substantially impede the operations of the existing Small C/I l ending operations. A resolution was found in which a

U.C.C., lien, sometimes known as a “mechanic’s lien” could be p laced, providing the level of assurance or perhaps

more assurance than would be provided by termination.

Note that there is a difference between major issues that remai n unresolved, and issues for which there is

agreement at a high level but the details still need to be worked out. In the matrices we h ave labeled these details

as “TBD”.

Finally, we expect to find that a lthough the Working Group has recognized that a “one siz e fits all” approach does

not work across broad classes of c ustomers‐‐such as renters v. owners and residential v . commercial customers‐‐

we also expect to find that in order to maximize the use of out side capital, further distin ctions may need to be made

among subgroups of customers abo ut questions such as loan terms , repayment schedules, loan requirements by

size (loans above a certain size may require enhanced underwriting), and other distincti ons that will be discovered

nd experimented with as we move further into this area and gai n experience about what works and what doesn’t. a



# 2 .3 ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED IN OBR WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS

The following issues were not discussed in the OBR working grou p, at least not significa ntly in any efforts to

evelop specific approaches or re commendations to resolve the i ssues: d

• Source of financing capital and specific nature of financing offers. – These issues are being addressed

in the other “bucket” of financing issues (including attracting and attaining outside capital for financing,

cost of such capital, specific d esign of the finance program, e tc.). That “bucket” is being worked on by

various parties and a separate progress report will be made to the EEAC.  Ultimately, t o develop a complete

and comprehensive set of financing packages, the OBR issues wil l be coordinated when addressing

financing terms for specific fin ancing offers.  Further, specif ic interest rates offered to customers will be

determined by several factors, i ncluding the result of future p rogram design decisions setting overall levels

of rebates, interest buy‐downs a nd other customer incentives.

# Page 12 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 • PA implementation.

– Once the overall OBR mechanism an d financing approach is determ ined, what will

PAs need to do in their billing s ystems to quickly and efficien tly implement OBR repayments, or to

implement repayment through a se parate bill?  The requirements may be different depending on whether

repayment is strictly On‐Bill as opposed to on a separate or “s undry” bill.  The PAs have scoped and

commented on the common issues her ein; understanding the soluti ons may be PA‐specific in some cases.

• DPU requirements or issues for the DPU to address. The role of the DPU is yet to be determined.  DOER

will address the findings of the OBR Working Group to the DPU i n an appropriate manner.  Additionally, it

may be appropriate to incorporate the complementary issue of fi nancing to the DPU simultaneously.

Discussions on this topic are ongoing.

# Page 13 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# 2 .4  RESIDENTIAL A ND C/I MATRICES

2.4.1 RESIDENTIAL OWNER OCCUPIER MATRIX (FROM 4/29/2010 VERSION WITH COMMENTS FROM

WORKING MEMBERS)

Note: This version of the matrix is modeled for residential owner

­ occupied properties. The guiding purposes for this

version of the matrix are to deal with the large number of residential customers in owner

­ occupied properties for

which a single model will work, and to make some progress with a new or improved financing offering in the field

soon. There are many market segments and variations that need to be addressed. Many of the more complex

situations occur in rental properties (see the residential renter matrix), but condominium developments also present

challenges, as do buildings with changes of use, changes in residents’ income, etc. The goal and proposed approach is

to build the OBR model that will work for many customers and to tackle the progressively more difficult questions in

arallel processes. p

Issue Current Proposal Comments

Principle: program financing should

not be offered to low‐income

customers Protections to ensure that customers

eligible for low income programs

participate in those programs (in

which the programs provide 100% of

the funding for measures, as grants)

and do not receive l oans or offers for

loans. Some discussions involved changing

the subsidy threshold to 80% of SMI

from 60% currently, but this topic

was deemed to be outside the scope

of the workgroup’s mandate despite

its implications f or OBR terms and

implementation

Repayment obligation:  should

repayment be tied to the customer

or to the meter? Tied to the customer for residential

owner properties.  (See rental matrix

for rental property.) Preference among most of WG

(including PAs) is to tie the

obligation to the owner, with

disclosure requiring that obligation

be satisfied on sale of property.  Tie

to owner simplifies issues in many

espects r

Termination for non‐payment No t ermination for nonpayment of EE

loan WG reviewed and considered

consumer protections and current

statutes on energy servic es, and

recommends no termination for

onpayment of EE loans. n

# Page 14 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Allocation of partial payments A llocation of partial payments i n

similar manner as in Terms and

Conditions for Distribution Service

(TCDS), with loan charges treated as

part of energy service charges, and

secondary to the generation and

distribution service charges. Allocation of partial payments in

similar manner as in Terms and

Conditions for Distribution Service

(TCDS). Partial pa yments would be

applied first to any outstanding

balances for energy, generation

and/or distribution services. Where

applicable, equipment rental or

customer service charges will also

be paid down prior to the energy

efficiency loan.

Requirement of positive cash flo w Objective (aspirational) of p ositive

cash flow.  Savings to customers are

not guaranteed, therefore clear

disclosure and information is crucial. WG discussed additional

consideration for low/moderate

income customers, with goal to

increase access to EE funds for

customers at 60‐120% median

income. Potential for EE loan to add

financial burdens to this

ommunity. c

Also need to address customer

eligibility, objecti ve of positive cash

flow, and loan term in relation to

financial risks for specific financing

ffers. o

Savings guarantee No Do not guarantee savings, but

provide best estim ates on savings,

and clear disclosure. Also provide

education to customers on optimal

ults. practices and monitoring res

Remedy if estimated savings do not

materialize This is an efficiency program issue,

. not financing/OBR issue per se

Determined by underlying EE

program; respond to concerns and

resolve with customers who aren’t

satisfied. If savings do not materialize

because program is not designed or

implemented properly, improve

QA/QC.

# Page 15 rking Group Report May 11, 2010 EEAC On Bill Repayment Wo Issue Current Proposal Comments

Nature of payment:  fixed or floats

with savings? Fixed over the term of the loan Prepayment allowed without

enalty. p

Eligible measures Eligib le measures TBD with an

mphasis on non‐portable measures. e Eligible measures should be cost

effective approved measures and

on‐portable.  List TBD n

Customer eligib ility TBD

Customer class Residential NOT for customers eligible for the

low‐income program (see above)

Owners vs. renters Both eligible, but different offerings

(see other matrix on issues in rental

property) Continue work on issues for renters

in parallel.

Credit checks No individual credit checks, with

possibility of using utility repayment

history as qualifier.

FICO scores may be collected for data

analysis purposes with appropriate

disclosure and permissions but will

not be used in underwriting

decisions. Emphasize/support pooled lending

and pooled (diversified) risk.

PAs continue to investigate legal

issues from being party to a

financial transaction and providing

utility bill history as an

underwriting criterion.

Income verification may be required

to protect <60% median income

customers.

Customer bill payment history El igibility limited to customers that

have been current on their electric

bill for at least 12 (potentially as

many as 24) consecutive months 12 months vs. 24 months, and for

which customer segments.

Unregulated fuel customers would

rely on electricity bill history.

Regulated fuel customers may be

evaluated on one or both utility

bills 3



# .

3 

# Further research/review should be conducted concerning potenti al issues of a PA program rely ing on billing history for

another fuel ( e.g ., gas PA relying on electric billing history)

# Page 16 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Maximum loan amount TBD for spec ific financing offer Consider i nvestment needed to

achieve deeper savings. Could be

minimum loan amounts per

servicing issues and transaction

costs.

Maximum term TBD for specific fi nancing offer Measure life and lender terms will

affect this. Terms as long as 10

years or more needed for some

projects.  Consider measure lives as

one driver to extent possible.

Source of capital Outside ca pital, separate from PA and

program funds; excludes capital

raised by PAs for other types of

financing programs Loan principal shall not include

program monies from EE funds or

PA shareholder funds.  PAs are not

the source of capital but portal to

the customers and the primary

collection path for repayment of

oans. l

Cost of capital Being addr essed related to source of

capital, above (se eking lower cost

capital)

Disclosure requirement Full an d fair disclosure regarding

measures, costs, savings, loan costs,

cash flow, defaults, remedies, and use

of payment history. Use plain

language explanations (will need

disclosures in mul tiple languages). Disclosure must be:

‐ complete and fair

‐ clear and understandable (plain

language)

‐ concise so that someone will read

it

# Page 17 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Customer interest rate U nknown at this time.

The objective is to offer attractive

rates determined by market

conditions and applied interest rate

subsidy, if applicable. Concern regarding 60‐120%

median income customer’s ability to

access financing an d repay without

ardship. h

Tiered interest rates based on

income levels are problematic due

to additional program complexity,

investor concerns over credit

quality and the need for greater

. income verification capabilities

Collection procedures and

protections Collections subject to standard utility

servicing efforts for non‐serious

delinquencies (anticipated to be 30‐

60 days).  Loans delinquent > preset

servicing term would be handed over

to a special servicing entity to

collections (similar to current utility

practice of turning unpaid debts to

special servicers for collection.

Default and charge‐off at 120 days

TBD). (

Future detailed terms and conditions

to be developed. Standard utility/PA collection

procedures 4 

# . Uncollectibles at some

point TBD would be turned over to

a service agency. Funds collected

from service agency will be used to

reimburse injured party or loan loss

reserve fund.

The financial agreements will

specify the duties and limitations

for all loans servicing not directly

involving the PAs. PAs request that

cost recovery for related costs

should be addressed and permitted.

4 

# Further work on the details of c ollection procedures needs to be undertaken, including the treatment of

ustomers installing electric an d gas measures, as well as the role/selection of service agency. c

# Page 18 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Who is at risk for defaults Loa n loss reserve or investors at risk

or defaults. f Expectation of low default rates

based on existing HEAT Loan

defaults (< 1%).

Funding for a loan loss reserve

could come from federal sources,

foundations, EE program funds

(similar to how the EE program

funds 5 

# pay for any defaults in the

small business financing program

urrently) or other sources. c

QC on measures / installations QC on measures/installations (se e

above)

Applicability of banking and

consumer protection laws OBR and financing program will be

subject to compliance with all laws

and regulations including

banking/lending statutes. Need to acquire better

understanding of the requirements

and the applicability of such laws to

PAs as portal vs. provider of

financing.  The particular issues will

become clearer as sp ecific financing

offerings are developed.

5 

# Question remains if program funds meet GCA requirements for co st effectiveness.

# Page 19 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# 2.4.2 SMALL C/I MATRIX (FROM 4/29/2010 VERSION WITH COMM ENTS FROM WORKING MEMBERS)

On Bill Repayment of commercial e nergy efficiency loans is alre ady offered through select utilities in

Massachusetts.  Current programs are financed with utility capi tal and ratepayer‐ backed recovery.  Broadening the

program to longer term loans and changing the exp ected capital source to the public markets has some

implications for the delivery an d structure of C&I OBR, but muc h of the program reflects existing best practices in

usiness lending with OBR. b

Issue Current Proposal Comments

Repayment obligation:  should

repayment be tied to the customer or

to the meter? Tied to the customer (owner or

tenant). Preference would be to tie the

obligation to customer (owner or

tenant) with disclosure requirement

that obligation must be satisfied on

ale of property or change of tenant. s

Tie to owner simplifies issues in

ost respects m

# Page 20 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Termination for non‐payment UN DECIDED:  Need to reduce risk

of default through appropriate

incentive structure. TERMINATION: Termination (or at

least the threat of shutoff) is

important to the program to lower

expected defaults and funding costs.

Absent adequate incentives to

encourage repa yment capital

providers will require significantly

higher interest from the program

with implications for EERF funds

and/or adoption.  Lack of

termination also limits program

negotiating position with capital

providers and make s program more

reliant on other measures such as

property or fixture liens which may

be more exclusionary and

otentially more costly to maintain. p

NON

­ TERMINATION: The PAs’

view is that the potential benefits of

the termination option are

outweighed by the potential

detriments. The primary detriments

are: 1) increased risks to

participants relating to EE programs

which could create a barrier to

participation; 2) potential backlash

and negative perceptions regarding

EE efforts for disruptive service

terminations that could force a

business to shut; 3) job loss and

economic harm to local

communities associated with

termination; and 4) potential

expenses involved in terminating

service where customer contests

the action. The PAs operating small

business financin g efforts have

experienced low de fault rates (1%‐

3% range is typical) to date and do

not see need for termination threat,

especially if other tools, e.g ., loan

loss reserves or ba ck up programs,

re implemented. a

# Page 21 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Allocation of partial payments A llocation of partial payments i n

similar manner as in Terms and

Conditions for Distribution Service

(TCDS). Allocation of partial payments in

similar manner as in Terms and

Conditions for Distribution Service

(TCDS). Partial pa yments would be

applied first to any outstanding

balances for energy, generation

and/or distribution services. Where

applicable, DPU approved tariffs on

equipment rental or customer

service charges will also be paid

down prior to the energy efficiency

loan.

Requirement of positive cash flow Aspire to achieve positive ca sh

flow for shorter payback

measures.  No limits on longer

sures. mea Positive cash flow not required as

some measures have a significant

payback period.

Savings guarantee No Do not guarantee savings, but

provide best estim ates on savings.

Also provide education to

customers on optimal practices and

monitoring results.

Remedy if estimated savings do not

materialize Determined by underlying EE

program; respond to and resolve

with customers who aren’t

satisfied If savings do not materialize

because program is not designed or

implemented properly, improve

QA/QC.

Nature of payment:  fixed or floats

with savings? Fixed over the term of the loan, but

allowing for pre payment without

penalty F ixed over the term of the loan

Eligible measures Eligible measures (regardless of

fuel) TBD with an emphasis on

on‐portable measures. n Many programs sp ecify only non‐

portable measures can qualify for

financing limiting addressable

opportunity, especially in leased

space.  Program desire to assist in

deeper savings projects where some

portion of measures may be

onsidered portable.  Details TBD c

Customer eligibility TBD

# Page 22 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Customer class Small comm ercial as defined by

the program eligibility

requirements and further defined

um by loan maxim

Owners vs. renters Both eligible. Work to date focused more on

issues in owner property.  Renters

currently participate in the small

business program.

Credit checks No individual credit checks for

loans up to residential loan

maximum (use utility bill history

as per residential owner model)

For loans greater than residential

maximum (amount TBD), business

or investment property level due

diligence Emphasize/support pooled lending

nd pooled (diversified) risk. a

PA’s continue to i nvestigate legal

issues from being party to a

inancial transaction. f

Customer bill payment history Customer bill payment used for

smaller loan amounts (up to

residential maximum) with 12/24

month repayment history. TBD.  Eligibility limited to

customers that have been current

on their electric and/or Gas bill if

applicable for at least 12 [24?]

onsecutive months. c

For larger loan balances, tenant /

owner must meet traditional

underwriting standards to be

performed by financing entity

(exact terms TBD)

Maximum loan amount TBD Cons ider investment needed to

achieve deeper savings. Could be

minimums per servicing issues and

transaction costs.

Maximum term TBD Measure life and lender terms will

affect this. Terms as long as 10

years or more needed for some

projects.  Term not to exceed

existing lease, if applicable

# Page 23 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Source of capital Outsid e capital sourced from

market sources (similar to

residential model). Ultimately, preference not to use

program monies from EE funds.

Some PAs are currently using EE

program funds as capital, and other

PAs are using or proposing to use

company funds (as a substitute for

program funds or as a transition to

other capital).  PAs are not expected

to be the source of capital but portal

to the customers and the primary

collection path for repayment of

loans.

Cost of capital Being a ddressed (See Source of

capital, above) Cost of capital will be determined by

market forces, and program

elements among other factors.

Disclosure requirement Full and fair disclosure

Full disclosure regarding

measures, costs, savings, loan

costs, cash flow, defaults,

remedies, and us e of payment

history. Disclosure must be complete and

air. f

Customer interest rate U nknown at this time. TBD

# Page 24 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue Current Proposal Comments

Collection procedures and protect ions Standard utility procedur es and

rotections. p

DPU would need to address any

changes to utility collection

procedures. Standard utility/PA collection

procedures. Uncollectibles at some

point TBD would be turned over to

a service agency. Funds collected

from service agency will be used to

reimburse injured party or loan loss

eserve fund. r

The financial agreements will

specify the duties and limitations

for all loans servicing not directly

nvolving the PAs. i

PAs request that cost recovery for

related costs shou ld be addressed

and permitted.

Who is at risk for defaults Capital provider or loan loss

eserve at risk for defaults. r

Structure of credit enhancement

(loan loss reserve fund) and

inancing initiative TBD f Expectation of low default rates

based on existing small business

program proxies (< 2%).

Funding for a loan loss reserve

could come from federal sources,

foundations, EE program funds

(similar to how the EE program

funds 6 

# pay for any defaults in the

small business financing program

urrently) or other sources. c

QC on measures / installations Q C on measures / installations

Applicability of banking and consumer

protection laws OBR and financing program will be

subject to compliance with all laws

and regulations including

banking/lending statutes. Need to get better understanding of

the requirements and the

applicability to PAs as portal vs.

provider of financing.

6 

# Question remains if program funds meet GCA requirements for co st effectiveness.

# 2.4.3. RESIDENTIAL RENTAL MATRIX (FROM 4/29/2010 VERSION WITH

COMMENTS FROM WORKING MEMBERS)

Summary:

The workgroup has made progress in addressing the rental commun ity, but significant

issues remain unresolved despite the group’s best efforts.  Com peting interests between

tenant protections, low‐mid inco me advocacy, financial community requirements and PA

concerns, have made it difficult to find a collectively accepta ble approach.  Further

discussions are required in this area, including some that go b eyond the scope of the work

group’s activities (including addressing the potential for addi tional subsidies for rental and

60‐120% income communities and PA concerns over implementation cost/complexity).

Despite a lack of consensus on key issues, the wo rkgroup’s conv ersations have coalesced

round a meter based obligation structure with certain elements widely supported. a

Matrix Overview:

The On Bill Repayment workgroup has been working to improve the equitable distribution

of System Benefit Charges to the rental community through the p otential use of meter based

repayment obligations.  Two sign ificant issues (among many) hav e been identified as major

barriers to rental adoption of ene rgy efficiency m easures.  The two issues are the split

equity problems between tenant (receive energy savings) and lan dlords (pay higher costs

for efficiency) and th e economic disincentiv e to adopt energy e fficiency measures.  Both

issues are structural problems t hat are unlikely to be solved b y market forces in the

oreseeable future and require a new approach to drive energy e fficiency adoption. f

As many council members are awar e, the rental community is curr ently paying into System

Benefit Charge (SBC) pools, but anecdotally 7 

# receiving very little of the benefits (rebates,

interest rate buy‐down or other subsidies applied toward energy efficiency imp rovement).

Among the most significant barri ers to energy efficiency (EE) a doption in the rental market

are the split incentives problem between landlord (LL) and tena nts and an economic

disincentive to adopt EE measure s.  On Bill Repayment (OBR) pro vides one of the leading

potential solutions for solving t he split incentive issue throu gh meter‐based obligations that

ould split the savings and cost of improvements equitably betw een landlords and tenants. w

For purposes of this report, \th e group has focused on meter‐ba sed obligation structures

because they tied the cost of financing improvements to the ene rgy user substantially

m.   Meter obligations also had the added benefit of ensuring bridging the split equity proble

7 

# PAs are reviewing programs to determine use of SBCs among rent ers.

# Page 26 On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 EEAC that the proper incentives remai n in place to fa cilitate approp riate participant behavior.  In

order to appropriately balance t he cost to the landlord (constr uction/remodel expenses)

from adopting energy efficiency with the benefit expected to ac crue to the tenant (energy

bill savings), we have posited that a portion of the financing cost of improvements be

allocated to the tenant (not to exceed expected savings) throug h a meter obligation.  The

landlord would be required to pa y‐in an upfront amount (which i tself could be financed

separately) equal to the amount needed to reduce the expected f inance costs to some

percentage below expected savings.  All work would be based on voluntary agreement from

both landlord and tenant subject to pre‐agreed upon terms 8



# .

Although the Working Group has p rovisionally included a matrix reflecting this meter‐based

model, it should be emphasized that the members have not reache d consensus on this

model.  While the matrix captures the thread of some discussion s, it does not represent the

view of the Working Group as a w hole, and further discussions and analysis will be required

before a consensus model can be established.  In particular, th e Program Administrators

have not endorsed the model set forth in the matrix and have in stead advanced their

comments separately.   These comments are preliminary, and the Program Administrators

anticipate that significant furt her discussion (including discu ssions with representatives of

the landlord and rental communiti es) and analysis will be requi red to develop a viable,

utually agreement repayment mo del for the re ntal sector. m

Issue: Proposed: Comments:

Repayment obligation: METER with Landlord (LL)

guaranty LL is required to guaranty

as the primary recipient of

benefit (new EE

improvements to

property).  Tenant shares

benefit through Meter

s. based finance charge

Allocation of partial

payments: EXISTING ‐ Allocation of partial

payments in similar

manner as in Terms and

Conditions for

Distribution Service

(TCDS). Partial payments

would be applied first to

any outstanding balances

for energy, generation

and/or distribution

services. Where

8 

# See Appendix –Rental Agreement

# Page 27 EE epayment Working Group May 11, 2010 AC On Bill R Report Issue: Proposed: Comments:

applicable, DPU approved

tariffs on equipment

rental or customer service

charges will also be paid

down prior to the energy

efficiency loan.

Termination for non‐

payment, Eviction: NONE – Landlord/tenant

agreement would include

eviction capabilit y failure to pay

rent. (Finance payments are

deemed a rent surrogate just as

a “green lease” that included

higher rents for energy

efficiency improvements would

be and therefore non‐payment

could lead to eviction under this

model) No Termination for non‐

payment.

Non‐payment could, under

certain circumstances,

precipitate eviction due to

failure to pay rental

surrogate.

This model raises the risk

of eviction under certain

circumstances. Clear

protections needed.

Requirement of positive

cash flow Aspirational using best estimate.

Extending loan duration or

requiring LL to put down part of

capital cost to lower tenant

payments (see financial model

for details).  Landlord and

Tenant must both approve

measures to protect both

parties. The sum of landlord

contribution and utility

rebate should, using best

estimates, result in

positive cash flow for

tenant.  This is critical for

tenants with income

elow 120% SMI. b

We need to determine

whether that down

payment is feasible

or/attractive to landlords. f

Savings guarantee No, (see also “Nature of Charge”

below)

Remedy if savings do not

materialize Contractual agreement between

LL and Tenant spells out both

parties’ legal obligations as well

as future assumptions which are

limited to best efforts and best

analysis. Ideally, there would be

tenant recourse or a

mechanism for adjusting

the ‘split’ in cases where

the retrofit does not turn

out to be cash flow

# Page 28 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue: P roposed: Comment s:

Tenant can move at lease expiry

or break lease subject to existing

terms. p ositive.

Tenants also need

recourse if landlords

violate the terms of the

green lease”. “

More research needed on

green lease” models. “

Nature of charge: Financin g charges are fixed for

life of obligation.  Energy

costs/use will vary with

weather/temperature, actual

efficiency gains, and tenant

behavior among other factors.

This has to be made very clear to

both the EEAC and

landlord/tenant

Eligible measures Cost e ffective EE improvements

as determined by DOER These items should not be

ortable p

Customer eligibility Eligibility is determined by LL

credit quality.  Underwriting will

follow traditional underwriting

measures of an investment

property and will not be based

on tenant credit.

(The LL has every incentive to

screen the credit quality of

tenants and due to guaranty will

have further incentive to do so

under OBR)

Customer class RESIDEN TIAL RENTAL ONLY

Owners vs. ren ters RENTAL

Credit checks YES, related to LL and

investment property

# Page 29 EE p Report May 11, 2010 AC On Bill Repayment Working Grou Issue: Proposed: Comments:

Customer bill payment

history No, responsibility of the

Landlord to ascertain credit

quality of tenants. Landlord should not be

authorized to carry out

additional tenant credit

checks. Landlords have

opportunity to check

tenant credit at time of

nitial lease. i

Maximum loan amount TBD // limits per unit and

property maximum

Maximum term TBD – Has implications for

tenant cash flow and LL

required upfront capital.

Traditionally limited to expected

measure life. Maximum term to be

determined by

negotiations with capital

provider

Source of capital Outsid e capital sourced from

market sources (similar to

residential model). Ultimately, preference not

to use program monies

from EE funds.

PAs are not expected to be

the source of capital but

portal to the customers

and the primary collection

path for repayment of

loans.

Disclosure requirement YES, Landlord and Tenant must

both have disclo sed and agreed

to:

A best estimate of expected

savings and financing charges

Capital commitments (Landlord)

and agreement to repay

(Tenant)

Authorization to allow detailed

credit check (Landlord)

Alteration of te rms for eviction

to include EE finance payment

(Tenant)

Landlord agreement to guaranty Agreement to t reat finance

payments as rent proxy

creates possibility of

increased eviction risk

that may be unacceptable.

Need to establish leases

i.e. “Green Lease” that

would state

responsibilities of

landlords and tenants and

offer suitable protections

to ensure rents are not

inappropriately increased

or tenants inappropriately

evicted for non‐payment.

# Page 30 EE oup ay 11, 2010 AC On Bill Repayment Working Gr Report M Issue: Proposed: Comments:

EE finance payment backed by

potential lien on investment

erty prop

Interest rate TBD Subject to market

onditions and subsidy $’s c

Collection

procedures/protections Tenants will be responsible for

contractually agreed upon

finance charges.  Terms related

to failure to pay obligation will

be spelled out in rental

agreement and are expected to

be similar to partial payment of

rent.

If normal collection measures

(set forth in program Terms &

Conditions ‐ T&C) do not

remedy loan, loan balance is

turned over to special servicer

that will contact the LL and seek

remediation.  Should contact the

tenant if he/she is still living

there. LL should be contacted

after the servicer determines

there is no recourse with the

tenant.

Remedy of the loan by the

servicer (including LL payments,

tenant remedy, etc.) will result

in the METER based obligation

being returned to the utility OBR

program.

Failure to remedy will result in

default and associated collection

measures.

Who is at risk in case of

Default Investors / Loan Loss Reserve

Fund (if applicable).

Relationship to low income

program Low income LL/Tenant may

choose to enter into these

agreements subject to meeting <60% qualifies for WAP

and subsidized

improvements.    Low

# Page 31 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 Issue: Proposed: Comments:

above criterion income tenants may

choose to enter into an

established METER lease

agreement, but new

obligations will not be

written to tenants <60%

edian income. m

In mixed buildings, where

some tenants qualify for

LEAN but not a majority,

program needs to closely

coordinate with LEAN,

operationally, financially

and otherwise.

QC on measures /

installations EXISTING measures are deemed

adequate to monitor and verify

nstallation. i Question – higher

efficiency systems (boiler,

solar hot water, etc.) may

require regular

maintenance to achieve

projected efficiency.  Can

this be worked into

agreements as the LL and

Tenant have different

incentives with respect to

efficiency targeted

aintenance? m

Applicability of banking

laws OBR and Financing program will

be subject to compliance with all

laws and regulations including

banking/lending statutes.

# Page 32 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# 3. ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY THE WORKING GROUP

REPORT

As noted in earlier sections of this report, some issues raised by members of the Working

Group were either peripheral to the group’s charge to explore a nd recommend principles

and mechanisms for on‐bill repaym ent of outside financial capit al resources that will be

incorporated into the Program Ad ministrator Ener gy Efficiency I nvestment Plans for the

years 20 11‐2012  and beyond.  These issues include:

3⁄4 Status of customers whose  income is above 60% of  the statewid e median income

up to some higher level (initially posed as 60‐120% of median);

3⁄4 Service to residential renters compared to owners in the reside ntial energy

efficiency programs, characteriz ed as “Mass Save ” and including primarily the

electric and gas 9



# .

3⁄4 The “Pay and Save” pilot program mandated under the Green Commu nities Act. The

pilot was in progress during the course of the Working Group’s discussions. An

evaluative report was issued and made available for comment aft er the this round of

Working Group meetings leading to this report was completed.



# 3.1 CUSTOMERS ABOVE 60% OF STATEWIDE MEDIANINCOME

Members of the Working Group, pa rticularly those representing t he Green Justice Coalition

(GJC), advanced the position that residential customers whose i ncome ranges above the

60% of state median income  should be viewed as in the equivale nt situation with respect to

being asked to pay the customer share of energy efficiency meas ures, which is currently set

at 25% of total measure costs.  T his position posed several dif ficulties for the Working

Group’s fulfillment of its charge.

First, the question of customer share of efficiency program cos ts was not in the Working

Group’s charge.  The question is a policy question that had not been previously addressed

by the EEAC or the DPU.  The EEAC has recently formed an Equity Committee, which is

presumably the venue for raising the issue in the Council. Furt her, since the DPU is the

regulatory arbiter of determinat ions about the income eligibili ty boundaries of low income

9 

# For the 2010‐2012 period, Program A dministrators have designed statewide multifamily energy

efficiency programs that will se rve buildings of more than four dwelling units. Additionally, the Low

Income programs are offering a pa rallel multifamil y program bui lt upon the tr aditional Low

Programs offered.

# Page 33 11, 2010 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May programs, additional work would have to be done to engage that body and develop a final

determination.

Second, while the Working Group members acknowledged that the b urden of energy costs

certainly impacts customers whos e income is above 60% of median, there was no

agreement in the group about where to set the upper end of inco me with respect to thinking

about different policies on customer contribution.  It was note d that the federal Department

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets 80% of median as th e upper range of low

income for  the purposes of deter ming eligibility for federal h ousing assistance.  That’s one

marker but the Working Group did not have the time or resources to consider other

possible markers, higher or lower than 120% of median income, t hat could be considered as

an upper boundary.  There was agreement that more work is neede d to understand the

issue and make recommendations.  T he general consensus was that this income –related

question is certainly valid but this Working Group was not the most appropriate place to

onsider it. c



# 3.2 SERVICE TO RENTERS

In a discussion somewhat similar t o the question of income‐rela ted decisions, some

members of the Working Group pro posed intensive efforts to incr ease the percentage of

residential program participants who are renters. Data in this area are scarce because PA’s

have not been required previousl y to report on the numbers or p ercentages of renters

served under the PA’s electric RCS program or the gas weatheriz ation program, popularly

known as Mass Save.  The RCS leg islation specifically is target ed to 1‐4 family buildings, and

as acknowledged elsewhere, until  this year, there was no state wide multifamily program

targeted to that residential sub‐sector (we note that Low Income programs have done work

in various types of multifamily low income housing over the years and are also launching a

new multifamily effort in 2010). GJC  presented census statist ics indicating that statewide,

35% of dwelling units are occupied by renters, but fully develo ped PA or other data on what

ercentage of renters have been served are spotty at best, and need further work. p

This is again an issue that while central to the question of eq uitable service among

residential customers, is somewh at secondary to the question of how to finance and repay

obligations in the OBR context. The Working Group had a number of detailed discussions

involving members who have had many years’ experience of workin g with renters and

landlords and did not come to any clear consensus beyond the re cognition that there are

complex, legal, financial and re gulatory issues, that property owners and managers are

diverse in their composition e.g. owner‐occupiers landlords at one end, corporate property

managers at another and numberou s variations in between.  Furth er property owner

perceptions of their own interest s and the value of energy effi ciency for them varies greatly.

Most tenants pay their own utility costs, while the costs of ca pital improvement are borne

by owners – with this common situation there is a widely recogn ized split incentive that

works against finding an equitable balance of costs and benefit s in rental housing, short of

# Page 34 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 regulatory or legislative soluti ons that would mandate certain efficiency practices. Such

game changing initiatives are not currently on any legislative or regulatory agendas.

The Working Group member consensu s is that the issue of equitab le service to renters is

important but the equity issue it self is not in the scope of th e OBR Working Group and

beyond a recommendation that fur ther work concerning renters is needed, the Working

Group has not gone beyond the de velopment of what is admittedly an early step in the

esidential renter matrix. r



# 3 .3 PAY AND SAVE PILOT AND REPORT

While the OBR Working Group disc ussions were in progress, the D PU, in accordance with a

mandate in the Green Communities Act (Chapter 169 of the Acts o f 2008), ordered electric

and gas utilities to conduct a financing pilot known as Pay and Save in each of their

territories.  As stated in the GCA, the pilot was limited to a maximum financed amount of

$500 in residences and $1,000  f or Small C/I part icipants.   Th ese amounts are considerably

less than the financed investment s contemplated in the drive to achieve deeper and broader

savings under the GCA mandate to acquire all cost‐effective ene rgy efficiency. Indeed the

existing Small C/I financing opti on offered by National Grid an d others significantly exceeds

the C/I limitation, with some thousands of customers participat ing in financing over the

past several years.

At the conclusion of time‐ and fin ance‐limited Pay and Save pil ot programs, an evaluation

for all the pilot programs was conducted by Black and Veatch. This evaluation will be

posted on the EEAC website.  The evaluation included a survey o f participants and non‐

participants in the pilot.  The evaluators concluded there was a high percentage of free

ridership with respect to financ ing, that participation was lim ited and that many customers

felt the financing option was more trouble than it was worth. T he survey found some

conflicting  responses, including responses to questions with r espect to whether increased

financing would be attractive.  The evaluation concluded that t here was little interest in

financing, a conclusion, which som e parties, inclu ding DOER bel ieved was not warranted by

the limited nature of the pilot.

Despite the limited nature of th e pilot there may be some lessons learned with respect to

how customers view financing oppo rtunities from their respectiv e vantage points.  To be

successful, any financing/OBR repa yment mechanisms must be perc eived by customers as

providing good value and being c ustomer‐friendly.  Therefore th ere may be value in further

xploration of what was observed in the pilot. e

# Page 35 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 

# 4. COMMENTS ON RENTAL UNITS AND OTHER ISSUES:

This section primarily presents comments made by Program Administrators but it also

includes issues raised by other stakeholders in the course of the OBR discussions over

sev eral months and many meetings.

GENERAL COMMENT:  The Program Administrators present these comm ents as a

preliminary working proposal for a residential renter section.  The PAs regard these

comments as a straw/position pape r intended to reflect the PAs’ overarching

concerns with the approach outlined in the rental matrix and as a means to focus

discussion.  The Program Adminis trators stress that the followi ng section requires

additional analysis, discussi on, and vetting, and does not represent a consensus

position.

Renters

• Overall, the PAs stress that the proposed rental option does no t provide benefits

over the owner option, but can create an unnecessarily complica ted system that

would insert the PAs into the relationship between landlords an d tenants. The

Program Administrators point out that the core beneficiary is t he landlord by

actually financing the differenc e between the total cost less t he rebates, tax benefits

and capital improvements to the property.  The tenant benefits primarily by a

reduction in energy bills, thereb y potentially reducing the cos t of rent or the utility

bill.

• Instead of the approach outlined in the rental matrix, the Prog ram Administrators

propose developing a loan progra m for landlords (based on the o wner‐obligation

scenario).  Should the landlord w ish to shift a portion of the cost to the tenant, that

may be accomplished through a hig her rent.  This general approa ch would avoid

complex billing, transaction‐trac king and legal issues.  For ex ample, given that the

state sanitary code requires landlords to provide the me ans for heat and hot water,

making tenants responsible to pa y (even if in a loan) for new h eating/DHW systems

may violate the state sanitary c ode.  Furthermore, the PAs beli eve that the potential

evictions associated with energy e fficiency programs could be p roblematic and

create unwanted “backlash” against the programs.



# 4.1 AT‐RISK GROUPS

Several workgroup members have e xpressed concern over the implications of placing

additional financial burdens on at‐risk groups (<60% median inc ome and 60‐120% median

# Page 36 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010 • Restructure utility reba income).  Although the model sug gests setting financing costs a t a safe margin 10 

# below

expected savings, there was concern that this group could be vu lnerable to volatile income

streams and more exposed to eviction, etc. as a result of the a dditional fixed payment

obligations.  Several suggestions / issues are listed below. Th ese comments do not reflect

the consensus of the OBR Working Group (and some of the suggest ions/issues are outside

the scope of the OBR Working Gro up’s efforts), but are presente d to set forth

suggest ions/issues raised by som e of the non‐PA  participants:

• Low income programs must be even better coordinated than before , as we increase

outreach to low‐to‐moderate income communities and start to rea ch neighborhoods

and multi‐unit buildings that may be occupied by a range of hou sehold incomes,

some below 60% of median income, some in the 60‐120% median inc ome range,

and some above that.

• We need to be cautious about offering financing to households i n the 60% to ~

120% SMI range, as additional debt may adversely affect their f inancial security.

There is still the issue of how t o identify these customers and whether or not the

utilities should be responsible for attempting to ID these cust omers and steer them

to the appropriate EE programs.

• For households in the 60~120% range, the group discussed offeri ng higher levels of

rebates and incentives than for households above the 120% range 11



# .

• Outreach and marketing (such as community mobilization initiati ves) to be

specifically tailored towards th ese particular sectors, includi ng landlords.

• In addition to getting to consen sus on the renter matrix, sever al other steps must

also be taken in order to ensure adequate participation and acc ess to these

programs by renters and 60‐120% homeowners: thought this piece concerned

renters, not owners.

tes/ince ntives and marketing/outreach.

10 

# The margin being the difference between finance payments and e xpected savings of which the

ta rget margin was neve r finalized although 10% and 15% were num bers used in discussions.

11 

# Questions arose as to the appro priate level of increased incen tives.  The PAs belie ve this implies a

tiered rebate/incentive system a nd further program segmentation .  Further segmentation would

need to be reviewed by the EEAC a nd DPU.  [PA NOTE:Further prog ram segmentation would require

large administrative u ndertaking and collection of income data. Such a separate effort for this

specified income sector is not mandated under the GCA (as oppos ed to Low Income programs, which

are). This issue merits discussi on but would be a change to exi sting DPU‐approved plans. EMV work

with allow some market research but with limits. and the resear ch might not address overall

program design.

# Page 37 • Program budgets should be alloca ted specific to renters and 60‐ 120% homeowners.

Programs should be designed spec ifically to the needs of these sectors. A market

research consultant should be hired by the PAs to address both of these populations.

EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010EEACOnBillRepaymentWorkingGroupReportMay11,2010APPENDIX A ‐CASH FLOW MODEL OFCOSTS, SAVINGS AND FINANCESOURCE: DOER12Appendix‐ Financial Demonstration Model:RENTAL BOILER & HOT WATER EXAMPLEAssumptions:NotesN Gas Utility (yearly)1,650$based on 1100 Therms @ $1.50 per Therm // Average for MA is 1,070 Therms or $1,650% HVAC & Hot Water95%(May include some cooking, drying, fireplace, etc.)Targeted Energy bef. Imp.1,568$Amount targeted for upgrade and efficiency gainsOld Boiler Efficiency65%(Average of Natural Gas Fired Boiler pre 1975)New Boiler Efficiency90%(Actual not AFUE - Targeted Boiler / Hot Water Efficiency)Boiler Replacement Cost10,000$(Estimate for equivalent boiler, hot water and install)Utility Rebates-$ Rebate applied to interest rate buy down (See K19)Fed Tax Credits-$ Assumes home owner qualifies for immediate tax creditNet10,000$Consumer Payment:Energy UseBeforeAfterEnergy Cost Inflation3%Yearly MonthlyTherms1,100810Dep/yrPayment417$35$Cost1.50$ 1.50$Down50.0%5,000$ 364$Savings435$36$Efficiency65% 90%Principle5,000$Net19$2$Heating Equiv. 679679Savings Ratio105%Cost1,650$1,215$435$Subsidized MarketInterest Rate0.0% 6.5%PV of Subsidy 1,534$Current boiler & hot water subsidy is $1,600 for >95%Duration144 monthsDiscount Rate6.5%Duration12yearsPage3812The data in this model was compiled by the DOER and has not been reviewed or verified by the Program Administrators.

# Page 39 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

# ATTACHMENT B

NATIONAL GRID – GOVERNM ENT GRANT FUNDING LISTNational Grid – Government Grant Funding ListGovernment Grants (Federal)www.grant.gov#ClosingDateTitleAgencyFundingNumberEligibility RequirementsNotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateEnergy-Related Grants Currently OpenG-108/01/2010Program Year 2010 WeatherizationFormula GrantsNational EnergyTechnology LaboratoryDE-FOA-0000216Only available for States andFederally Recognized NativeAmerican Tribal Governments08-01-10 due date may impact ourability to support Commonwealth’seffort, if any.G-208/31/2010State Energy Program (SEP) PY 2010Formula Award Funding OpportunityAnnouncementNational EnergyTechnology LaboratoryDE-FOA-0000308Only available for States56 Awards (25M total programfunding)Has Mass Applied or isConsidering proposing? Offer toassist Commonwealth?Environment-Related Grants Currently OpenG-309/02/2010“MARKET-BASED APPROACHES TOREDUCING GREENHOUSE GASEMISSIONS THROUGH ENERGYEFFICIENCY IN HOMES ANDBUILDINGS”EnvironmentalProtection AgencyEPA-OARCPPD-10-11State governmentsCounty governmentsCity or township governmentsPublic and State controlledinstitutions of higher educationNative American tribal governments(Federally recognized)Private institutions of highereducationMultiple awards;10 grants ranging invalue from $60,000 - $180,000, andup to 4 large cooperative agreementsranging in value from $300,000 -$1,200,000 from this announcement,subject to the availability of funds,quality of evaluated proposals, andother applicable considerations. Thetotal awarded amount is not expectedto exceed $5,360,000.Have downloaded full announcement,RFP and EPA Grant KitMay be an opportunity to supportcities & townsHousing-Related Grants Currently Open (http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail)G-402/16/2011Assisted Housing Stability and Energyand Green RetrofitDepartment of Housingand UrbanDevelopmentHUD-RA-01Owners of properties receivingproject-based assistance pursuant tosection 202 of the Housing Act of1959 (12 U.S.C. 17012), section 811of the Cranston- Gonzalez NationalAffordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.8013, or Section 8 of the UnitedStates Housing Act of 1937 asamended (42 U.S.C. 1437f).No application associated with thisannouncement. Provides link toHUD portal for full announcements.None are currently open.This is what they have funded:Promoting Energy Efficiencyand Creating Green JobsThese investments are powerfulvehicles for economic recovery becausethey work quickly, are labor-intensive,create jobs where they are neededmost, and lead to lasting neighborhoodbenefits. Many will also reducegreenhouse gas emissions and saveAmericans money by retrofitting housingto make it more energy efficient.•Public Housing Capital Fund:$4 billion invested in energyefficient modernization andrenovation of our nation's criticalpublic housing inventory.•Native American Housing1National Grid – Government Grant Funding List2Government Grants (Federal)www.grant.gov# ClosingDateTitle Agency FundingNumberEligibility RequirementsNotApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateesBlock Grants: $510 millioninvested in energy efficientmodernization and renovation ofhousing maintained by NativeAmerican housing programs, andthe development of sustainablecommunities.•Assisted Housing EnergyRetrofit: $250 million invested inenergy efficient modernization andrenovation of housing of HUDsponsored housing for low-income,elderly, and disabled persons.•Lead Hazard Reduction: $100million invested in lead based painthazard reduction and abatementactivities.Economic Development Administration Grants Currently OpenG-509/30/2010Economic Development AssistanceProgramsEconomic DevelopmentAdministrationEDA06222009EDAPNot Applicable“Other Funding” Grants Currently OpenG-607/26/2010Energy Audits and Renewable EnergyDevelopment Assistance GrantsBusiness andCooperative ProgramsRDCP-10-REAP-AUDITSEligible entities include a unit ofState, tribal, or local government;institutions of higher education; ruralelectric cooperatives; or a publicpower entity. Additional Informationon Eligibility: Citizenship - To beeligible, applicants, owned by privatepersons, must be at least 51 percentowned by persons who are either: 1)citizens of the United States(U.S.),the Republic of Palau, theFederated States of Micronesia, theRepublic of the Marshall Islands, orAmerican Samoa; or 2) legallyadmitted permanent residentsresiding in the U.S. Capacity toperform - The applicant must havesufficient capacity to perform theactivities proposed in the applicationto ensure success. The Agency willmake this assessment based on theinformation provided in theapplication. Legal authority andresponsibility - Each applicant musthave, or obtain, the legal authoritynecessary to carry out the purpose ofthe grant.The energy audits and renewableenergy development assistanceprogram is designed to helpagricultural producers and rural smallbusinesses reduce energy costs andconsumption and help meet thenation’s critical energy needs. The2008 Farm Bill mandates that therecipient of a grant that conducts anenergy audit for an agriculturalproducer or a rural small businessrequire the agricultural producer orrural small business to pay at least 25percent of the cost of the energyaudit, which shall be retained by theeligible entity for the cost of the audit.30 Awards; $2.4 M Total ProgramFunding07-26-10 due date may impact ourability to support any applicationsNational Grid – Government Grant Funding ListGovernment Grants (Federal)www.grant.govUSDA Rural DevelopmentSpecial InitiativesFor Community Facilities direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants, section 343(a)(13)of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)) defines “rural”and “rural area” as a “city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of notmore than 50,000 inhabitants.”#OpportunityEligibility RequirementsNotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateBusiness and Cooperative Grant AssistanceG-7Repowering Assistance Program (Section 9004)Not ApplicableG-8Bioenergy Program for Advanced BiofuelsPayments to Advanced Biofuel Producers(Section 9005)Not ApplicableG-9Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG Program)Rural public entities (towns, communities, Stateagencies, and authorities), Indian tribes and ruralprivate non-profit corporations are eligible to apply forfunding. At least 51 percent of the outstandinginterest in any project must have membership or beowned by U.S. citizens or resident aliens.The RBEG program provides grants for rural projects thatfinance and facilitate development of small and emerging ruralbusinesses help fund distance learning networks, and helpfund employment related adult education programs. To assistwith business development, RBEGs may fund a broad array ofactivities.G-10Rural Energy for America Program Grants/EnergyAudit and Renewable Energy Development Assist(REAP/EA/REDA)Section 9007Eligible entities include a unit of State, tribal, or localgovernment; institutions of higher education; ruralelectric cooperatives; or a public power entity. Theprogram is design to assist farmers, ranchers, andrural small businesses.The REAP/EA/REDA Grant Programwill provide grants forenergy audits and renewable energy development assistance.How much are the grants?The grants are awarded on a competitive basis and can be up$100,000. Recipients of an energyaudit are required to pay atleast 25% of the cost of the audit.What types of projects are eligible?Energy audits and renewable energy development assistancewill allow agriculture producers and rural smallbusinesses tobecome more energy efficient and use renewabletechnologies. For all projects, the system must be located in arural area, must be technically feasible, and must be owned bythe applicantHow to ApplyTo apply for Repowering Assistance Payments please contactyourRural Development State Office.See contact list)Section 9007-FY 2010 Notice ofFundsAvailability REAP-EAREDA_5-27-2010NEED TO FIND OUT IF $ STILL AVAILABLEG-11Rural Energy for America Program GrantsRenewable Energy Systems/Energy EfficiencyImprovement Program (REAP/RES/EEI)Section9007The program is designed to assist farmers, ranchersand rural small businesses that are able todemonstrate financial need. All agriculturalproducers, including farmers and ranchers, who gain50% or more of their gross income from theagricultural operations are eligible. Small businessesthat are located in a rural area can also apply. Ruralelectric cooperatives may also be eligible to apply.Rural Energy For America Program Grants/RenewableEnergy Systems/Energy Efficiency Improvement Program(REAP/RES/EEI)The REAP/RES/EEI Grants Program provides grants forenergy audits and renewable energy development assistance.It also provides funds to agricultural producers and rural smallbusinesses to purchase and install renewable energy systemsand make energy efficiency improvements.How does the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program compare tothe Rural Energy for America Program Guaranteed Loanand Grant?To assist you in determining which program best fit your needsthiscomparison chartidentifies the programs common and3National Grid – Government Grant Funding List4Government Grants (Federal)www.grant.govUSDA Rural DevelopmentSpecial InitiativesFor Community Facilities direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants, section 343(a)(13)of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)) defines “rural”and “rural area” as a “city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of notmore than 50,000 inhabitants.”#OpportunityEligibility Requirements NotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward Datedistinct requirements in an easy to read formatHow much are the grants?The grants are awarded on a competitive basis and can be upto 25% of total eligible project costs. Grants are limited to$500,000 for renewable energy systems and $250,000 forenergy efficiency improvements.Grant requests as low as$2,500 for renewable energy systems and $1,500 for energyefficiency improvements will beconsidered. At least 20% of thegrant funds awarded must be for grants of $20,000 or less.What types of projects are eligible?Most rural projects that reduce energy use and result in savingsfor the agricultural producer or small business are eligible asenergy efficiency projects. These include projects such asretrofitting lighting or insulation, or purchasing or replacingequipment with more efficiency units. Eligible renewable energyprojects include projects that produce energy from wind, solar,biomass, geothermal, hydro power and hydrogen-basedsources. The projects can produce any form of energyincluding, heat, electricity, or fuel.How to ApplyTo apply for funding for the REAP Grant Program pleasecontact yourRural Development State Office.Section 9007 9007-FY 2010 Notice of Solicitation ofApplications_4-26-2010Energy Coordinators ContactsNEED TO FIND OUT IF $ STILL AVAILABLEG-12Rural Energy For America Program Grants(REAP Feasibility Study Grants)Section 9007The program is designed to assist farmers, ranchersand rural small businesses. All agricultural producers,including farmers and ranchers, who gain 50% ormore of their gross income from the agriculturaloperations are eligible. Small businesses that arelocated in a rural area also apply. Rural electriccooperatives may also be eligible to apply.SECTION 9007Rural Energy For America Program Grants(REAP Feasibility Study Grants)The REAP/Feasibility Grant Program provides grants forenergy audits and renewable energy development assistance.It also provides funds to agricultural producers and rural smallbusinesses to conduct feasibility study for a renewable energysystem.How much are the grants?The grants are awarded on a competitive basis and can be upto 25% of total eligible project costs. Grants are limited toNational Grid – Government Grant Funding List5Government Grants (Federal)www.grant.govUSDA Rural DevelopmentSpecial InitiativesFor Community Facilities direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants, section 343(a)(13)of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)) defines “rural”and “rural area” as a “city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of notmore than 50,000 inhabitants.”#OpportunityEligibility Requirements NotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward Date$50,000 for renewable energy feasibility studies.What types of projects are eligible?Eligible feasibility studies forrenewable energy systems includeprojects that will produce energy from wind, solar, biomass,geothermal, hydro power and hydrogen-based sources. Theenergy to be produced includes, heat, electricity, or fuel.For all projects, the system must be located in a rural area,must be technically feasible, and must be owned by theapplicant.How to ApplyTo apply for funding for the REAP Grant Program pleasecontact yourRural Development State Office.Energy Coordinators ContactsNEED TO FIND OUT IF $ STILL AVAILABLEG-13Rural Economic Development Loan And Grant(REDLG)To receive funding under the REDLG program (whichwill be forwarded to selected eligible projects) anentity must:•Have borrowed and repaid or pre-paid aninsured, direct, or guaranteed loan received underthe Rural Electrification Act or,•Be a not-for profit utility that is eligible toreceive assistance from the Rural DevelopmentElectric or Telecommunication Program•Be a current Rural Development Electric orTelecommunication Programs BorrowerRURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN AND GRANT(REDLG)The REDLG program provides funding to rural projects throughlocal utility organizations.Under the REDLoan program,USDA provides zero interestloans to local utilities whichthey, in turn, pass through to local businesses (ultimaterecipients) for projects that will create and retainemployment in rural areas.The ultimate recipients repay thelending utility directly. The utility is responsible for repayment tothe Agency. Under the REDGrant program, USDA providesgrant funds to local utility organizations which use the fundingto establish revolving loan funds. Loans are made from therevolving loan fund to projects that will create or retain ruraljobs. When the revolving loan fund is terminated, the grant isrepaid to the Agency.What types of projects are eligible?REDLG grantees and borrowers pass the funding on to eligibleprojects. Examples of eligible projects include:•Capitalization of revolving loan funds•Technical assistance in conjunction with projectsfunded under a zero interest REDLoan•Business Incubators•Community Development Assistance to non-profits andpublic bodies (particularly job creation or enhancement)•Facilities and equipment for education and training forrural residents to facilitate economic development•Facilities and equipment for medical care to ruralresidents•Telecommunications/computer networks for distancelearning or long distance medical careHow to ApplyNational Grid – Government Grant Funding List6Government Grants (Federal)www.grant.govUSDA Rural DevelopmentSpecial InitiativesFor Community Facilities direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants, section 343(a)(13)of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)) defines “rural”and “rural area” as a “city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of notmore than 50,000 inhabitants.”#OpportunityEligibility Requirements NotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateTo apply for funding for the REDLG program, please contactyourRural Development State Office.Availability of FundsDuring FY 2010, approximately $33.077 million is available forloans.G-14Rural Business Opportunity Grants (RBOG)Not ApplicableG-15Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grant(SSDPG)Not ApplicableG-16Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG)Not ApplicableHousing and Community Facilities Grant AssistanceG-17Rural Housing Repair and Rehabilitation GrantsNot ApplicableG-18Housing Application Packaging GrantsNot ApplicableG-19Individual Water and Waste GrantsNot ApplicableG-20Self-Help Technical Assistance GrantsNot ApplicableG-21Technical and Supervisory Assistance GrantsNot ApplicableG-22Housing Preservation GrantsNot ApplicableG-23Farm Labor Housing Loans and GrantsNot ApplicableG-24Community Facilities GrantsNot ApplicableG-25Rural Community Development InitiativeNot ApplicableUtilities GrantsNational Grid – Government Grant Funding List7Government Grants (Federal)www.grant.govUSDA Rural DevelopmentSpecial InitiativesFor Community Facilities direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants, section 343(a)(13)of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)) defines “rural”and “rural area” as a “city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of notmore than 50,000 inhabitants.”#OpportunityEligibility Requirements NotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateG-26High Energy Cost Grant ProgramEligibility:To be an eligible applicant under thisprogram:•You must be an eligible applicant;•The grant project must serve an eligibleextremely high energy cost community;•The proposed project must improve energygeneration, transmission, or distributionfacilities service an eligible community; and•The administrative costs of the project mustnot exceed 4 percent of grant funds.Eligible Applicant:You are eligible to apply if youare any of the following:•a legally-organized for-profit or nonprofitorganization such as, but not limited to, acorporation, association, partnership(including a limited liability partnership),cooperative, or trust;•a sole proprietorship;•a State or local government, or any agencyor instrumentality of a State or localgovernment, including a municipal utility orpublic power authority;•an Indian tribe, a tribally-owned entity, andAlaska Native Corporation;•an individual or group of individuals; or•any of the above entities located in a U.S.Territory or other area authorized by law toparticipate in programsof the Rural UtilitiesService or under the Rural Electrification Act.High Energy Cost Grant ProgramPurpose:The High Energy Cost Grant Program providesfinancial assistance for the improvement of energy generation,transmission, and distribution facilities servicing eligible ruralcommunities with home energy costs that are over 275 percentof the national average.Eligible Energy Projects: Grants under this program may beused for the acquisition, construction, installation, repair,replacement, or improvement of energy generation,transmission, or distribution facilities in communities withextremely high energy costs. On-grid and off-grid renewableenergy projects, and energy efficiency, and energyconservation projects are eligible.Denali Commission High Energy Cost Grants (CFDA10.857)are made to the Denali Commission for energygeneration, transmission, and distribution facilities serving ruralAlaskan communities with average home costs exceeding275% of the national average. Visit theDenali Commissionformore information.State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants (CFDA 10.858)aremade to state government entities to establish and supportrevolving funds to provide amore cost-effective means ofpurchasing fuel for remote communities that are not served bysurface transportation year round. State agencies that areinterested in this program should consult the Agency Contactbelow for more information about eligibility and how to apply.•Program Regulations•Grants under this program have supported revolvingloan program of the AlaskaEnergy Authority and theAlaska Department of Commerce, Community andEconomic Development.Contact InformationKaren LarsenRural Development Electric ProgramsU.S. Department of Agriculture1400 Independence Avenue, SW Stop 1560, Room 5165-SouthWashington, DC 20250-1560Telephone: (202) 720-9545 Fax: (202) 690-0717Emailkaren.larsen@wdc.usda.govG-27Denali Commission High Energy Cost GrantsNot ApplicableG-28State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund GrantsNot ApplicableG-29Distance Learning and Telemedicine GrantProgramNot ApplicableG-30Public Television Digital Transition Grant ProgramNot ApplicableNational Grid – Government Grant Funding List8Government Grants (Federal)www.grant.govUSDA Rural DevelopmentSpecial InitiativesFor Community Facilities direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants, section 343(a)(13)of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)) defines “rural”and “rural area” as a “city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of notmore than 50,000 inhabitants.”#OpportunityEligibility Requirements NotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateG-31Community Connect Grant ProgramNot ApplicableG-32Weather Radio Transmitter Grant ProgramNot ApplicableG-33Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans andGrantsNot ApplicableG-34Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants(ECWAG)Not ApplicableG-35Wastewater Revolving Fund GrantsNot ApplicableG-36Solid Waste Management GrantsNot ApplicableG-37Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal Grantsto alleviate health risksNot ApplicableG-38Section 306D Water and Waste Grants forAlaskan Villages, incl. technical assistanceNot ApplicableG-39Section 306E Grants for the Construction,Refurbishment and Servicing of Low andModerate Income Individual Well SystemsNot ApplicableG-41Technical Assistance and Training Grants forRural Waste SystemsNot ApplicableG-42Predevelopment Planning GrantsNot ApplicableNational Grid – Government Grant Funding ListGovernment Grants (State)Massachusetts Green Communitieshttp://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeasubtopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Communities&sid=Eoeea)#OpportunityEligibilityRequirementsNotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateG-43Massachusetts Green Communities GrantMUST Apply to be Designated a Green Community prior to submitting Grant. Current 2010 Grant Schedule is CLOSED:DATEEVENTFriday – March 19, 2010Beginaccepting grant applicationsFriday – May 14, 2010Deadline for designation applications to besubmitted by communities intending on submittinggrant applications by May 28thFriday – May 28, 2010Grant Applications dueMonday – June 28, 2010Announce Grant AwardsThe Grant Program, an initiativeof the Green Communities Division,provides funding to help municipalities pursue energy efficiencymeasures, large renewable energy projects, andinnovative methods that use less fossil fuel.Cities and towns can apply for the Grant Program after they havedemonstrated that they have met the following five criteria and havebeen officially designated as a “Green Community.”Criterion #1:Provide as-of-right siting in designated locations for renewable/alternative energy generation, research & development,or manufacturing facilities•Guidance for As-of-Right Siting of Renewable orAlternative Energy R&D or Manufacturing Facilities•Model As-of-Right Bylaw for Large-Scale Photovoltaic Installations•Model As-of-Right Bylaw for Use of Wind FacilitiesCriterion #2:Adopted an expedited application and permitprocess for as-of-right energy facilities•Guidance for Expedited Permitting Options - revised 3/26/10Criterion #3:Establish benchmark for energy use and developed a plan to reduce baseline by 20 percent within 5 years•Sample Energy Reduction Action Plan Outline - revised 05/04/10Criterion #4:Purchase only fuel-efficient vehicles•Guidance and Model Policy for Purchasing only Fuel Efficient VehiclesCriterion #5:Set requirements to minimize life-cycle energy costs fornew construction; one way to meet these requirements is toadopt the newBoard of Building Regulations andStandards (BBRS) Stretch Code•Overview Summary of Stretch Code•Summary Table of Stretch Code•Stretch Code Adoption Process for a Town•Residential Cash Flow Analysis - new 4/28/10•Home Loan Investment Bank Case Study•Fidelity Bank Corporate Office and Branch Case Study•Question and Answer for Stretch Energy Code Appendix 120.AA•“The ‘Stretch’ Code – Upping the Ante for Cutting Energy Costs in Buildings”by Marc Breslow (see page 1of newsletter)•Stretch Code Webinar: Presentation•Stretch Code Webinar: Presentation w/audio(.wmv)•Independent HERS Raters [Mass. ENERGY STAR Homes]The Green Communities Division will work closely with cities and towns to meet these criteria. To learn more, refer to the followingguidelines:•Qualification Guidelines for Green Community Grant ProgramIf you want to participate in the Grant Program and are served by a municipal light plant (MLP), the MLP must adopttheMassachusetts Renewable Energy Trust’s renewable energy charge.The Grant Program’s ambitious criteria are designed to tap Massachusetts cities and towns’ potential to become models for howcommunities across the nation can manage their energyuse and costs and advance the clean energy economy.Approximately $7 million dollars isavailable for award in June 2010 to municipalities who meet these criteria. Below are theProgram Opportunity Notice and Applications:•Program Opportunity Notice for Green Communities Designation and Grant Award•Green Communities Designation Form - revised 05/11/10•Green Communities Grant Program Application9National Grid – Government Grant Funding ListGovernment Grants (State)Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development#OpportunityEligibilityRequirementsNotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateG-44Section 8 Energy Retrofit ApplicationsLocal Housing AuthoritiesCommonwealth and Local Housing Authority Jointly propose toUS Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The followingCommunities have submitted ProposalsBillerica Housing Authority - 15 River StreetNorwood Housing Authority - William Shyne CircleSomerville Housing Authority - Bryant Manor, 75 Myrtle StreetWhitman Housing Authority - Harvard CourtHousing Energy ProgramsDHCD's Energy Programs provide eligible households assistance inthe following areas: paying a portion of winter heating bills; heating system repair and replacementG-45Cold Relief InformationThe Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program assists low-incomeindividuals and families with the cost of heating their homesduring the winter season. The Program is managed by the DHCD inconjunction with 22 regional nonprofit and local governmentorganizations.G-46Heating System Repair & ReplacementProgram (HEARTWAP)The Heating System Repair and Replacement Program provides heating system repair and replacement services to low-incomehouseholds.G-47Low Income Home Energy Assistance(LIHEAP)Known commonly as Fuel Assistance, the Low Income Home EnergyAssistance Program provides eligible households with help inpaying a portion of winter heating bills.G48Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)The Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program provides eligible households with full-scale home energy conservationservices.Grant and Funding ProgramsIn service to Massachusetts' residents and municipalities, the Division of Community Services offers programs, funding, and technical assistance to support the advancement towards self-sufficiency of low-income households andthe revitalization of our cities and towns.G49Bridge Financing (BF)The Bridge Financing Program provides up to $2 million in short-term financing (eighteen months or less) to bridge funding timinggaps for ready-to-go projects that meet CDBG requirements.G50Community Development Action Grant(CDAG)The Community Development Action Grant Program (CDAG) provides funding to communities for projects that build localeconomies, eliminate blight, create jobs and produce workforce and affordable housingthat would not occurby private enterprisealone.G51Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)The Community Development Block Grant Program is a federally funded, competitive grant program designed to addressrevitalization efforts and the needs of low- and moderate-income residents by supporting housing, community and economicdevelopment activities in small cities and towns throughout the CommonwealthG52Community Development Block Grant -Recovery Act Program (CDBG-R)The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has allocated $9.1 million from the American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA) to Massachusettsfor distribution through the Massachusetts Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program. The money will be granted to non-entitlement cities and towns.G53Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)The Community Services Block Grant is a federally funded, poverty reduction program that was created to promote and provide anarray of services and activities to encourage self-sufficiency and to make permanent improvements in the lives of low-incomefamilies and individuals.G54Economic Development Fund (EDF)The Economic Development Fund, a componentof the Massachusetts Community Development Block Grant Program, providesfunding for projects that createand/or retain jobs, improve the local and/or regional tax base, or otherwise enhance the quality of lifein the community.G55Gateway Plus Action GrantFunding to 18 Gateway Cities to support local strategic planning efforts to increase diversity of housing options, increase economicopportunities, foster and strengthen civic engagement, and revitalize neighborhoods.G56Individual Development Account (IDA)The Individual Development Account is a state funded pilot program thatprovides funds for low to moderate income wage earnerstoreach self sufficiency and ultimately achieve homeownership.G57Massachusetts Downtown Initiative (MDI)The primary mission of the Massachusetts Downtown Initiative is to make downtown revitalization an integral part of communitydevelopment in cities and towns across the Commonwealth.G58Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS)Neighborhood Housing Services Program assists residents and public/private entities to reinvest in urban neighborhoods in Boston,Cambridge, Chelsea, Quincy, and Springfield by rehabilitatinghousing and making it affordable for low and moderate-incomefamilies.10National Grid – Government Grant Funding List11Government Grants (State)Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development#Opportunity EligibilityRequirementsNotesApplicationSubmittedLevel ofFundingRequestedAnticipatedAward DateG59Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)NSP1 is a $54.8 million grant program fromthe Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) awarded by the federal Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) to Massachusetts and four ofits cities. These NSP funds are to be used primarily for theacquisition and rehabilitation of abandoned andforeclosed properties. NSP2 is a competitive grant program from the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) awarded by federal Department of Housingand Urban Development (HUD).G60Peer to Peer Technical Assistance ProgramThe Peer-To-Peer Technical Assistance Program provides small grants to municipalities for short-term problem solving or technicalassistance projectsG-61TheMassachusetts Business Resource Teamis anew service is available in Massachusetts under theMassachusetts Executive Office of EconomicDevelopment. The Business Resource Team is hereto help businesses identify and access state programsand resources that match current needs. Whetheryou're expanding, relocating, hiring new employees orlooking for working capital, the MassachusettsBusiness Resource Team can help you. 1-877-BIZTEAMG-62Berkshire GrowthG-63Economic Development Council of Western MassachusettsG-64How to Start a Business in MassachusettsG-65MassDevelopmentG-66Massachusetts Office of Business DevelopmentG-67Massachusetts Office of International Trade & InvestmentG-68Massachusetts Port AuthorityG-69Massachusetts Small Business Development CenterNetworkG-70Massachusetts State GovernmentG-71Procurement Technical Assistance CenterG-72U.S. Export Assistance CenterG-73State and Local Government on the Net

# ATTACHMENT C

NSTAR – ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANT SEARCH FINDINGSEnergy Efficiency Grant Search FindingsJune 2010Summary•Federal, state, and private sources of energy efficiencyfunding were researched•Federal•The State Energy Program (SEP) PY 2010 is currentlyaccepting applications•MA’s portion of the SEP is $605,000•SEP requires 20% contribution by state•State•No funding sources•Private•Limited options available tonon-profits and institutionsSources:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/recovery_act.htmlAmerican Recoveryand ReinvestmentAct of 2009+ $11 billionRecovery ActEECBG ProgramEnergy Efficiency& Renewable Energy$3.2 billionState EnergyProgramEnergy Efficiency$3.1 billionWeatherizationAssistanceProgramWeatherization of low-income housing$5 billionAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act FundsSources:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/eecbg.html;http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/eecbg_allocation.html;http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/docs/eecbg_allocation_ma.xls;http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/eecbg_grants.html;http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/eecbg_competitive_foa148_amendment3.pdfRecovery ActEECBG Program$3.2 billionFormula Grants$2.7 billionCompetitive Grants$0.5 billionState of MA$14.8 millionRetrofit Ramp-upProgram(Apps Due 12/2009)General InnovationFund(Apps Due 12/2009)MA Cities$27.5 millionMA Countiesand Tribes$0.9 millionIndicates end of branch(i.e. extent of available information)Recovery Act Energy EfficiencyConservation Block Grant (EECBG)Source:http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Communities&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer_green_communities_eecbg-prg&csid=EoeeaState of MA$14.8 millionSub-grants toMunicipalitiesSolar Thermal and PV,Energy savingsThermal-efficiency$12.2 million(max of $150,000)PV Consultants$825,000Development ofMassEnergyInsightWeb-based data system formunicipalities to manageenergy use and costs ofbuildings and fuels$1.5 millionCenter forEcological TrainingDevelop building energycode training curriculum$175,000MA’s Division of ARRA FundsSource:http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/green_communities/grant_program/EECBG-Awards.xlsSub-grants to MunicipalitiesSolar Thermal and PV, Energy savingsThermal-efficiency$12.2 million(max of $150,000)MA’s Division of ARRA Funds•A list of the municipalities, their award,and the project type can be found athttp://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/green_communities/grant_program/EECBG-Awards.xlsSource:http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Communities&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer_green_communities_eecbg-prg&csid=EoeeaMA CitiesClean Technology and energy efficiency atmunicipalities and schools$27.5 millionMA’s Division of ARRA FundsAmherst $162,000 Fitchburg $168,000 Peabody $494,200Arlington $159,700 Framingham $657,000 Pittsfield $189,100Attleboro $179,600 Haverhill $542,700 Plymouth $514,300Barnstable $202,400 Holyoke $175,700 Quincy $881,200Beverly $169,600 Lawrence $651,300 Revere $485,500Billerica $180,200 Leominster $175,500 Salem $174,300Boston $6,506,200 Lowell$954,700 Somerville $651,100Brockton $865,000 Lynn$788,100 Springfield $1,498,200Brookline $494,400 Malden $501,500 Taunton $519,600Cambridge $139,400 Marlborough $178,000 Waltham $630,500Chelsea $164,000 Medford $504,000 Westfield $170,300Chicopee $499,100 Methuen $179,200 Weymouth $485,800Everett $149,300 New Bedford $869,300 Woburn $174,600Fall River $861,300 Newton $799,600 Worcester$1,733,000Total$26,478,500Notes: $1.9 million of the $54.9 million is for personnel and fringe benefits. $0.5 million is for indirect charges.Sources:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/recovery_act_sep.html; http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/recovery_act_states.html;http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/project_map/project_details_new.aspx?pid=24;http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/arra_sep_plan_ma_20100408.pdfSEP$3.1 billionState of MA$54.9 millionEE at State FacilitiesAdministrators: Vivek Mohta, Eric Friedman$12.6 millionMA EE TransformationAdministrator: Vivek Mohta$20 millionMA Solar StimulusAdministrators: Vivek Mohta, Natalie Howlett$20 millionState Energy Program (SEP)Sources:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/arra_sep_plan_ma_20100408.pdfState Energy Program (SEP)Administrators:Program NameImplementationDateObjectiveDescription$AmountHigh PerformanceBuildingsProgram/MA EETransformation4/1/09-3/31/12Demonstrate solutions to a numberof long-standing challenges inimproving building energyperformance and facilitate markettransformation•Deep energy retrofit, outreach,education•Financing programs•Market transformation•$500K-$5M awards$20MLeading byExample/EE atState Facilities4/1/09-3/31/12Accelerate and expand cleanenergy projects at public buildings•Accelerate pipeline of clean energyprojects$14.9MMA Solar Stimulus4/1/09-3/31/12Fostering substantial expansion ofthe installed capacity of solar PV inMA•Provide technical assistance•Provide financial incentives•Identify opportunities for marketexpansion$20MTotal$54.9MSources:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/recovery_act_wap.htmlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/wx_closeup_ma.pdfhttp://www.mass.gov/Ehed/docs/dhcd/cd/wap/waprecoveryplan2009.pdfhttp://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ehedterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Community+Development&L2=Housing+Energy+Programs&sid=Ehed&b=terminalcontent&f=dhcd_cd_wap_wap&csid=EhedWAP$5 billionMALow Income (<60% of state median)$122 millionWeatherization Assistance Program (WAP)Notes: Tentative allocation. Where did money end up?David MacLellan is NSTAR Electric’s Policy Advisor Council Member. (mass.gov/Ehed/docs/dhcd/cd/wap/waprecoveryplan2009.pdf)Sources: http://www.mass.gov/Ehed/docs/dhcd/cd/wap/waprecoveryplan2009.pdfhttp://www.bostonabcd.org/news/press-releases/documents/WeatherizationExpands32009.pdfWeatherization Assistance Program (WAP)II.3 SubgranteesTentativeGranteeCityFundingUnitsAction for Boston Community DevelopmentBoston$ 10,042,8051,423ACTION, IncorporatedGloucester$ 8,506,3701,182Berkshire Community Action Council Inc.Pittsfield$ 3,007,805423Citizens for CitizensFall River$ 8,572,4901,214Community Action of the Franklin, Hampshire and QuabbinGreenfield$ 4,653,995657Community Action Programs, IntercityChelsea$ 10,256,7501,450Expiring Use/Preservation Special Project InitiativeBoston$ 6,000,000923Greater Lawrence Community Action Council Inc.Lawrence$ 7,669,9401,084Housing Assistance CorporationHyannis$ 2,881,175405Public Housing Special Project InitiativeBoston$ 25,000,0003,846Quincy Community Action ProgramsQuincy$ 5,045,885711South Middlesex Opportunity CouncilFramingham$ 8,711,1201,232Springfield Partners in Community ActionSpringfield$ 8,466,9651,199Worcester Community Action CouncilWorcester$ 8,324,1951,177TOTALS$ 117,139,49516,926Sources:http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?State=US&ee=1&re=1http://www.treas.gov/recovery/docs/guidance.pdfhttp://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/9006grant.htmhttp://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US07F&re=1&ee=1OtherFederal GrantsTreasury RenewableEnergy GrantsReimbursement for EE propertyexpensesUSDARenewable EnergyGrantsReimbursement for EE propertyexpensesTribal EnergyProgram GrantReimbursement for EE propertyexpensesOther Federal Energy Efficiency ‘Grant’ ProgramsSources:http://www.treas.gov/recovery/docs/guidance.pdfTreasury Renewable Energy GrantsReimbursement for EE propertyexpensesOther Federal Energy Efficiency ‘Grant’ ProgramsSpecified Energy PropertyCredit Termination Date Applicable Percentage of Eligible Cost BasisLarge WindJan 1, 201330%Closed-Loop Biomass FacilityJan 1, 201430%Open-loop Biomass FacilityJan 1, 201430%Geothermal under IRC sec. 45Jan 1, 201430%Landfill Gas FacilityJan 1, 201430%Trash FacilityJan 1, 201430%Qualified Hydropower FacilityJan 1, 201430%Marine & HydrokineticJan 1, 201430%SolarJan 1, 201730%Geothermal under IRC sec. 48Jan 1, 201710%*Fuel CellsJan 1, 201730%**MicroturbinesJan 1, 201710%***Combined Heat & PowerJan 1, 201710%Small WindJan 1, 201730%Geothermal Heat PumpsJan 1, 201710%Source:http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Communities&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer_green_communities_gc-grant-program&csid=Eoeeahttp://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/green_communities/grant_program/Green_Communities_Grant_Program_2010_PON.docGreen CommunitiesGrant ProgramMA Cities and Towns$7 million(Apps due 5/28/10, Announcement of grant awards 6/28/10)Green Communities Grant ProgramSource: http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/green_communities/grant_program/052010_gcp_towns.pdfGreen Communities Grant ProgramACTONGREENFIELDLINCOLNPALMERANDOVERHAMILTONLOWELLPITTSFIELDARLINGTONHANOVERMASHPEESALEMATHOLHOLYOKEMEDFORDSPRINGFIELDBECKETHOPKINTONMELROSESUDBURYBELCHERTOWNKINGSTONMONTAGUETYNGSBOROUGHCAMBRIDGELANCASTERNATICKWENHAMCHELMSFORDLENOXNEWTONWORCESTEREASTHAMPTONLEXINGTONNORTHAMPTONAs of May 21, 2010, the following 35 municipalities were designated‘Green Communities’ and are therefore eligible for the GreenCommunities Grant.Sources:http://www.massenergystarhomes.com/;http://www.massenergystarhomes.com/homebuilders/value.htm;http://www.masscec.com/index.cfm?pid=11052; http://www.masstech.org/Grants_and_Awards/comm_hydro_09/hydro_09.htmlMA Energy EfficiencyRebate ProgramsMA Energy StarSponsored by local utilitiesRebates to homeowners who buildEnergy Star qualified homesCommonwealthSolar StimulusCommonwealthHydropower InitiativeState Energy Efficiency Rebate ProgramsNotes:Foundations identified by reviewing the top philanthropists from businessweek and personal knowledge(http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual.html)http://www.kresge.org/index.php/what/environment_program/energy_efficiency/http://www.kresge.org/index.php/what/environment_program/energy_efficiency/http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/what-we-do/current-work/developing-climate-change-resiliencehttp://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/may/26/grant-to-boost-citys-green-goals/Private Sector ResearchRockefellerKresgeFoundationFoundationof EcologicalUse of EnergyFordFoundationEnergyFoundationGordon andBettyMooreSorosGoogle.orgKaiserBill andMelindaGatesFoundationsNon-profits and gov’tentities. Foundationhas Southeast andMidwest FocusNo current EE grantsbut Charleston, SCreceived $250K

# Appendix 10. Variance Analysis Consistent with the

Department’s Memorandum dated June 22, 2010

This Appendix identifies (1) all programs for which savings, costs, or benefits vary by

more than 20 percent from planned values; (2 ) all programs with a benefit/cost ratio less

than one; and (3) all programs that the Progr am Administrator inte nds to discontinue.

1. Table 1 summarizes the planned and re ported costs, savings, and benefits

associated with each BCR Activity and the corresponding variance between the

planned and reported values. An explana tion follows why program-level savings,

costs, or benefits varied by more than 20 percent from planned values.

2. There is no section identifying all programs with a benefit/cost ratio less than one,

since the Cape Light Compact does not ha ve any programs with a benefit/cost

ratio less than one.

3. There is also no section identifying all programs that the Program Administrator

intends to discontinue, since the Cape Li ght Compact does not plan to discontinue

any programs.Variance SummarySector BCR ActivityPlan2ReportVariance3Plan2ReportVariance3Plan2ReportVariance3Residential A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 1,028,413$ 442,635$-57%5,9752,023-66%3,650,409$ 1,163,373$-68%Residential A02b Energy Star HVAC 347,753$ 62,539$-82%1,895498-74%956,954$ 264,201$-72%Residential A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 2,360,062$ 2,826,273$20%34,28229,838-13% 17,668,466$ 13,745,762$-22%Residential A04a Residential Lighting 633,615$ 404,361$-36%76,01912,885-83%10,208,585$ 1,775,504$-83%Residential A04b Residential Appliances 255,804$ 226,509$ -11% 2,6544,68476%774,119$ 1,513,556$96%Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 1,122,962$ 824,610$-27%6,3394,259-33%3,550,402$ 3,454,183$ -3%Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 409,214$ 169,814$-59%1,215193-84%2,349,996$ 909,542$-61%C&I C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 359,183$ 466,762$30%5,93614,425143%1,175,997$ 2,716,446$131%C&I C03a Large C&I Retrofit 740,775$ 448,602$-39%13,88335,170153%2,540,552$ 5,098,054$101%C&I C03b Small C&I Retrofit 2,809,853$ 3,029,003$ 8% 59,89659,6630% 10,695,408$ 10,178,248$ -5%Residential Subtotal 4,625,647$ 3,962,316$ -14% 120,82549,928-59% 33,258,532$ 18,462,396$ -44%Low Income Subtotal 1,532,176$ 994,424$ -35% 7,5544,451-41% 5,900,398$ 4,363,725$ -26%C&I Subtotal 3,909,811$ 3,944,366$ 1% 79,716109,25837% 14,411,957$ 17,992,748$ 25%Total 10,067,635$ 8,901,106$ -12% 208,095163,637-21% 53,570,887$ 40,818,869$ -24%Notes1. Benefits include capacity and energy DRIPE2. As approved in D.P.U. 07-47, The Cape Light Compact’s Proposed Second Amendment to its Approved Energy Efficiency Plan: 2007-2012 (the “2009 EEP”).3. Variance is calculated as (Report - Plan)/PlanPA Costs ($) Net Lifetime Savings (MWh) Benefits ($)1TABLE 1

# Variance Analysis

Table 1 and the following analysis res pond to the request in a Hearing Officer

Memorandum regarding Annual Reports from June 22, 2010 1 

# for sections identifying all

programs for which savings, costs, or benefits vary by more than 20 percent from planned

values and explaining the r easons behind this variance.

Analysis Highlights

In general, there are three expl anations for underspending in 2009:

1. The 2009 EEP featured aggressive spendi ng goals that were 72% higher than

proposed Supplemental 2008 EEP expenditures. The implementation of several

BCR Activities and measures were delaye d due to the May 20 09 approval of the

2009 EEP. The key BCR Activities and measures impacted include:

• the Major Renovation Pilot within Residential Lost Opportunity;

• Residential HVAC;

• the Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot within Residential Retrofit 1-4;

• the CHP measure with Residential Retrofit 1-4;

• the solar hot water measure within Residential Retrofit 1-4;

• LED fixtures within Resi dential Lighting; and,

• TVs and Set Top Boxes within Residential Appliances.

Program roll-out occurred in June and July for these BCR Activities and

measures, which resulted in underspendi ng in the associated BCR Activities.

2. A lag in RGGI fund receipts resulted in a lack of funding available to support

program roll out. $4,365,173 in RGGI funds were anticipated in support of 2009

program implementation. More than half of these funds were received at the end

of 2009 ($1,228,372 in December 2009) or in early 2010 ($1,303,801 in February

2010). This lag impacted all BCR Activities.

3. The economic downturn dampened particip ant uptake for several BCR Activities.

This includes the following:

• Residential Lost Opportunity, where in creases in Low Inco me uptake did not

offset decreases in Non-Low Income uptake. Additionally, while there was

activity in the Green Affordable Homes program, there were no completed

units in 2009;

• Residential Lighting, where bulb sales were down; and,

• Low-Income Retrofit 1-4.

1 

# Hearing Officer Memorandum, RE: 2009 Annual Reports, June 22, 2010.

# Analysis By BCR Activity

Residential BCR Activities

Residential Lost Opportunity



# PA Costs ($): As stated above, the late a pproval affected implementation of the Major

Renovation pilot program. Additionally, the eco nomic downturn affected uptake in the

non-low income new construction market and slowed progress in the Green Affordable

Homes program.

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower expenditure s due to lower uptake resulted in lower

savings.

Benefits ($): Lower expenditures due to lo wer uptake resulted in lower savings, which

drove lower benefits.

ENERGY STAR ® 

# HVAC



# PA Costs ($): As stated a bove, underspending in this progra m was primarily the result of

the late approval and delayed program implementation.

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower expe nditures due to the delay in program

implementation resulted in lower savings.

Benefits ($): Lower expenditures due to the delay in program implementation resulted in

lower savings, which drove lower benefits.

Residential Retrofit 1-4



# PA Costs ($): Despite underspending in the Deep Energy Retrofit pilot and CHP and

solar hot water measures, the program overspe nt its budget for the year. Program dollars

were reallocated from the pilot and CHP and solar hot water measures to other measures

that were in higher demand.

Benefits ($): Despite overspending, benefits we re lower than planned. This is due to a

higher than planned uptake for measures with lower savings and lower benefits such as

CFLs, programmable thermostats, and domes tic hot water instant savings measures

(which includes faucet aerators, low flow showerheads, and pipe and tank wrap) as

compared to measures with higher savings a nd benefits such as in sulation, air sealing and

heating system and refrigerator replacemen ts to. The economic downturn may have been

a contributing factor as well since the partic ipant costs for measures with lower savings

and benefits are lower.

Residential Lighting



# PA Costs ($): The underspending in this prog ram was due to the late approval, which

delayed implementation of new measures su ch as LED fixtures. Also, the economic

downturn affected sales of CFL bul bs and other lighting products.

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower sales of CFL bulbs and other lighting products

resulted in lower than projected savings. Fu rthermore, declines in two key assumptions

# resulted in the significant decrease in net li fetime MWh savings, despite the increase in

the installation rate from 84% to 97% due to the 2008 Residential Lighting Markdown

Impact Evaluation 2 

# that offset some of the decline.

1. The 2009 program year study entitled Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling

Effort 3 

# reduced the net-to-gross ratio from 139% to 41%.

2. The 2008 Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation 4 

# reduced the

deemed gross annual kWh savings for CFL screw-in bulbs from 57 to 47.

Benefits ($): The significant decrease in ne t lifetime MWh savings drove the significant

decrease in benefits.

Residential Appliances



# Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Savings were su bstantially higher than planned, due to the

higher than planned uptake on two measures w ith particularly high savings: ECM Heaters

and Refrigerators.

Benefits ($): As savings were substantia lly higher than planned, benefits were

substantially higher than pla nned. The variance in benefits was even higher than the

variance in savings due to the fact that there are additional n on-electric benefits

associated with ECM Heaters.

Low-Income BCR Activities

Low-Income Retrofit 1-4



# PA Costs ($): The underspending in this pr ogram was due to lower than projected

participation.

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower spendi ng contributed to lower than projected

savings. Greater uptake of measures with si gnificant non-electric benefits has offset

declines in electric benefits. As a result, ther e is little variance in benefits despite a

significant variance in savings.

Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily



# PA Costs ($): The underspending in this pr ogram was due to lower than projected

measure uptake, likely due to the economic downturn.

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower spendi ng contributed to lower than projected

savings.

Benefits ($): Lower spending contributed to lower than projected savings, which drove

lower benefits.

2 

# Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, Inc, and

GDS Associates, January 20, 2009.

3 

# Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling Effort , NMR Group, Inc., February 4, 2010.

4 

# Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, Inc, and

GDS Associates, January 20, 2009.

# Commercial and Industrial BCR Activities



# Due to the low number of participants in any given year, Cape Li ght Compact generally

experiences a high variance in savings a nd benefits for all C&I BCR Activities.

C&I Lost Opportunity



# PA Costs ($): The overspending in this program was due to higher uptake than projected.

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Savings were high er than projected due to a higher uptake

of non-lighting measures than projected. Non- lighting measure have higher savings than

lighting measures.

Benefits ($): Benefits were higher than pr ojected due to a higher uptake of non-lighting

measures than projected. Non-lighting meas ures have higher savings, and therefore,

higher benefits, than lighting measures.

Large C&I Retrofit



# PA Costs ($): The underspending in this prog ram was due to lower uptake than projected.

The economic downturn may have made it difficult for larger companies and

organizations to pay the participant cost s associated with larger projects.

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Despite unders pending, savings were significantly higher

than planned. This is due to a higher uptak e of non-lighting measures than projected.

Non-lighting measure have higher savings than lighting measures.

Benefits ($): Benefits were higher than pr ojected due to a higher uptake of non-lighting

measures than projected. Non-lighting meas ures have higher savings, and therefore,

higher benefits, than lighting measures.

# Appendix 11. Cape Light Compact’s Year End 2009 Town

Program Activity Reports

The following are the Cape Light Compact ’s Year End 2009 Town Program Activity

Reports. The Cape Light Compact is providi ng these reports in response to a D.P.U.

request during the Cape Light Compact’s 09-119 proceeding.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:38Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:AllCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family506,0016148,21563,189.36642,511.84458644,449.0099.7%Low-Income Multi-Family28,246154,41710,248.7063,037.394573,050.0086.3%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total534,247705,549.233.0%10.8%52,63273,438.06760.9%4.3%4.6%503717,499.004.6%17.5%Residential New Construction230,5921726,41943,518.99236,260.261680.000.0%Energy Star Lighting5,040,1353842,193,04180,508.51202,361.233,8000.000.0%Energy Star Appliance310,40635665,21830,300.00152,225.001,9660.000.0%Residential Conservation Service3,260,769674414,514303,033.572,184,641.553,9551,934,464.00112.9%Energy Star HVAC45,0603310,61215,044.0050,144.00950.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total8,886,9622,825,632.0449.6%43.1%2,709,804472,405.071,46447.7%27.6%89.2%9,9841,934,464.0091.4%47.2%C&I New Construction66,116601,468.8326,749.38210.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit1,470,9064646,04889,045.66278,867.32200.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit3,807,812631,261,621436,960.941,474,876.052971,446,021.00102.0%C&I Govt Small1,244,66714640,560452,331.50859,601.40540.000.0%C&I Govt Large1,008,114303,435.41107,264.0190.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction554,3944283,740176,893.84255,130.37170.000.0%C&I Products & Services359,732783,2484,573.0025,625.61220.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total8,511,7413,028,114.1447.5%46.2%17,932,9502,915,2171,164,709.1810151.3%68.1%6.2%1,710,552.311,6414401,446,021.004.0%35.3%10,927Report Total5,677,6536,559,295.414,097,984.00Budget Comparison4,365,066.834,097,984.00106.5%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:42Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:AquinnahCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family0000.000.000773.000.0%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.00088.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total00.000.0%0.0%00.0000.0%0.0%0.0%0861.000.0%13.7%Residential New Construction1,82911,8292,334.402,534.4010.000.0%Energy Star Lighting18,126000.00297.0040.000.0%Energy Star Appliance100000.0050.0010.000.0%Residential Conservation Service700000.001,155.7864,643.0024.9%Energy Star HVAC0000.000.0000.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total20,7554,037.18100.0%100.0%1,8292,334.401100.0%100.0%100.0%124,643.00100.0%74.0%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit0000.000.000774.520.0%C&I Govt Small0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total00.000.0%0.0%20,75500.0000.0%0.0%0.0%2,334.4010774.520.0%12.3%12Report Total1,8294,037.186,278.52Budget Comparison1,155.786,278.5218.4%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:43Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:BarnstableCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family118,4911111,10511,399.45146,436.5496145,968.00100.3%Low-Income Multi-Family5,59782,6499,072.4625,036.443116,546.00151.3%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total124,088171,472.982.7%12.6%13,75420,471.91190.7%4.1%8.1%127162,514.006.5%19.5%Residential New Construction51,32425,7272,617.7558,811.12390.000.0%Energy Star Lighting1,339,91619397,71117,534.5566,148.836980.000.0%Energy Star Appliance54,9996511,6285,580.0027,605.003520.000.0%Residential Conservation Service537,7269976,84744,200.10333,809.72628337,370.0098.9%Energy Star HVAC7,17932,2531,964.007,776.00140.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total1,991,144494,150.6743.2%36.3%494,16671,896.4018826.2%14.4%79.7%1,731337,370.0088.7%40.5%C&I New Construction10,0861095.006,527.2850.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit1,076,3452616,31486,330.00154,573.5970.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit847,39318473,394141,163.08304,984.2363334,156.3191.3%C&I Govt Small56,09820597.2426,427.3360.000.0%C&I Govt Large0201,935.412,061.7630.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction368,8982283,740176,036.15197,441.3840.000.0%C&I Products & Services135,02622,6881,313.003,875.0050.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total2,493,846695,890.5754.1%51.1%4,609,0781,376,136407,469.882973.0%81.5%12.3%499,838.1923693334,156.314.8%40.1%1,951Report Total1,884,0551,361,514.22834,040.31Budget Comparison810,266.93834,040.3197.1%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:44Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:BourneCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family29,56142,6204,773.6033,669.422738,474.0087.5%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0004,361.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total29,56133,669.422.1%5.5%2,6204,773.6040.5%2.7%3.0%2742,835.003.3%15.8%Residential New Construction39,81522,5541,499.7654,628.30390.000.0%Energy Star Lighting167,4954515,884599.305,947.443720.000.0%Energy Star Appliance15,501202,7801,450.007,740.001100.000.0%Residential Conservation Service178,0344931,43718,565.60118,284.78238112,005.00105.6%Energy Star HVAC92192416.00416.0010.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total400,937187,016.5227.8%30.6%52,74722,530.6611711.0%12.5%88.6%760112,005.0091.6%41.3%C&I New Construction17,77010166.253,732.6120.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit495,3497249,64879,974.65181,154.3128116,475.62155.5%C&I Govt Small372,8782173,81170,988.86167,278.2860.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.002,537.5020.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction95,305000.0031,535.2530.000.0%C&I Products & Services28,970101,600.004,737.5020.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total1,010,272390,975.4570.1%63.9%1,440,770423,459152,729.761188.4%84.8%8.3%180,034.0213243116,475.625.2%42.9%830Report Total478,827611,661.39271,315.62Budget Comparison333,108.51271,315.62122.8%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:45Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:BrewsterCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family16,577000.009,335.401522,427.0041.6%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0002,542.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total16,5779,335.404.0%4.0%00.0000.0%0.0%0.0%1524,969.002.8%15.4%Residential New Construction3,695000.002,717.1650.000.0%Energy Star Lighting108,444246,599169.003,630.951790.000.0%Energy Star Appliance16,861142,4401,300.008,410.001130.000.0%Residential Conservation Service162,5542712,1569,087.26117,137.09206100,399.00116.7%Energy Star HVAC8,7122813932.009,208.00160.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total300,266141,103.2072.0%60.3%22,00811,488.266778.6%68.2%95.7%519100,399.0095.2%61.7%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit46,49425,7144,731.9520,631.53637,261.6055.4%C&I Govt Small49,847000.0060,970.0020.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.0023.7510.000.0%C&I Products & Services3,9601289625.002,025.0020.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total100,30183,650.2824.0%35.7%417,1446,0035,356.95321.4%31.8%4.3%16,845.21701137,261.602.0%22.9%545Report Total28,011234,088.88162,629.60Budget Comparison147,104.02162,629.6090.5%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:39Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:Cape CodCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family479,6885340,46359,065.76612,537.45436608,167.00100.7%Low-Income Multi-Family20,605154,41710,248.7057,293.183968,936.0083.1%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total500,293669,830.633.0%11.2%44,88069,314.46680.9%5.2%4.3%475677,103.004.6%18.1%Residential New Construction185,8131523,02239,010.89218,956.501530.000.0%Energy Star Lighting4,704,1653781,957,61773,482.51192,528.653,5550.000.0%Energy Star Appliance306,01034664,17829,830.00150,565.001,9300.000.0%Residential Conservation Service3,073,384652388,607291,074.872,075,917.673,7501,726,896.00120.2%Energy Star HVAC44,8753210,51914,628.0049,312.00930.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total8,314,2482,687,279.8249.4%44.8%2,443,943448,026.271,42349.2%33.8%89.7%9,4811,726,896.0091.4%46.3%C&I New Construction66,116501,350.0824,060.06180.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit1,470,9064646,04889,045.66278,867.32200.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit3,745,433631,261,621436,960.941,453,728.202901,327,782.89109.5%C&I Govt Small800,83510203,85894,401.72498,076.94470.000.0%C&I Govt Large1,008,114303,435.41107,074.0180.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction554,3944283,740176,893.84255,130.37170.000.0%C&I Products & Services359,732783,2484,573.0025,625.61220.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total8,005,5302,642,562.5147.6%44.0%16,820,0702,478,515806,660.659649.9%60.9%6.0%1,324,001.381,5874221,327,782.894.1%35.6%10,378Report Total4,967,3385,999,672.963,731,781.89Budget Comparison4,199,476.503,731,781.89112.5%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:54Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:ChathamCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family14,054000.0017,027.161211,342.00150.1%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0001,286.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total14,05417,027.162.3%9.8%00.0000.0%0.0%0.0%1212,628.002.9%8.8%Residential New Construction2,77310100.00592.2330.000.0%Energy Star Lighting310,49512285,3819,076.0010,191.251100.000.0%Energy Star Appliance17,032193,0401,600.008,840.001120.000.0%Residential Conservation Service148,4862113,4767,295.8984,602.2715475,638.00111.9%Energy Star HVAC9972813932.001,764.0030.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total479,784105,989.7579.5%61.2%302,71019,003.895599.9%95.2%96.5%38275,638.0091.2%52.9%C&I New Construction010732.58732.5810.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit25,458000.0015,524.1920.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit82,3501430223.6032,607.641954,666.7559.6%C&I Govt Small0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.00476.2010.000.0%C&I Products & Services1,642000.00877.8020.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total109,45050,218.4118.1%29.0%603,288430956.1820.1%4.8%3.5%19,960.07572554,666.756.0%38.2%419Report Total303,140173,235.32142,932.75Budget Comparison134,237.07142,932.7593.9%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:55Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:ChilmarkCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family2,741000.001,131.301129.00877.0%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.00015.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total2,7411,131.305.1%6.7%00.0000.0%0.0%0.0%1144.002.8%0.6%Residential New Construction39,040000.005,816.9720.000.0%Energy Star Lighting3,019100.00134.10110.000.0%Energy Star Appliance5403340120.00220.0050.000.0%Residential Conservation Service8,71223,7271,030.639,535.581718,764.0050.8%Energy Star HVAC0000.000.0000.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total51,31115,706.6594.9%93.3%4,0671,150.636100.0%100.0%100.0%3518,764.0097.2%80.1%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit0000.000.0004,505.280.0%C&I Govt Small0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total00.000.0%0.0%54,05200.0000.0%0.0%0.0%1,150.63604,505.280.0%19.2%36Report Total4,06716,837.9523,413.28Budget Comparison10,666.8823,413.2845.6%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:56Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:DennisCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family41,29744,0573,515.2554,716.834448,205.00113.5%Low-Income Multi-Family13,240000.0031,080.5015,464.00568.8%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total54,53785,797.334.0%15.4%4,0573,515.2541.0%2.9%1.7%4553,669.004.4%20.1%Residential New Construction020300.00400.0030.000.0%Energy Star Lighting467,50692305,1819,151.8815,264.744050.000.0%Energy Star Appliance29,893366,4983,060.0014,870.001960.000.0%Residential Conservation Service230,6169431,95776,693.22207,761.56334127,094.00163.5%Energy Star HVAC2,25187183,228.004,676.00110.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total730,265242,972.3053.8%43.6%344,35492,433.1023286.0%76.5%97.9%949127,094.0093.1%47.6%C&I New Construction5,859000.00995.7510.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit22,410000.004,756.0010.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit476,070151,81624,811.38210,257.662186,471.99243.2%C&I Govt Small5,152000.003,250.0010.000.0%C&I Govt Large62,215000.009,600.0010.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total571,706228,859.4142.1%41.0%1,356,50951,81624,811.38112.9%20.5%0.4%120,759.732372586,471.992.5%32.4%1,019Report Total400,227557,629.04267,234.99Budget Comparison503,816.55267,234.99188.5%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:09Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:EasthamCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family17,4051551,335.0024,753.231718,432.00134.3%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0002,089.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total17,40524,753.232.8%10.7%551,335.0010.0%3.6%1.7%1720,521.004.7%21.2%Residential New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%Energy Star Lighting105,43381,76734.003,231.90960.000.0%Energy Star Appliance9,425152,2801,200.004,580.00740.000.0%Residential Conservation Service117,5592917,5589,475.2375,599.3015958,421.00129.4%Energy Star HVAC1,533192416.001,448.0030.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total233,95084,859.2037.3%36.8%21,69711,125.235313.4%30.2%88.3%33258,421.0091.0%60.3%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit173,592000.0074,845.0010.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit115,613561,74323,796.6939,122.681217,888.15218.7%C&I Govt Small8,068000.006,462.7510.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services78,457178,000625.00807.2920.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total375,730121,237.7259.9%52.5%627,085139,74324,421.69686.5%66.2%10.0%36,881.92601617,888.154.4%18.5%365Report Total161,495230,850.1596,830.15Budget Comparison139,475.2196,830.15144.0%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:10Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:EdgartownCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family8,29611,368647.405,933.4959,216.0064.4%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0001,045.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total8,2965,933.492.7%2.5%1,368647.4010.7%0.3%7.7%510,261.003.9%8.7%Residential New Construction1,56911,5692,173.702,853.7020.000.0%Energy Star Lighting31,94312284.001,012.70670.000.0%Energy Star Appliance1,0103300150.00430.0090.000.0%Residential Conservation Service27,47855,5162,204.7516,829.074267,126.0025.1%Energy Star HVAC0000.000.0000.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total62,00021,125.4719.8%8.8%7,6134,532.45103.7%2.2%76.9%12067,126.0093.0%57.1%C&I New Construction010118.75118.7510.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit40,529000.0010,444.52140,131.3826.0%C&I Govt Small201,9681195,236199,741.00202,028.7320.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total242,497212,592.0077.5%88.7%312,792195,236199,859.75295.6%97.5%15.4%205,039.6013440,131.383.1%34.1%129Report Total204,217239,650.96117,518.38Budget Comparison33,207.08117,518.3828.3%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:11Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:FalmouthCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family66,44684,22012,839.20114,506.456283,327.00137.4%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0009,445.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total66,446114,506.453.7%14.7%4,22012,839.2080.7%7.6%3.8%6292,772.004.9%18.4%Residential New Construction25,36714,8812,334.2419,419.61190.000.0%Energy Star Lighting566,74034331,40212,225.4022,066.313040.000.0%Energy Star Appliance43,7504917,3106,360.0019,765.002320.000.0%Residential Conservation Service459,4109973,24346,079.14346,726.27571235,810.00147.0%Energy Star HVAC8,47631,5331,448.008,176.00110.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total1,103,744416,153.1962.1%53.3%428,36968,446.7818668.3%40.7%89.4%1,137235,810.0090.4%46.8%C&I New Construction16,8471095.007,206.0120.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit54,932102,310.6615,853.5440.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit405,16510192,90684,383.78180,505.6843175,408.69102.9%C&I Govt Small62,70510181.2836,784.1960.000.0%C&I Govt Large55,900000.007,634.0010.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services12,75711,61560.001,615.0030.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total608,306249,598.4234.2%32.0%1,778,496194,52187,030.721431.0%51.7%6.7%168,316.7020859175,408.694.7%34.8%1,258Report Total627,109780,258.06503,990.69Budget Comparison641,738.40503,990.69127.3%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:12Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:HarwichCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family29,86754,2474,920.3033,438.072232,738.00102.1%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0003,711.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total29,86733,438.071.7%7.3%4,2474,920.3052.4%10.7%4.0%2236,449.003.2%19.0%Residential New Construction16,81047,5483,061.0424,339.48230.000.0%Energy Star Lighting296,84547111,2264,144.4011,101.582630.000.0%Energy Star Appliance20,767173,2921,600.0010,635.001320.000.0%Residential Conservation Service201,6124827,61716,175.94128,926.50221102,527.00125.7%Energy Star HVAC1,717000.002,280.0050.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total537,751177,282.5630.9%38.9%149,68324,981.3811686.3%54.3%92.8%644102,527.0093.3%53.3%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit232,94326,1613,540.6285,855.621953,316.05161.0%C&I Govt Small29,203113,42411,099.5664,014.5620.000.0%C&I Govt Large889,999101,500.0085,240.7510.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction23,036000.009,671.1320.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total1,175,181244,782.0667.4%53.7%1,742,80019,58516,140.18411.3%35.1%3.2%46,041.861252453,316.053.5%27.7%690Report Total173,515455,502.69192,292.05Budget Comparison248,220.19192,292.05129.1%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 13:41Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:Marthas VineyardCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family26,31387,7524,123.6029,974.392236,282.0082.6%Low-Income Multi-Family7,641000.005,744.2164,114.00139.6%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total33,95435,718.603.1%6.4%7,7524,123.6081.1%1.1%14.8%2840,396.005.1%11.0%Residential New Construction44,77923,3974,508.1017,303.76150.000.0%Energy Star Lighting335,9706235,4247,026.009,832.582450.000.0%Energy Star Appliance4,396101,040470.001,660.00360.000.0%Residential Conservation Service187,3852225,90711,958.70108,723.88205207,568.0052.4%Energy Star HVAC185192416.00832.0020.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total572,714138,352.2251.5%24.7%265,86124,378.804137.4%6.3%75.9%503207,568.0091.6%56.7%C&I New Construction010118.752,689.3230.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit62,379000.0021,147.857118,238.1117.9%C&I Govt Small443,8324436,702357,929.78361,524.4670.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.00190.0010.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total506,211385,551.6345.5%68.9%1,112,880436,702358,048.53561.5%92.6%9.3%386,550.935418118,238.113.3%32.3%549Report Total710,315559,622.45366,202.11Budget Comparison165,590.33366,202.1145.2%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:13Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:MashpeeCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family23,11911,136648.5016,311.552250,138.0032.5%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0005,683.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total23,11916,311.553.6%8.6%1,136648.5011.6%1.9%1.3%2255,821.003.9%23.9%Residential New Construction0000.00130.0010.000.0%Energy Star Lighting188,623911,0761,422.408,681.121690.000.0%Energy Star Appliance27,770264,6802,500.0014,805.001360.000.0%Residential Conservation Service203,7303616,3728,544.1585,177.38213112,199.0075.9%Energy Star HVAC956172316.001,564.0040.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total421,079110,357.5066.2%58.3%32,20012,782.557245.1%37.1%93.5%523112,199.0093.2%47.9%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit54,116000.004,614.0010.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit94,082223,2209,971.1831,420.27666,024.9447.6%C&I Govt Small43,420114,78110,485.6325,686.5670.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction010554.90752.5020.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total191,61862,473.3330.1%33.0%635,81638,00121,011.71453.3%61.0%5.2%34,442.76771666,024.942.9%28.2%561Report Total71,337189,142.38234,044.94Budget Comparison132,909.20234,044.9456.8%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:15Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:Oak BluffsCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family9,40845,1302,476.5013,997.001010,633.00131.6%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0001,205.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total9,40813,997.005.5%11.6%5,1302,476.5045.0%3.1%22.2%1011,838.007.1%13.8%Residential New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%Energy Star Lighting16,109000.00471.10590.000.0%Energy Star Appliance1,501110050.00440.00100.000.0%Residential Conservation Service53,7191211,0837,409.3529,741.545647,588.0062.5%Energy Star HVAC0000.000.0000.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total71,32930,652.6441.3%25.5%11,1837,459.351310.9%9.4%72.2%12547,588.0088.7%55.4%C&I New Construction0000.002,570.5720.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit5,769000.002,624.64126,466.219.9%C&I Govt Small86,040186,04069,828.0070,342.9020.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.00190.0010.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total91,80975,728.1153.2%62.9%172,54686,04069,828.00184.1%87.5%5.6%79,763.8518626,466.214.3%30.8%141Report Total102,353120,377.7585,892.21Budget Comparison46,363.1885,892.2154.0%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:16Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:OrleansCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family5,30811,3751,175.503,646.15615,660.0023.3%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0001,775.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total5,3083,646.150.7%1.2%1,3751,175.5010.8%2.2%1.5%617,435.001.6%11.5%Residential New Construction31,89412,312598.1017,530.6290.000.0%Energy Star Lighting183,4921318,5581,234.677,796.07940.000.0%Energy Star Appliance7,400111,360700.003,450.00550.000.0%Residential Conservation Service114,618267,2119,704.8991,982.6016465,772.00139.9%Energy Star HVAC4,48541,6041,764.003,828.0080.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total341,889124,587.2942.3%42.0%31,04514,001.665517.6%26.2%84.6%33065,772.0089.2%43.3%C&I New Construction15,554000.002,295.1230.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.00392.0010.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit318,3008142,98337,869.08111,374.392568,796.26161.9%C&I Govt Small91,882000.0048,494.0920.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services34,9091656350.005,583.7230.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total460,645168,139.3257.0%56.7%807,842143,63938,219.08981.6%71.6%13.8%53,396.24653468,796.269.2%45.3%370Report Total176,059296,372.76152,003.26Budget Comparison207,003.14152,003.26136.2%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:17Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:ProvincetownCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family8,0861741440.0519,432.561014,500.00134.0%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0001,644.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total8,08619,432.566.7%23.5%741440.0512.7%7.0%5.9%1016,144.007.7%15.0%Residential New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%Energy Star Lighting7,032291216.00261.00330.000.0%Energy Star Appliance8003300150.00400.0080.000.0%Residential Conservation Service64,089923,3684,697.2636,299.016936,368.0099.8%Energy Star HVAC720000.00516.0010.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total72,64137,476.0159.8%45.4%24,5804,863.261489.4%77.7%82.4%11136,368.0085.4%33.8%C&I New Construction010261.25261.2510.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit28,83112,185693.7318,482.47454,927.9333.6%C&I Govt Small7,095000.003,982.3120.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.00531.8710.000.0%C&I Products & Services4,811000.002,379.3010.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total40,73725,637.2033.5%31.1%121,4652,185954.9827.9%15.3%11.8%6,258.2917954,927.936.9%51.1%130Report Total27,50682,545.77107,439.93Budget Comparison74,214.04107,439.9369.1%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:18Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:SandwichCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family35,26673,9126,228.7044,203.143135,702.00123.8%Low-Income Multi-Family1,76871,7681,176.241,176.2474,047.0029.1%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total37,03445,379.384.5%12.0%5,6807,404.94145.9%19.7%13.5%3839,749.005.1%16.1%Residential New Construction5,847000.001,217.1520.000.0%Energy Star Lighting263,7102041,3422,687.5612,079.452700.000.0%Energy Star Appliance12,800191,870910.006,255.001150.000.0%Residential Conservation Service228,0974324,97515,254.89173,738.07291136,380.00127.4%Energy Star HVAC3,87841,6251,864.003,832.0080.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total514,332197,121.6762.1%52.0%69,81220,716.458672.1%55.0%82.7%686136,380.0091.2%55.3%C&I New Construction0000.00925.3910.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit34,319000.007,904.0020.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit183,518321,3329,232.4984,553.221970,390.30120.1%C&I Govt Small59,100000.0042,627.3840.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction010302.79920.2920.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total276,937136,930.2833.4%36.1%828,30321,3329,535.28422.0%25.3%3.8%37,656.671042870,390.303.7%28.6%752Report Total96,824379,431.33246,519.30Budget Comparison303,670.67246,519.30123.2%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:19Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:TisburyCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family5,86831,254999.708,912.60611,342.0078.6%Low-Income Multi-Family7,641000.005,744.2161,286.00446.7%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total13,50914,656.812.7%9.5%1,254999.7030.3%1.0%23.1%1212,628.008.0%14.2%Residential New Construction2,341000.004,636.1920.000.0%Energy Star Lighting255,0854235,1967,022.007,559.40690.000.0%Energy Star Appliance9452200100.00370.0080.000.0%Residential Conservation Service54,67724,1141,111.5032,110.705138,689.0083.0%Energy Star HVAC92192416.00416.0010.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total313,14145,092.2962.8%29.2%239,6028,649.50960.5%9.0%69.2%13138,689.0087.3%43.5%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit16,081000.008,078.69537,669.8121.4%C&I Govt Small155,8241155,42686,425.0086,762.8520.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total171,90594,841.5434.5%61.4%498,555155,42686,425.00139.2%90.0%7.7%96,074.2013737,669.814.7%42.3%150Report Total396,282154,590.6488,986.81Budget Comparison54,846.2088,986.8161.6%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:20Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:TruroCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family9,098000.0011,445.63115,929.00193.0%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.000672.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total9,09811,445.6313.2%16.1%00.0000.0%0.0%0.0%116,601.009.3%14.4%Residential New Construction2,0142028,500.0030,432.1820.000.0%Energy Star Lighting6,97245708.00214.00310.000.0%Energy Star Appliance1,070000.00510.00110.000.0%Residential Conservation Service48,368122,8853,050.9727,036.896027,663.0097.7%Energy Star HVAC1,5332813932.001,448.0030.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total59,95759,641.0786.8%83.9%4,26832,490.9720100.0%100.0%100.0%10727,663.0090.7%60.5%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit0000.000.00011,422.890.0%C&I Govt Small0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total00.000.0%0.0%69,05500.0000.0%0.0%0.0%32,490.9720011,422.890.0%25.0%118Report Total4,26871,086.7045,686.89Budget Comparison38,482.5245,686.8984.2%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:21Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:WellfleetCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family11,44126963,558.2016,071.271110,247.00156.8%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0001,161.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total11,44116,071.275.3%16.1%6963,558.2025.0%25.1%6.9%1111,408.005.1%17.6%Residential New Construction2,527000.004,420.0550.000.0%Energy Star Lighting13,16742,16660.00521.63600.000.0%Energy Star Appliance3,4265500250.001,480.00310.000.0%Residential Conservation Service66,861165,2246,667.2851,320.739735,788.00143.4%Energy Star HVAC720000.00516.0010.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total86,70158,258.4140.1%58.3%7,8906,977.282556.4%49.2%86.2%19435,788.0090.2%55.3%C&I New Construction0000.00403.7510.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit17,96015,4013,580.678,311.50617,528.7847.4%C&I Govt Small01071.25593.7510.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction67,155000.0013,778.0010.000.0%C&I Products & Services32,800000.002,550.0010.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total117,91525,637.0054.6%25.6%216,0575,4013,651.92238.6%25.7%6.9%14,187.40291017,528.784.7%27.1%215Report Total13,98799,966.6864,724.78Budget Comparison75,703.5064,724.78117.0%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:22Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:West TisburyCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family0000.000.0004,189.000.0%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.000475.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total00.000.0%0.0%00.0000.0%0.0%0.0%04,664.000.0%10.6%Residential New Construction0000.001,462.5080.000.0%Energy Star Lighting11,688000.00358.28350.000.0%Energy Star Appliance300110050.00150.0030.000.0%Residential Conservation Service42,09911,467202.4719,351.213330,758.0062.9%Energy Star HVAC92000.00416.0010.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total54,17921,737.99100.0%90.1%1,567252.472100.0%11.5%66.7%8030,758.0098.8%69.7%C&I New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit0000.000.0008,690.910.0%C&I Govt Small0101,935.782,389.9810.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total02,389.980.0%9.9%54,17901,935.7810.0%88.5%33.3%2,188.25318,690.911.2%19.7%81Report Total1,56724,127.9744,112.91Budget Comparison19,351.2144,112.9143.9%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htmAnnualNumber ofProgramkWh SavingsParticipantsParticipantsAnnualkWh SavingsExpendituresActualExpendituresActualPage 1 of 101/15/10 14:23Number ofCurrent PeriodCumulative for Reporting PeriodBudgetof BudgetActual %Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:YarmouthCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09Program Activity by TownLow-Income Single-Family53,67186,2998,232.0167,544.055075,078.0090.0%Low-Income Multi-Family0000.000.0008,510.000.0%LI Special Projects0000.000.0000.000.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total53,67167,544.053.4%14.2%6,2998,232.0181.2%14.5%5.3%5083,588.004.3%20.4%Residential New Construction3,748000.004,318.6030.000.0%Energy Star Lighting678,29545427,84215,119.3525,392.384710.000.0%Energy Star Appliance44,515476,2003,170.0021,220.002530.000.0%Residential Conservation Service311,6244424,28115,583.05197,515.50345163,462.00120.8%Energy Star HVAC1,625192416.001,864.0040.000.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total1,039,807250,310.4866.4%52.5%458,41534,288.4013788.0%60.3%91.3%1,076163,462.0093.2%39.9%C&I New Construction0000.00980.3210.000.0%C&I Large Retrofit29,734129,734405.00405.0010.000.0%C&I Small Retrofit401,365224,68812,988.04144,467.0019163,046.6388.6%C&I Govt Small15,38721,842977.9011,505.7470.000.0%C&I Govt Large0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Govt New Construction0000.000.0000.000.0%C&I Products & Services26,400000.001,175.0010.000.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total472,886158,533.0630.2%33.3%1,566,36456,26414,370.94510.8%25.3%3.3%56,891.3515029163,046.632.5%39.8%1,155Report Total520,979476,387.59410,096.63Budget Comparison409,526.55410,096.6399.9%dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07**All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.