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, 2nd Floor 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020 

Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02114 

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

Dear Secretary Marini and 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 regarding this report, please feel free to contact 

me or the Compact’s Energy Efficiency Program 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 delivered 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 (referred 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 trade allies with technical assistance and 

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

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

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

Construction Program, which provides low-income housing development agencies 

and residential construction trade allies with 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 Initiative. $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 Construction 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 “environmental 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 communities 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 interest in an addition that was eligible 

for neither the ENERGY STAR® Homes program nor the single-family retrofit 

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

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

that would address the structure. As a result 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 Compact 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 heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) units. The 

program also is designed to increase the number of trained technicians 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 interested residential 

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

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

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

and in Section III. 

Deep Retrofit Pilot: In 2009, Cape Light Compact investigated the 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 assess the costs and benefits of deep energy 

retrofits in Massachusetts residences. The design included a plan to support deep 

retrofits and to gather information on customer satisfaction, behavior 

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

Commonwealth begin to develop information on appropriate measures for deep 

retrofits, approaches for different housing types, ways to educate customers and 

appropriate marketing materials, and the types of financing mechanisms and 

incentive levels to drive participation. 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 modeling and other assistance provided 

through the Residential New Construction Program. 

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

who were planning to undergo major exterior 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 the 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 considerable amount of upfront capital to the 

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

program results will likely be available 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 refrigerators as well as consumer electronics 

such as Advanced Power Strips. 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 

Appliances row of Table 2 and in Section III. 

• Non Program-Related Pilots, which seek to investigate new approaches and 

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

Smart Home Energy Monitoring Pilot: Cape Light Compact designed and 

implemented a Residential Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot program in 2009 to 

evaluate potential energy savings from in-home energy monitoring systems, gain 

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

Grid projects. This pilot program was evaluated 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 information regarding the persistence 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 Monitoring 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 are 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 heating measures. Results of this program 

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

III. 

• The Commercial and Industrial New Construction Program, which provides 

technical assistance and financial incentives to increase the efficiency in the 

construction, renovation, and/or remodeling of all commercial, industrial, 

government and multi-family housing facilities. 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 financial 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 this 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 incentives and direct installation to small C&I customers to 

replace existing operating equipment and systems 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 incentives1

 to all government facilities, including municipal, state and 

federal facilities. For the purposes of reporting 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 efficiency services resulting from an audit up to a cap of 

$150,000 per project. 

4
market transformation initiatives. The results 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) benefits and costs. For each sector there are 

tables summarizing the lifetime energy savings, lifetime capacity savings, the nonelectric benefits (NEBs), and the dollar values of the total benefits2

 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 information available at this time. 

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

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

evaluations that are used, and a description 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 information 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 section also summarizes recent 

evaluation report findings where relevant. 

Finally, the Appendices provide more detail regarding program 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 benefit-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 program budgets, savings and benefits; 

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

expenditures; 

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

Appendix 6 provides the executive summaries as well as full reports for all of the 

evaluation studies that are applicable to this program year; 

Appendix 7 provides performance metrics-related documents and reports;5

Appendix 8 provides the detailed inputs into the savings calculations; 

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

Public Utilities (D.P.U.) requested the following 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 Updates 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 with 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 results 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 available at this time. 

 

4

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

Appendix. 

5

 As the Cape Light Compact does not receive a performance 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 MW-Years 41.587 -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 costs incurred by the Compact, except for monitoring 

and verification costs. Total expenses include program 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, technical assistance and training costs, despite 

higher program planning and 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 administrative 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 roughly 12% lower than the budgets in the 2009 

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

marketing, incentive, and sales, technical assistance, and training costs. 

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

among all program administrators participating in joint statewide and regional 

studies. 

The annual and lifetime energy savings achieved in 2009 were lower than those estimated 

in the 2009 EEP (by 32% and 21%, respectively). 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 winter 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 experienced in the Residential Lost Opportunity, 

ENERGY STAR® HVAC, Residential Lighting, and Low-Income Retrofit Multi-Family 

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

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

savings and benefits relative to the 2009 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 Compact’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 the residential programs. It also presents the total cumulative 

benefits and costs, in 2009 present 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

Activity 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 12,885 43,165 958 2,829 $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 49,928 80,208 17,531 19,403 $8,514,511 $8,303,642 $18,462,396 $4,481,734

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Lifetime MWH Lifetime kW Lifetime $ NEB TRC Values

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 benefits come from the 

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

The Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling Effort7 based on 2009 program results and 

Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation8 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 Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ 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 present value dollars. These total benefits and 

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

resource cost test. 

10
Benefit-Cost Ratio

Activity 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 Lifetime $ NEB TRC Values

Figures 5 through 8 present the same information graphically as listed 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 updates 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

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 present 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

Activity 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 Lifetime $ NEB TRC Values

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

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

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

between the reported and preliminary results 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ 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 information 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, along with other energy efficiency Program 

Administrators. The Compact has also conducted 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 update impact factors or to 

inform the process of program delivery are listed 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 Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY 

STAR®, ICF International, June 4, 2010. Executive Summary. 

Energy Savings Analysis for the Massachusetts 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 Evaluation, ADM Associates, Inc., October 

2009. 

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

March 2010. 

7. 2009 Massachusetts Multi-Family Program Assessment, Nexus Market 

Research, Inc., October 16, 2009. 

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

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

2010. 

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

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

11. Cape Light Compact Residential Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot, PA 

Consulting, March 31, 2010. 

Types of Evaluations 

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

to apply appropriate methodologies and adjust them for individual program 

characteristics. The diverse nature of the programs, including the magnitude of 

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

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

programs use several methodologies to develop overall impact results and provide 

meaningful feedback on program delivery and 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 through 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 Commission, the New York State Energy Research 

and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Wisconsin Public Service 

Commission, Consumers Energy in Michigan, Connecticut Energy Conservation 

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

United Illuminating Company, Cape Light 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 

effort10 to determine a net-to-gross ratio (NTG) 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 impacts for programs where a large number of 

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

billing analysis techniques may include representative samples of both participants and 

non-participants in an evaluation. 

• The Massachusetts electric program administrators jointly funded an evaluation of 

the Energy Pay and Save Pilot11, 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 engineering estimates that are based on sitespecific metering and on-site telephone assessments of measure performance and 

persistence. All of the following studies were conducted in 2010. 

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

on investigating the relationship between HERS ratings and energy savings in the 

Residential ENERGY STAR® New Construction Program.12

• The Joint Management Committee (JMC) completed an evaluation13 of the 

quality of installations 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. 

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

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

study14 to assess energy savings and demand 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 Massachusetts 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 administrators jointly funded an evaluation of 

the Energy Pay and Save Pilot15, to determine the extent to which on-bill 

financing motivates customers to install energy efficiency measures.

Process and Market Progress Evaluation Studies. Process evaluations review energy 

efficiency program design and implementation, and recommend modifications to 

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

including administrative efficiency, the quality of service provided, and the databases 

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

energy efficiency programs. They specifically 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 conditions. 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 evaluation16 was conducted to develop a proposed attribution 

mechanism for codes and standards for Massachusetts, develop 

recommendations for streamlining the process by which builders 

participate in the program, document lessons learned from the Zero 

Energy Challenge Pilot, and investigate other approaches to estimating 

whole house savings for homes undergoing major renovations or 

additions. 

o A 2009 Progress Report17 was prepared, to summarize 2009 Program 

activity. 

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

Monitoring Pilot18, to understand customer interest and satisfaction with the pilot 

as well as energy savings. 

• The Massachusetts electric program administrators jointly funded an evaluation19

to understand the current market conditions 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 administrators jointly funded an evaluation20

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

achievable potential energy savings, and to identify 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 analysis that values energy efficiency in 

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

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

• The Massachusetts electric and gas program administrators jointly funded a multifamily evaluation21 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 customers more successful. 

• The Residential Central AC Regional Evaluation22 also included an economic 

modeling analysis. 

Generic Impact Equations 

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

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

Persistence Factor. 

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

demand performance of installed equipment to initial estimates of performance. They are 

typically based on engineering or billing analysis. 

Free-ridership includes both partial and pure free-ridership, 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 nonparticipant spillover were used in the 

calculation of savings for commercial 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 Grid23 and Compact surveys24. 

 

20 Market Assessment and Best Practices for Delivering Plug-Load Energy Efficiency in Business – Final 

Report, PA Consulting Group, June 14, 2010. 

21 2009 Massachusetts Multi-Family 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 savings over time as indicated by followup surveys that confirm the measure remains installed, and verify it is operating as 

intended. As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study25, “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 kWh to calculate lifetime kW and kWh. 

As defined by the 2005 Measure Life Study26, measure life is “The median number of 

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

equipment life and measure persistence, but not savings persistence....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 monitor 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 Joint Utilities by Energy Resource Solutions 

(ERS), October 10, 2005. 

26 Measure Life Study Report prepared for the Massachusetts Joint Utilities by Energy Resource Solutions 

(ERS), October 10, 2005. 

21
Benefit-Cost Ratio BenefitCost

Activity kWh kWh per

Cust kW $-NEB MWH kW $-NEB Activity perCust 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 27,644 107 258 39.09 $0 498 704 $0 $62,539 $584 4.22 

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 3,269,252 3,959 772.88 826 $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 1,781,436 3,805 132.01 468 $15,712 12,885 $111,745 $412,799 $108 4.30 958 

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

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

TABLE 5

IMPACT BY RESIDENTIAL BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime Cost

Participant

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 reported results for Lighting. The reported lifetime 

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

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

measures due to adjustments to the in-service 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

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 COSTS

LIFETIME $ NE

B

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 process by which builders participate in 

the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program; 

• Identification of lessons learned from 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 proposed 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 recommendation is to use the California Delphi 

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

to attribute to Program Administrator efforts. 

24
Streamlining the Process: Interviews were conducted 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 interviewed. Principal conclusions include, 

flexibility among market players in program implementation is important, builders are 

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

resolution and HERS raters screen out marginally 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 building 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 provisions that cover additions to existing 

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

of the residential retrofit program, such as are 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 Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR®, 

ICF International, June 4, 2010. 

Also in 2010, the Joint Management Committee (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 build 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 were based on the Home Energy Rating System 

(HERS). HERS ratings were, therefore, assumed 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 resulted in expanding the tier structure from 

three to four tiers, and identifying new criterion for achieving various tier levels. The new 

criterion is based on a percentage savings above a User Defined 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, and HERS 85 plus 60% improvement over 

the UDRH baseline. 

25
The results of this analysis are being used in the statewide working group to enhance 

implementation and energy savings derived from the program moving forward. For 

example, the savings calculations were restructured to better align with the way savings 

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

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

tool. Results from this study did not drive changes 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. Program performance information includes 

historical as well as current information to show 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 and Central Air Conditioning 

• Envelope and Duct Leakage 

• HERS Raters 

• New Homes Recruited 

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

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

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

administrators gained market share, despite 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 installations 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 findings indicate that most of the homes in the sample did not 

meet the standards for a quality 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 incorrect refrigerant charges, 30% lacked 

thermal expansion valves and, 26% had unverified 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 result of these findings and identified shortcomings. For example, the requirements and training for Quality Installation 

Specifications for central air systems were refined. 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 efficient central air conditioning (CAC) 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 Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. 

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

actual 2008 weather data, and grouped into the following ISO Load Zones: Northeastern 

Massachusetts, Southeastern Massachusetts, Western/Central 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 annually. Study results are intended to provide 

a basis for regulatory reporting as well as application to the Forward 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 conducted 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 household phone surveys and 1,400 on-site visits 

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

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

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

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

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

matured, and as sales spilled over into other states, according to plan, the ratio of nonprogram sales to program sales would 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) cumulative penetration of CFLs in homes. The 

modeling suggested that CFL programs had a statistically 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 without 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 recommends 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% installation rate multiplied by a 139% net-to-gross ratio. The Cape 

Light Compact calculated its reported net savings 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 Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation28

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 kWh 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-gross ratio indicates that the market is transformed for CFL 

bulbs for some groups of consumers. As a result, the program design 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 understand the current market 

conditions and possible new program approaches for common and specialty CFLs in 

Massachusetts. The report presented findings 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, the 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 implementation, 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 conducted 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 efficiency measures. The pilot ran from April 2009 through 

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

industrial customers. Statewide participation was low among residential customers, 

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

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

For Cape Light Compact, a total of 32 customers 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 business participants, the 

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

loan was 10 months, and the average monthly 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 reviewed and used in 

conjunction with the statewide on-bill financing 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 and benefits for the Residential Mass Save®

Program. 

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

March 31, 2010. 

Cape Light Compact designed and implemented a Residential Smart Home Energy 

Monitoring Pilot program in 2009 to evaluate potential energy savings from in-home 

29
energy monitoring systems, gain insight to behavioral aspects of energy use, and inform 

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

outstanding, with more than 300 residents requesting the available spots in the program. 

To implement the pilot, the Cape Light identified 91 participants 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 enables the participant to view their electricity 

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

received information and training regarding 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 CO2 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 evaluation indicate: 

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

attracted more than triple the number of desired participants); 

• High levels of customer satisfaction with the pilot; 

• Significant energy savings. 

Seventy-five percent of program participants reduced energy consumption during the 

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

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

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

average energy consumption by 4 or more kWh per day. 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 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 residential and commercial participants. An RFP for 

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

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

persistence of the identified energy savings will be further 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 the 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 perCust TRC

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

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

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

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

TABLE 7

IMPACT BY LOW-INCOME BCR ACTIVITIES

Annual Lifetime Cost

Participant

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 from 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 associated 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

End User Behavior

Motors

Hot Water

Refrigeration

HVAC

Lighting

3. Program Evaluation 

Low-Income Single Family Program

No new evaluation activities were conducted 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 Advisory Council (EEAC) issued a “Priorities 

Resolution” to support the development of statewide electric and natural 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 workshop 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 Residential and C&I. However, the results of this study 

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

program participants. 

33
As required by law, the program administrators 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 opportunity to fully assess the results of the 

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

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

given the composition of customers 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 augment, the findings and recommendations 

from the workshop; 

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

• Identify successful strategies for delivering 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 administrators in other states; 

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

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

2009, suggesting continuing challenges in penetrating this market. 

Key strengths of the existing program include, technical assistance offered, customer 

service, labeling and brand recognition, the 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 research, lack of funding for additional training 

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

be the split incentive issue, uncertainty of equipment 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 implementation 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 incurred for the commercial & industrial 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 4. 

The Small C&I Retrofit Program contributes 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 perCustomer TRC

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

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

C03b Small C&I Retrofit 4,613,133 353 1,034.29 13,068 $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 Cost

Participant

2. By End Use 

Table 10 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings, capacity savings, and nonelectric benefits, by the different end-uses addressed in the commercial & 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME 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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME k

W

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 EVALUATED

LIFETIME $ NE

B

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 conducted on the results of this program in 2009. 

Medium and Large Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program

No new evaluation activities were conducted 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 information on current plug-load programs, 

provide a preliminary estimate for potential energy savings, and recommend program 

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

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

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

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

overarching recommendations, as well as numerous measure specific strategies for 

consideration. Overarching recommendations include the following: 

• Integrate plug-load efficiency into existing programs; 

• Consider programs that target upstream market actors; 

• Explore the use of total work space control systems; 

• Provide plug-load efficiency training and education. 

37
Measure specific recommendations 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 conducted on the results of this program in 2009. 

Commercial and Industrial Products and Services Program

No new evaluation activities were conducted 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 and 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/Update on Compliance Items 

Appendix 10. Variance Analysis 

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

(Cape Light Compact-Specific Appendix) 

39
Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations1

Annual kWh Reduction Expected net annual energy savings after all impact factors 

have been taken into consideration. 

AMP Appliance Management Program 

BBRS Board of Building Regulations 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 time, 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 at the time of the Company’s 

peak demand. 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOER Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources 

D&R D&R International, the contractor 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 glossary 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 kWh 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 same measure(s) on their own if 

the program had not been available. 

Free-Ridership Rate The percent of savings attributable 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 equipment installed through an 

energy efficiency program. 

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

equal to 1,000 megawatt-hours 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-coincident 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 Progress 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 energy 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 capability 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 financial or technical assistance from the 

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

influenced by product availability, 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 savings 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. Commercial & 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 represent the common assumptions developed by 

Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information 

on measures in statewide programs. The Residential 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 with 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 compare 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 new 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 exis 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 represent the common assumptions developed by 

Massachusetts program administrators, based on a review of best available information 
on measures in statewide programs. Low Income 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 co 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 (CLC 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 Dehumidifiers energy star value (CL 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 co 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 (CLC 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily Dehumidifiers energy star value (CL 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: Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3. All tables are 

organized by BCR Activity. All tables provide planned and reported values, as well as the 

difference between the reported 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 well as various subtotals of the cost 

components. 

• Table 3 provides the total benefits as well as totals for the components of the total 

benefits. 
BCR-Activity by Sector

Benefit / Cost 

Ratio

Sum of Net 

Benefits

Sum of TRC 

Benefits

Sum of TRC 

Costs Sum of PA Costs

ResidentialA02a 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 $255,804

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: Residential 4.85 $26,398,137 $33,258,532 $6,860,395 $4,625,647

Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 3.16 $2,427,441 $3,550,402 $1,122,962 $1,122,962B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 5.74 $1,940,781 $2,349,996 $409,214 $409,214

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: Low Income 3.85 $4,368,222 $5,900,398 $1,532,176 $1,532,176

Commercial & 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 NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: C&I 3.17 $9,872,466 $14,411,957 $4,539,491 $3,909,811

Grand Total 4.14 $40,638,825 $53,570,887 $12,932,063 $10,067,635

Appendix 3: Table 1

Summary of Benefit/Cost Ratios by Program

Lifetime Impacts of Measures Installed in 2009

Planned
BCR-Activity by Sector

Benefit / Cost 

Ratio

Sum of Net 

Benefits

Sum of TRC 

Benefits

Sum of TRC 

Costs

Sum of PA 

Costs

Residential

A02a 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 $226,509

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: Residential 4.12 $13,980,662 $18,462,396 $4,481,734 $3,962,316

Low IncomeB03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 4.19 $2,629,573 $3,454,183 $824,610 $824,610B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 5.36 $739,728 $909,542 $169,814 $169,814

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: Low Income 4.39 $3,369,301 $4,363,725 $994,424 $994,424

Commercial & 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 NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: C&I 3.52 $12,879,867 $17,992,748 $5,112,881 $3,944,366

Grand Total 3.85 $30,229,831 $40,818,869 $10,589,038 $8,901,106

Appendix 3: Table 1

Summary of Benefit/Cost Ratios by Program

Lifetime Impacts of Measures Installed in 2009

Reported
BCR-Activity by Sector

Benefit / 

Cost 

Ratio

Sum of Net 

Benefits

Sum of TRC 

Benefits

Sum of TRC 

Costs

Sum of PA 

Costs

Residential

A02a 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 -$29,295

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: Residential -0.73 -$12,417,475 -$14,796,136 -$2,378,662 -$663,331

Low 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 -$239,400

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: Low Income 0.54 -$998,921 -$1,536,673 -$537,752 -$537,752

0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0

Commercial & Industrial 0.00 $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 NA NA NA NA NA

Subtotal: C&I 0.34 $3,007,402 $3,580,791 $573,390 $34,555

Grand Total -0.29 -$10,408,994 -$12,752,018 -$2,343,024 -$1,166,529

Appendix 3: Table 1

Summary of Benefit/Cost Ratios by Program

Lifetime Impacts of Measures Installed in 2009

Variance
BCR-Activity Program Total TRC Costs Total PA Costs Program Implementation Customer Evaluation Shareholder Incentive

A02a 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 $0

A02b 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 $0

A03a 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 $0

A04a 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 $0

A04b 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 $0

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability A07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

$6,860,395 $4,625,647 $4,455,247 $2,559,102 $170,400 $0

B03a 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 $0

B03b 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 $0

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability B07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

$1,532,176 $1,532,176 $1,482,576 $1,038,191 $49,600 $0

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction $172,956 $164,050 $157,385 $127,694 $6,665 NA

C02b 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 $0

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit $365,756 $219,990 $210,264 $122,159 $9,725 NA

C03c 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 $0

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit $2,314,781 $1,925,554 $1,847,164 $1,476,057 $78,390 NA

C03d 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 $0

C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability C07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA 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 $0

Appendix 3: Table 2

Detail Summary of Costs by Program

Planned

Cost Categories

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Total

A02b Residential HVAC Total

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Total

A04a Residential Lighting Total

A04b Residential Appliances Total

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

Residential Total

B03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 Total

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

Low-Income Total

Grand Total

C03b Small C&I Retrofit Total

C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

Commercial & Industrial Total

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity Total

C03a Large C&I Retrofit Total
BCR-Activity Program Total TRC Costs Total PA Costs Program Implementation Customer Evaluation Shareholder Incentive

A02a 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 $0

A02b 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 $0

A03a 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 $0

A04a 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 $0

A04b 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 $0

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability A07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

$4,481,734 $3,962,316 $3,884,427 $519,417 $77,890 $0

B03a 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 $0

B03b 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 $0

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability B07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

$994,424 $994,424 $975,152 $0 $19,272 $0

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction $103,660 $103,660 $101,623 $0 $2,038 NA

C02b 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 $0

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit $346,759 $316,932 $310,702 $29,827 $6,230 NA

C03c 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 $0

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit $2,305,859 $1,940,355 $1,902,212 $365,504 $38,143 NA

C03d 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 $0

C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability C07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA 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 $0

Appendix 3: Table 2

Detail Summary of Costs by Program

Reported

Cost Categories

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Total

A02b Residential HVAC Total

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Total

A04a Residential Lighting Total

A04b Residential Appliances Total

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

Residential Total

B03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 Total

C03a Large C&I Retrofit Total

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

Low-Income Total

Grand Total

C03b Small C&I Retrofit Total

C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

Commercial & Industrial Total

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity Total
BCR-Activity Program Total TRC Costs Total PA Costs Program Implementation Customer Evaluation Shareholder Incentive

A02a 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 $0

A02b 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 $0

A03a 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 $0

A04a 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 $0

A04b 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 $0

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability A07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

-$2,378,662 -$663,331 -$570,820 -$2,039,685 -$92,510 $0

B03a 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 $0

B03b 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 $0

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability B07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

-$537,752 -$537,752 -$507,424 -$1,038,191 -$30,328 $0

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity C02a C&I New Construction -$69,295 -$60,390 -$55,762 -$127,694 -$4,627 NA

C02b 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 $0

C03a Large C&I Retrofit C03a C&I Large Retrofit -$18,996 $96,942 $100,437 -$92,331 -$3,495 NA

C03c 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 $0

C03b Small C&I Retrofit C03b C&I Small Retrofit -$8,922 $14,801 $55,048 -$1,110,554 -$40,247 NA

C03d 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 $0

C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability C07x Tax Liability - Performance Incentive NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA 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 $0

Appendix 3: Table 2

Detail Summary of Costs by Program

Variance

Cost Categories

A02a Residential Lost Opportunity Total

A02b Residential HVAC Total

A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 Total

A04a Residential Lighting Total

A04b Residential Appliances Total

A07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

Residential Total

B03a Low Income Retrofit 1-4 Total

C03a Large C&I Retrofit Total

B07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

Low-Income Total

Grand Total

C03b Small C&I Retrofit Total

C07x Performance Incentive Tax Liability Total

B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily

Commercial & Industrial Total

C02a C&I Lost Opportunity Total
Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Planned

Summer Winter

BCR Activity

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

TOTAL $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

TOTAL $40,818,869 $4,944,405 $0 $989,569 $6,061,216 $861,069

Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Variance

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 $ (7,367) (1,440,454) $ - $ (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) $ 

TOTAL $ (1,420,804) (12,752,018) $ - $ (291,353) $ (1,784,572) $ (282,821) $ 

Capacity

Total Benefits

Total Benefits

Total Benefits

Capacity

Generation

Total Benefits

Trans MDC DRIPE

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 Activity

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

TOTAL

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

TOTAL

Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Variance

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

TOTAL

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

$ (1,884,431) (1,865,486) $ (1,136,830) $ (971,842) $ (314,691) $ (356,547) $ (298,202) $ (165,927) $ 

$ (78,823) (98,075) $ (90,776) $ (50,820) $ (9,656) $ (8,610) $ (13,134) $ (4,806) $ 

$ (18,764) (79,473) $ (18,787) $ (5,278) $ (7,091) $ (1,853) $ (5,096) $ (859) $ 

$ 3,977 (2,588) $ (185,589) $ (49,813) $ 56,564 $ 65,706 $ 27,891 $ 26,165 $ 

$ (1,842,346) (1,734,695) $ (867,729) $ (891,506) $ (355,871) $ (413,374) $ (309,046) $ (187,143) $ 

$ 51,526 49,346 $ 26,052 $ 25,575 $ 1,363 $ 1,585 $ 1,184 $ 717 $ 

$ (87,040) (82,178) $ (41,617) $ (42,227) $ (14,071) $ (16,344) $ (12,193) $ (7,395) $ 

$ (59,084) (55,704) $ (28,020) $ (28,555) $ (11,095) $ (12,888) $ (9,610) $ (5,831) $ 

$ (27,955) (26,474) $ (13,597) $ (13,672) $ (2,976) $ (3,457) $ (2,583) $ (1,564) $ 

$ 151,297 1,172,523 $ 1,103,540 $ 265,984 $ 121,822 $ 16,922 $ 189,640 $ 27,529 $ 

$ 64,671 177,881 $ 403,124 $ 113,152 $ 19,750 $ 7,900 $ 72,232 $ 12,315 $ 

$ 133,116 1,072,573 $ 648,263 $ 108,841 $ 113,214 $ 16,478 $ 115,165 $ 12,095 $ 

$ (46,491) (77,930) $ 52,154 $ 43,991 $ (11,142) $ (7,455) $ 2,242 $ 3,119 $ 

$ (1,820,174) (775,140) $ (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 Activity

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

TOTAL

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

TOTAL

Appendix 3: Table 3

Detail Summary of Benefits by Program

Variance

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

TOTAL

$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

$ (661,065) (2,144,958) $ (1139) (2161) (16509) (8035) (70897)

$ (53,302) (1,943,433) $ (32) (441) (434) (247) (3952)

$ - - $ (147) (56) (1781) (91) (1397)

$ 125,122 (1,140,911) $ (350) 429 (10008) 1197 (4444)

$ (460,221) - $ (567) (2133) (4026) (8928) (63134)

$ (272,664) 939,386 $ (44) 39 (260) 34 2030

$ (868,872) (697,947) $ 30 1960 1129 (409) (3103)

$ (249,463) 9,614 $ 43 1979 1199 (278) (2080)

$ (619,409) (707,561) $ (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)

$ (1,881,800) (2,842,905) $ (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 Planned and Reported Outsourced 

and In-House Expenditures 

The following table provides the reported outsourced and in-house expenditures. 

Planning was not conducted at this level of detail. Therefore, a comparison between 2009 

planned and reported expenditures at this level of detail is not available. 
$ %$ % $ %

Residential

2009 54,918 16.4% 103,904 31.1% 175,460 52.5% 334,283

Low Income

2009 13,588 16.4% 25,708 31.1% 43,413 52.5% 82,709

Commercial & Industrial

2009 54,670 16.4% 103,434 31.1% 174,665 52.5% 332,768

TOTAL

2009 123,176 16.4% 233,046 31.1% 393,538 52.5% 749,760

Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In 2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customer incentives.

Outsourced Activities

TOTAL ($) Program

Program Planning and Administration

Competitively 

Procured

Non-Competitively 

Procured

In-House Activities
Residential

2009

Low Income

2009

Commercial & Industrial

2009

TOTAL

2009

Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In 2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customer incentives.

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% 115,102

146,530 55.4% 51,588 19.5% 66,489 25.1% 264,607

In-House Activities

Outsourced Activities

TOTAL ($)

Marketing and Advertising

Competitively Procured Non-Competitively Procured
Residential

2009

Low Income

2009

Commercial & Industrial

2009

TOTAL

2009

Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In 2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customer incentives.

Program

$% $ % $ %

189,910 14.6% 1,112,743 85.4% 260 0.0% 1,302,913

46,988 21.1% 166,743 74.9% 8,786 3.9% 222,517

189,050 32.4% 394,272 67.6% 0 0.0% 583,322425,948 20.2% 1,673,758 79.4% 9,046 0.4% 2,108,752

In-House Activities

TOTAL ($) Competitively Procured Non-Competitively Procured

Sales, Technical Assistance & Training

Outsourced Activities
Residential

2009

Low Income

2009

Commercial & Industrial

2009

TOTAL

2009

Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In 2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customer incentives.

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% 174,698

Evaluation and Market Research

Outsourced Activities

Competitively Procured Non-Competitively Procured TOTAL($) In-House Activities
Residential

2009

Low Income

2009

Commercial & Industrial

2009

TOTAL

2009

Notes1. This table does not include customer incentives. In 2009, the Compact spent $5,603,289.54 on customer incentives.

Program

$%$% $ %

310,159 16.9% 1,317,538 72.0% 203,014 11.1% 1,830,711

76,740 21.4% 217,414 60.7% 64,223 17.9% 358,377

308,754 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% 3,297,817

TOTAL Outsourced and Competitively Procured Services

In-House Activities

Outsourced Activities

TOTAL ($) Competitively Procured Non-Competitively Procured
Appendix 5. Calculation of Shareholder Incentive 

The Cape Light Compact does not receive a shareholder incentive. Therefore, this section 

does not apply to the Cape Light Compact. 
Appendix 6. Energy Efficiency Evaluations & Studies

The following studies were used in preparing 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 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 Massachusetts New Homes with Energy Star, 

ICF International, June 4, 2010. Executive Summary. 

Energy Savings Analysis for the Massachusetts 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 Evaluation, ADM Associates, Inc., October 

2009. 

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

March 2010. 

7. 2009 Massachusetts Multi-Family Program Assessment, Nexus Market 

Research, Inc., October 16, 2009. 

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

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

2010. 
10. Market Assessment and Best Practices for Delivering Plug-Load Energy 

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

11. Cape Light Compact Residential Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot, PA 

Consulting, March 31, 2010. 
Appendix 7. Performance Metrics Related Documents and 

Reports 

The Cape Light Compact does not receive a shareholder incentive. Therefore, this section 

does not apply to the Cape Light Compact. 
Appendix 8. Detailed Savings Calculations of the 2009 Programs 

The following tables provide the detail behind the savings calculations. 
Year

ProgramResidential 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 Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover 

Rate

Summer 

Coincident

Winter 

Coincident

Demand 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Energy 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Net Peak 

kW

Net 

Summer 

kW

Net 

Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh 

Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

MMBTUs 

Gas 

savings

MMBTUs 

Oil Savings

MMBTUs 

Propane 

Savings

Gallons 

Water 

Savings

Resource 

Non-Energy 

Benefit

NonResource 

Non Energy 

Benefit

1 RNC 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 $02 RNC 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 $03 RNC 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 $04 Fixtures 2 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 $75 ES 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 $4,0416 LI 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 $07 LI 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 $08 LI 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 $09 LI 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 $0

10 LI 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 $011 LI 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 $14612 LI 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 $1,26313 Major 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 $0

2,229 160.023 158,109 159.07 42.74 61.18 157.07 2,422.31 2,023.15 1,839.41 39.18 470.55 23,650.00 $704,686 $5,457

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 savings persistence)(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 types of benefits.

2009Energy Star HomesStandard
Year

ProgramResidential 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 Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover 

Rate

Summer 

Coincident

Winter 

Coincident

Demand 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Energy 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Net Peak 

kW

Net 

Summer 

kW

Net 

Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh 

Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

MMBTUs 

Gas 

savings

MMBTUs 

Oil Savings

MMBTUs 

Propane 

Savings

Gallons 

Water 

Savings

Resource 

Non-Energy 

Benefit

NonResource 

Non Energy 

Benefit

1 CoolSmart 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 $02 CoolSmart 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 $03 CoolSmart 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 $04 CoolSmart 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 $05 Mini 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 $0

122 46.509 27,644 46.51 39.09 1.20 27.64 837.17 497.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0

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 savings persistence)(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 types of benefits.

2009Energy Star HVACStandard
Year

ProgramResidential 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 Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover 

Rate

Summer 

Coincident

Winter 

Coincident

Demand 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Energy 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Net Peak 

kW

Net 

Summer 

kW

Net 

Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh 

Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

MMBTUs 

Gas 

savings

MMBTUs 

Oil Savings

MMBTUs 

Propane 

Savings

Gallons 

Water 

Savings

Resource 

Non-Energy 

Benefit

NonResource 

Non Energy 

Benefit

1 Free 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 $102,6882 Free 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 $30,9573 Torchiere 57 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 $04 Insulation, 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 $05 Insulation, 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 $06 Insulation, 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 $07 Insulation, 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 $08 Air 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 $09 Air 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 $0

10 Air 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 $011 Air 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 $012 Thermostats, 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 $013 Thermostats, 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 $014 Hot 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 $015 Heating 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 $016 Indirect 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 $017 Appliance/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 $018 Solar 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 $3,03019 Solar 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 $3,03020 Solar 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 $3,03021 DHW 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 $022 ES 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 $023 ES 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 $024 ES 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 $025 ES 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 $026 Refrigerator (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 $027 Refrigerator (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 $028 Waterbed 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 $029 Weather 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 $0

54,246 3,108.009 3,613,934 4,459.58 898.46 1,131.35 4,957.75 ######## 41,646.29 7,959.56 15,628.24 402.13 869,539.30 $6,367,564 $142,736

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 savings persistence)(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 types of benefits.

2009Residential ConservationStandard
Year

ProgramResidential 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 Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover 

Rate

Summer 

Coincident

Winter 

Coincident

Demand 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Energy 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Net Peak 

kW

Net 

Summer 

kW

Net 

Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh 

Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

MMBTUs 

Gas 

savings

MMBTUs 

Oil Savings

MMBTUs 

Propane 

Savings

Gallons 

Water 

Savings

Resource 

Non-Energy 

Benefit

NonResource 

Non Energy 

Benefit

1 Screw-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 $108,9262 Indoor 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 $2,1643 Outdoor 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 $854 Torchiere 543 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 $05 LED 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 $571

91,641 4,256.799 4,358,249 1,736.91 132.01 496.76 1,781.44 ######## 12,885.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $111,745

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 savings persistence)(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 types of benefits.

2009Energy Star LightingStandard
Year

ProgramResidential 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 Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover 

Rate

Summer 

Coincident

Winter 

Coincident

Demand 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Energy 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Net Peak 

kW

Net 

Summer 

kW

Net 

Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh 

Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

MMBTUs 

Gas 

savings

MMBTUs 

Oil Savings

MMBTUs 

Propane 

Savings

Gallons 

Water 

Savings

Resource 

Non-Energy 

Benefit

NonResource 

Non Energy 

Benefit

1 AC (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 $02 ECM 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)3 Dehumidifiers (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 $04 Dehumidifiers (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 $05 Refrigerator (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 $06 Consumer 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 $07 Pool Pumps 4 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 $0

2,350 136.428 311,092 135.17 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 savings persistence)(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 types of benefits.

2009Energy Star ProductsStandard
Year

ProgramResidential 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 Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover 

Rate

Summer 

Coincident

Winter 

Coincident

Demand 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Energy 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Net Peak 

kW

Net 

Summer 

kW

Net 

Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh 

Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

MMBTUs 

Gas 

savings

MMBTUs 

Oil Savings

MMBTUs 

Propane 

Savings

Gallons 

Water 

Savings

Resource 

Non-Energy 

Benefit

NonResource 

Non Energy 

Benefit

1 Baseload 353 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 $37,4182 Other Wx 2 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 $7,7103 Gas Wx 16 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 $75,4864 Electric Wx 6 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 $22,0565 Oil Wx 36 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 $365,1666 Heating 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 $874,6607 CFL's 5,297 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 $83,2298 Refrigerator (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 $12,7919 Refrigerator (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% 1.56 1.56 1.44 12.48 19 29.64 237.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $36,889

10 ES 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 $7011 ES 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 $012 DHWater 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 $59,796

6,149 2,140.544 396,453 2,140.54 102.58 2,139.37 396.45 ######## 4,258.83 480.48 3,468.30 38.86 395,325.00 $981,317 $1,575,270

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 savings persistence)(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 types of benefits.

2009Low Income Single FamilyLow Income
Year

ProgramResidential 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 Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover 

Rate

Summer 

Coincident

Winter 

Coincident

Demand 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Energy 

Adjustment 

Factor (InService Rate)

Net Peak 

kW

Net 

Summer 

kW

Net 

Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh 

Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

MMBTUs 

Gas 

savings

MMBTUs 

Oil Savings

MMBTUs 

Propane 

Savings

Gallons 

Water 

Savings

Resource 

Non-Energy 

Benefit

NonResource 

Non Energy 

Benefit

1 CFL 178 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 $2,7972 ES 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 $03 Refrigerator (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 $1184 Refrigerator (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 $9085 DHWs 10 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 $13,2886 Insulation & 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 $101,4357 Insulation & Air Sealing - gas 68 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 $279,336

300 2.927 15,234 2.93 1.32 2.88 15.23 38.76 192.59 2,026.65 252.00 0.00 87,850.00 $491,537 $397,882

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 savings persistence)(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 types of benefits.

2009Low Income Multi-FamilyLow Income
Year

Program

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Measure Description Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover Rate

Net Peak 

kW

Net Summer 

kW

Net Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

1 Lighting 5 21.100 66,116 30.70% 6.20% 16.542 12.142 6.154 52 15 248.136 778

5 21.100 66,116 16.542 12.142 6.154 52 248.136 778

Notes:(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 and spillover 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 recent measure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime

2009C02a C&I New Construction
Year

Program

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Measure Description Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover Rate

Net Peak 

kW

Net Summer 

kW

Net Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

1 Lighting 4 76.580 270,654 0.00% 0.00% 78.801 57.840 29.314 279 15 1,182.012 4,1782 Heating, ventilation and AC 1 36.000 283,740 0.00% 0.00% 37.044 31.487 0.000 292 15 555.660 4,380

5 112.580 554,394 115.845 89.327 29.314 570 1,737.672 8,557

Notes:(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 and spillover 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 recent measure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime

2009C02b C&I Govt New Construction
Year

Program

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Measure Description Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover Rate

Net Peak 

kW

Net Summer 

kW

Net Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

1 Lighting 320 15.680 18,240 27.90% 13.40% 13.814 12.239 9.953 16 15 207.211 2412 Cool Choice 18 137.538 205,029 0.00% 0.00% 141.527 120.298 83.501 211 13 1,839.846 2,7433 Motor Up 19 55.100 136,463 0.00% 0.00% 56.698 48.193 33.452 140 15 850.469 2,106

357 208.318 359,732 212.039 180.730 126.906 367 2,897.526 5,090

Notes:(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 and spillover 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 recent measure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime

2009C04c C&I Products & Services
Year

Program C03a C&I Large Retrofit

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Measure Description Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover Rate

Net Peak 

kW

Net Summer 

kW

Net Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

1 Lighting 7 216.222 1,193,969 5.70% 3.20% 217.086 159.341 80.756 1,199 13 2,822.123 15,5842 Motors 8 30.900 249,415 0.00% 0.00% 31.796 25.437 28.585 257 15 476.942 3,8503 Refrigeration 3 2.722 27,522 0.00% 0.00% 2.801 2.241 2.518 28 13 36.415 368

18 249.844 1,470,906 251.684 187.019 111.859 1,484 3,335.479 19,802

Notes:

(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 and spillover 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 recent measure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime

2009
Year

Program C03c C&I Govt Large

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Measure Description Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover Rate

Net Peak 

kW

Net Summer 

kW

Net Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

1 Heating, ventilation and AC 1 20.000 62,215 0.00% 0.00% 20.580 17.493 0.000 64 12 246.960 7682 Motors 1 22.400 55,900 0.00% 0.00% 23.050 18.440 20.722 58 15 345.744 8633 CHP 1 243.000 889,999 0.00% 0.00% 250.047 125.024 200.038 916 15 3,750.705 13,737

3 285.400 1,008,114 293.677 160.956 220.759 1,037 4,343.409 15,368

Notes:

(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 and spillover 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 recent measure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime

2009
Year

Program C03b C&I Small Retrofit

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Measure Description Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover Rate

Net Peak 

kW

Net Summer 

kW

Net Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

1 Lighting 240 952.380 3,047,261 5.70% 3.20% 822.323 603.585 305.904 2,631 13 ######## 34,2052 Heating, ventilation and AC 4 16.000 34,116 43.30% 0.00% 9.536 8.106 0.000 20 10 95.360 2033 Motors 11 16.051 118,481 0.00% 0.00% 16.516 13.213 14.848 122 15 247.747 1,8294 Refrigeration 65 77.474 607,954 4.20% 0.00% 76.467 61.174 68.744 600 10 764.672 6,0015 Hot Water 1 0.000 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 10 0.000 0

321 1,061.906 3,807,812 924.843 686.078 389.497 3,373 ######## 42,237

Notes:

(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 and spillover 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 recent measure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime

2009
Year

Program C03d C&I Govt Small

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Measure Description Quantity

Total Gross 

Max kW 

Savings

Total Gross 

Annual kWh 

Savings

Free 

Ridership 

Rate

Participant 

Spillover Rate

Net Peak 

kW

Net Summer 

kW

Net Winter 

kW

Annual Net 

MWh Savings

Measure 

Life

kW 

Years

Lifetime 

MWh

1 Lighting 31 199.256 465,131 0.60% 3.40% 187.446 137.586 69.730 438 13 2,436.800 5,6882 Heating, ventilation and AC 10 25.683 34,091 0.00% 0.00% 26.428 22.464 0.000 35 10 264.278 3513 Motors 9 226.632 722,331 0.00% 0.00% 233.204 186.563 209.650 743 15 3,498.059 11,1494 Refrigeration 8 1.942 23,114 0.00% 0.00% 1.998 1.599 1.796 24 10 19.983 238

58 453.513 1,244,667 449.076 348.211 281.177 1,240 6,219.120 17,426

Notes:

(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 and spillover 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 recent measure life study(12) = Net Peak kW * Measure Life(13) = Net kWh Reduction * Lifetime

2009
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 Updates on compliance items consistent with 

the Department’s Order in D.P.U. 09-119. The 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 Utilities (“Department”) issued Orders in D.P.U. 

09-116 through D.P.U. 09-128, approving Energy Efficiency Plans for 2010 through 2012 filed 

by the Massachusetts Program Administrators. 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 include in their 2009 Energy Efficiency Annual Reports, 

as follows: 

1. a status update on the evaluation, 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 categories, 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 included in the benefit/cost ratio for the next three-year 

plans). Electric Three-Year Plan Order at 54. 

4. documentation regarding efforts to secure 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 development 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 Reference 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 with 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 the 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 ultimately conclude that Free Ridership and Spillover are still 

the most valid methodologies, other methods, such as looking at comparison areas, will be 

investigated. This portion of the study is to be completed in December 2010. 

For residential programs, the Program Administrators plan to assess free-ridership, 

spillover and/or net savings in the individual residential process and impact evaluation studies 

which will be conducted jointly. For some programs, such as residential lighting, an overall net 

to gross ratio will be developed, while for other programs individual free-ridership and spillover 

values will be determined. 

2. Consistent Statewide Program Planning & Administrative Cost Categories

A Program Administrator working group, dedicated to ensuring consistent statewide Program 

Planning & Administrative (“PP&A”) cost categories, has identified some discrepancies among 

the Program Administrators regarding how costs are assigned to certain categories. 

The most significant difference is in the category in which internal labor and related expenses are 

assigned. Some Program Administrators are assigning all internal labor and related expenses to 

the PP&A cost category. Other Program Administrators are assigning some internal labor and 

related expenses (specifically for staff members dedicated to marketing, sales technical 

assistance and training, or evaluation measurement and verification (“EM&V”)) to the 

Marketing, Sales Technical Assistance & Training or EM&V cost categories. 

The only other discrepancy identified by the working group was that some Program 

Administrators are assigning database tracking 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 Reliability of Transmission and Distribution

Benefits

I. Introduction

In 2005, the Program Administrators contracted ICF International, Inc. (“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 the 2009 Avoided Energy Supply Cost 

(“AESC”) Avoided Cost Analysis, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. reviewed ICF’s tool and 

identified inconsistencies in how each Program Administrator utilizes the tool. 

Below is a progress report related 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 consensus among the Program Administrators. 

Synapse’s report focused on models used by National 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 incorrectly cites page 323, line 156 of the FERC 

form 1 as the source of Total Plant Annual Insurance 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 expense and the cost of capital from 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 percentages 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 having to do with the 

calculation of income taxes and interest deductions. First, Synapse noted that WACC is 

already adjusted for taxes but in the formula 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 

. 

−÷ TfTf (*))1(( + − lifedeWACC − WACCFdRr )/*1(*)/1

 

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 suggestions in the report. In one instance, 

Synapse suggests that the income tax expense formula use the real interest 

rate, and in another point suggests that 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 distribution tax expense formula uses the real 

interest rate. These formulae 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. Synapse noted that both National Grid and 

NSTAR Electric used equal lives for transmission 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 average 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 depreciation rate is equal to 

the average life. 

 

• As a result, National Grid’s new average 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 average 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 consistent formula for calculating average 

life. 

4 
2. Percentage of capital investments avoidable 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 percentage for 2011. National Grid typically 

looked at its capital budget and determined that transmission and 

distribution expenses labeled 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 percentage to vary greatly 

from the 25%. 

• Synapse misinterpreted NSTAR Electric’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 then inputted for each year. This 

method differs slightly from National 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 distribution 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 National Grid does) may yield a more accurate result than the 

inputting of specific weighting factors as allowed 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 the $/kW computation should 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, ICF does not offer any explanations for the 

percentages they loaded in the tool. Synapse suggested that avoidable O&M expenses 

should be more in line with the percentage of avoidable capital investments due to 

increasing load. The line with the greatest variance between National Grid and NSTAR 

falls under transmission O&M: (565) – Transmission of Electricity by Others. NSTAR 

had 0% of this cost as avoidable, while National Grid had 100% of this cost as avoidable. 

5 
• In the past, National Grid supported the treatment of these costs as 100% 

avoidable, per ICF’s original recommendation because energy efficiency 

has a direct relationship with lowering the amount of transmission of 

electricity by others—the more energy efficiency there is, the less 

transmission by others is necessary. In practice, there are considerations 

which suggest the percentage 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 western part of Massachusetts, then 

not all of those transmission costs are avoidable. 

⇒ Corporate Accounting. Utilities 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 percentage avoidable downward. 

• Taking the above into consideration, National Grid proposes lowering its 

percentage of avoidable costs for Transmission 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 Electricity by Others. NSTAR Electric 

believes that this is a generation-related cost and therefore not avoidable 

as transmission. Effective energy efficiency 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 assumptions 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 Plans, the Program Administrators were engaged in 

initial discussions with the Department of Energy Resources, members of the Energy Efficiency 

Advisory Council, other interested parties, and the banking industry regarding 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 financing solutions for energy efficiency 

investments; and 

6 
• engaging consultants supporting financing for this industry. 

Based on these initial efforts, in the Three-Year Plans for electric and gas Program 

Administrators, statewide targets for outside financing 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 Plans, the Department instructed 

the Program Administrators to provide documentation of their efforts to secure outside funding 

in this annual report. The following narrative provides such documentation of ongoing efforts to 

secure both outside funding and, closely related thereto, outside financing. These efforts 

continue and will help inform any midterm modifications that will be proposed at the 

Department by the Program Administrators after review with the Energy Efficiency Advisory 

Council (“EEAC”). The Program Administrators and the EEAC’s consultants 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, the Program Administrators do not have midterm 

modifications for effect in 2011 that 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 Program Administrators have 

segmented the market to better understand customer needs and have identified specific financial 

tools that are readily available and can be adapted 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 Attachment A, and which provides extensive 

information on OBR options. The Program Administrators have also engaged in requests for 

information (“RFI”) and requests for proposal (“RFP”) activities related to outside financing. 

Further, the Program Administrators have met extensively with banks, lenders, state agencies, 

and industry experts to pursue effective financing opportunities and these efforts, including 

efforts with the Massachusetts Bankers Association, actively continue. 

As discussed in more detail below and in Attachments 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 interested parties in identifying alternative 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 possible private foundation grants identified. 

7 
Relatedly, the Program Administrators have reviewed Internal Revenue Code matters related to 

funding and optimal approaches to securing outside grants, including looking to match customers 

with customized grant opportunities. The Program Administrators are engaged with the 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (“NEEP”) to ensure that they have not missed any 

potential funding opportunities, and will continue to pursue outside funding aggressively. 

Nonetheless, to date, material new government sources of outside funding (such as “cap and 

trade” initiatives under discussion as the Three-Year Plans were in development) have not 

materialized and securing material outside funding remains a challenge for the Program 

Administrators and other interested parties.

The following chronology highlights the Program Administrators’ activities regarding efforts to 

secure outside funding and financing. The bulleted items represent key initiatives, and reflect 

significant work undertaken by the Program Administrators in pursuit of these activities: 

December 2009/January 2010: 

Starting in December 2009, the Program Administrators actively participated in the 

DOER’s OBR Working Group and have collaboratively worked with other stakeholders 

to develop “business rules” for on-bill repayments 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 have been over twelve such OBR meetings 

since December, and they have continued through July. 

In addition, during December 2009, NSTAR initiated discussions 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 Efficiency Conservation Block Grants. 

February 2010: 

National Grid initiates a Request for Information 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 tested on a large scale anywhere in the 

country. Only California has OBR for small business on a limited basis. Other 

jurisdictions are only pilot phases. Manitoba Hydro (Canada) has an OBR program, 

backed by customer dollars and has a safety clause for banks at risk to customers. 

NSTAR investigates Metrus Energy for Large C&I financing. 

 The Program Administrators continue to be engaged in the OBR Working Group 

providing DOER with a consensus memorandum on key issues on February 9, 2010, and, 

where applicable, collaboratively exchanging funding and financing information based on 

their efforts. This collaboration is a hallmark of the Program Administrators’ efforts and 

has continued through the present and benefits all Program Administrators. 

8 
March 2010: 

National Grid chooses to continue conversations with the top five respondents to their 

RFI. They are each invited to present their financing solutions. 

NSTAR reaches out to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for federal financing 

for customers. NSTAR also reaches out to the Mass Bankers Association to gauge local 

interest in energy efficiency financing. NSTAR explores financing for municipalities, 

universities, schools and hospitals. The Cape Light Compact engaged in the Property 

Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) program. New England Gas Company reaches out to 

a major local lender with experience in lending in the economically challenged and 

unique New England Gas Company service area. 

The Program Administrators review and discuss financing presentation 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 presentation to the Mass Bankers Association. NSTAR/Metrus 

identify possible pilot project financing. 

 NSTAR and National Grid support MIT’s request to secure a $129 million multi-year 

grant for its Center for Advancement of Building Systems. 

 National Grid meets with all five respondents to its RFI, which include four leading 

banks and a firm that specializes in the 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 participate in the American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy’s financing conference 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 NSTAR on an RFP for a 

financial consultant for all Program Administrators.

9 
June 2010: 

The Program Administrators host a second meeting with the Mass Bankers 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 Administrators. NSTAR and National Grid 

host a technology and finance seminar for C&I customers on energy efficiency finance 

options and benefits. The Berkshire Gas Company engages with a leading local credit 

union, with expertise in serving customers in Western Massachusetts, and internally 

reviews possible issuance of a targeted request for proposals.

National Grid invites the DOER to meet with 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. After detailed comments from the Program 

Administrators, a report of the OBR Working Group is submitted to the EEAC on May 

10, 2010, and is provided herein 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 efficiency-specific financing. 

NSTAR initiates conversation with Bank of America and Citizens Bank. The first task 

force meeting is held in July. NSTAR engages in possible pilot financing for 

municipal/state sector. Six-month statewide HEAT loan targets on track. Capital 

constraints have not been sensed thus far. 

In addition, with regard to funding, the Program Administrators held discussions with 

NEEP and DOER to share ideas on possible funding sources from federal, state and 

private sources. Information shared by National Grid and NSTAR with NEEP regarding 

potential sources is provided herewith as Attachments B and C. NEEP confirms that 

Program Administrators have been targeting most likely sources and confirms the 

challenges in securing further outside funding. Discussions with NEEP will continue, 

with follow-up planned for about one month. 

MIT and NSTAR have received a preliminary award for a DOE grant to work with 

Lawrence Berkley Labs, which was also supported by National Grid. Under this grant, 

Program Administrators will have access to expertise from the DOE laboratories as well 

as a number of firms under contract for the program. NSTAR/MIT have the opportunity 

to receive up to $500,000 for these services. 

10 
 The DOER and National Grid jointly meet with 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 customers. In addition, tax-exempt leases, bonding and 

savings-backed financing agreement opportunities have been identified as possible financing 

options for certain customers. 

5. Non-Energy Benefits Study 

An entity named PA Consulting was selected 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, conducting participant surveys, and reporting. This 

study is to be completed in December 2010. 

6. Heating Oil Measures & Other Non-Electric Benefits Assumptions

These assumptions will be developed during the impact evaluation 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 Attorney General, the EEAC and other stakeholders 

have been working collaboratively to complete Version 1.0 of the Technical Reference Manual 

(“TRM”) to be filed in the fall 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 Administrators will file the 2011 MA TRM – Plan Version with the Department 

along with major modifications to the 2011 program plans. The MA TRM – Plan Version 

provides regulators and stakeholders 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 evaluations 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 documentation 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 distributed to the Program 

Administrators and representatives of the Department, DOER and Attorney General’s offices for 

comments and edits during August 2010. During the fall of 2010, the Program 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 EFFICIENCY 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  residential and C/I Matrices ................................................................................................................................13 

2.4.1 RESIDENTIAL OWNER OCCUPIER MATRIX (from 4/29/2010 version with comments 

from Working Members). ............................................................................................................................ . ............13 

2.4.2  SMALL C/I MATRIX (from 4/29/2010 version with comments from Working Members)

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

2.4.3. RESIDENTIAL 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.............................................................................................................................34 

4. COMMENTS ON RENTERS AND OTHER ISSUES:............................................................................................35

4.1 At‐Risk Groups............................................................................................................................................................35 

APPENDIX A ‐CASH FLOW MODEL OF COSTS, SAVINGS AND FINANCE .......................................................38
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 report sets forth the results of a collaborative, broad‐based working group that has 

been meeting since September 2009, with approximately 12 full meetings since then.  

The mission of the OBR working group was to examine and determine repayment mechanisms that would facilitate 

the use of outside funding, as envisioned in the Program Administrator 2010‐2012 Statewide Energy Efficiency 

Investment Plans, beginning in 2011.  The Working Group’s initial charge was to examine both financing and 

repayment mechanisms. However, the intensive nature of financing and repayment, and the need for somewhat 

different knowledge and skill sets, led the Working Group to concentrate on repayment issues and become known 

as the OBR Working Group.   

As with other EEAC Working Groups, the OBR Working Group was chaired by DOER in its staffing capacity to the 

Council.  Membership in the group consisted of voting EEAC members, Program Administrators, other non‐voting 

EEAC members, 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 telephone. 

The report sets forth the core principles 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 customers. These principles 

include: 

• Full disclosure in clear language regarding financing terms, default provisions, and remedies to any 

efficiency program participant who 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 applied in determining eligibility for 

participation and that individual credit checks not be employed.  The exact underwriting standards that 

will be applied will be determined in negotiation with lenders and servicing entities in accordance with the 

principles expressed here. 

• Electric or gas service will not be 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 allocated to the energy/ 

distribution portion of the bill.  

• Program Administrators will be the conduits for outside financing and repayment including their normal 

collections process, but do not anticipate serving as the lender. 

• Customers who qualify for low‐income programs will not be solicited for any financing programs. 

Although discussions within the Working Group have coalesced around certain overarching principles, the group 

recognizes that these principles and expectations are subject to modification and will continue to evolve, depending 

in part on the particular terms and requirements of outside lenders.   Outside financing opportunities that 

materialize will need to be considered from a repayment (OBR) perspective, and the OBR principles outlined in this 

report are not intended to be categorically fixed.  As experience is gained, strategies and efforts will evolve. 
Page 4 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

The report also sets forth detailed matrices detailing OBR approaches and issues in different customer categories, 

reflecting the group’s consensus that a segmented approach to OBR 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 their needs.  Within those groups, particularly 

within the rental market, further segmentation should be conducted, with an analysis of barriers facing the 

particular segments and an exploration of the type of financing program that will address those barriers 

most effectively.  

• Customer segmentation may  require additional tailoring of repayment to meet household income, 

business type, or other distinctive repayment requirements, which will be discovered through 

implementation. 

• A robust residential OBR model  has been established.  Renters, in residential and commercial properties 

require substantial additional work but the Working Group believes that the OBR work should move 

forward in all sectors and subsectors to ensure that every class 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 cash contributions or additional obligations 

brought on through financing is considerable and may need amelioration.  Addressing these needs should 

be accomplished through other venues, which may include the EEAC and its Equity Committee, landlord 

associations, the legislature, and the Department of Public Utilities (“DPU”). 

Finally, the report sets forth the following proposed next steps: 

• Communicate the findings of the EEAC OBR Working Group to the DPU 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/repayment implementable plan. 

• Continue to develop the renter matrices further in a small working group devoted to that issue. Set a 

timeline for resolution but no later than September 1, 2010 for a further report to the EEAC. 

• Continue to explore the question of households with incomes above 60% but still experiencing 

disproportional energy burdens, carefully describe this demographic, 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 validation of concepts and implementation strategies and details. 

• Review the Pay and Save pilot program data and evaluation report for insights that may be useful for 

design and implementation of  full scale financing proposed for 2011 and beyond. 

• Address additional concerns raised by the EEAC, the DPU or Working Group members. (also see Section 4 

for additional comments) 
Page 5 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

1. INTRODUCTION 

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 the financing goals and principles described in the Massachusetts Joint Statewide 

Three‐Year Gas and Electric Energy Efficiency Plans (“Three‐Year Plans”) both prior to and following their 

approval by the Department of Public Utilities (the “Department”) in its Orders, each dated January 28, 2010, 

regarding the electric Program Administrators’ Three‐Year Energy Efficiency Plans and the gas Program 

Administrators’ Three‐Year Energy Efficiency Plans in dockets D.P.U. 09‐116 to D.P.U. 09‐120 (regarding electric 

Program Administrators) and dockets D.P.U. 121 to D.P.U. 09‐128 (regarding the gas Program Administrators).  

The Three‐Year Plans promote  financing mechanisms to help address barriers associated with the potentially 

substantial up‐front costs of installing energy efficiency measures (see § II.B. of each Three‐Year Plan); the OBR 

Working Group seeks to set forth and have the Program Administrators adopt consensus‐based standards, 

representing the views of multiple stakeholders, for the provision of on‐bill repayment for residential and Small 

C/I customers over the next three years.   

The OBR Working Group was endorsed by Council resolution on July 28, 2009, in the overall resolution approving 

the Statewide Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Programs.  As with other EEAC Working Groups, the OBR Working 

Group was chaired by DOER in its staffing capacity to the Council.  Membership in the group consisted of voting 

EEAC members, Program Administrators, other non‐voting EEAC members, 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 

telephone. 

1.1. PRINCIPLES 

Items Addressed by OBR Working Group  

The OBR Working Group has addressed multiple aspects of on‐bill repayment and has agreed on the following 

eleven core principles: 

1. No Promotion of Loans to Low­Income Customers

The OBR Working Group has agreed that the Program Administrators and others involved with implementation of 

the Three‐Year Plans will not promote loans to customers eligible for low‐income programs. Customers who are 

eligible for low‐income programs should be directed in the carefully tailored low‐income programs, which provide 
Page 6 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

100% of the funding for energy efficiency measures for eligible participants. All parties seek to avoid over‐leverage 

for any customer, including the most vulnerable customers in the 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 the residential matrix set 

forth in Section   below, meter‐based repayment is not appropriate at this time for this sector given that questions 

still remain on how it would work and how payment obligations would be handled.  Repayment should instead be 

tied to the customer who has initiated the energy efficiency measures and accepted responsibility for payment. 

3. No Termination for Non­Payment

The OBR Working Group has agreed that there will be no termination of energy services based on non‐payment of 

the energy efficiency loan portion of bill.  Termination rights could create customer backlash, would be excessive, 

and would risk violation of customer protection standards and policies established to ensure the provision of 

energy services to customers.  Similarly, in rental situations, rent increase and evictions protections are needed to 

ensure tenants are not inappropriately charged for the cost of the improvements or evicted for other than standard 

non payment of rent provisions.  These problems argue for the development of robust “Green Leases” that provide 

adequate statements of responsibilities of landlords and tenants and provide appropriate remedies for abuses in 

apportioning the costs of financed energy efficiency improvements through the PA programs. 

4. Allocation of Partial Payment

The OBR Working Group has also reached consensus on the allocation of partial payments, and has determined 

that the energy/distribution portion of the bill will be paid down in full prior to the payment of the energy 

efficiency loan portion. The OBR Working Group has also addressed additional items on the bill, including services 

and rental charges, and determined that these will also be paid down prior to the energy 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 reduces customer concerns regarding loan repayment and lends itself to succinct, 

clear disclosure. Variable interest rates will not be employed. [Please note, however, prepayment will be allowed.] 

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 financing is provided.  Although all participants of the OBR 

Working Group aspire towards achieving net savings through on‐bill repayment, it is understood that such savings 

are dependent on many factors (including, for example, commodity costs, weather, measure‐mix and building 

occupancy) and accordingly 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 included a question about the ability of customers whose income ranges from 

60%‐120% of median income to participate in any financing, and suggestions that such customers should be 

treated comparably to customers eligible for the low‐income programs. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that this 

income group is currently underserved and harder to reach and as such efforts will be made to design inititiatives 

and explore ways to reach these valued customers.  However, while agreeing that there certainly are customers for 

whom the costs of copayment and perhaps financing are substantial barriers to participation, the Working Group 

was not able to readily find and examine well documented evidence about the burden of energy and customer 

copayments on this class of customers, or even determine where the upper end of the vulnerability range lies. We 

note there is no specific mandate under the Green Communities Act to reach these customers separately from 

other residential or low‐income customers but agree that financial and other barriers that impede participation by 

any segments of eligible customers are of concern and need to be addressed.  The Working Group believes that 

issues pertaining to targeted income groups need primarily to be addressed by other EEAC Committees (i.e.

,Residential and/or Equity). 

8. Customer Eligibility

With respect to customer eligibility, the OBR Working Group has determined that on‐bill repayment should be 

available for all qualifying customers including residential customers (other than low‐income, as described above) 

who are either owners or renters, as well as for Small C/I customers.  However, due to the split incentive problem 

(most often tenants pay utility costs but property owners bear the cost of capital investment) and the complexity of 

meter‐based obligations in residential rental markets, the workgroup has been unable to reach a consensus 

opinion.  Discussions will continue with respect to on‐bill repayment 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.  (Residential) and  2.4.2(Small 

C/I).  Large C&I customers will be eligible for uniquely tailored solutions and are not addressed in this report. 

9. Credit Checks and Payment History

The OBR Working Group has also determined that credit checks will not be used for qualification purposes in the 

residential owner segment; in order to decrease the risk of customer 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 time.  Credit checks may be used in rental or Small C/I 

segments and/or where larger loan sizes require enhanced underwriting. , a subject that will need further 

exploration once the lender community is engaged. See Section 2.4 for more detail. 

10. Collection and Banking Laws

The OBR Working Group agrees that the Program Administrators will 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 either a standard or sundry bill, but will not actually be involved with the provision 

of financing dollars or in any other way acting as a bank, lender or guarantor.  The OBR Working Group agrees that 

the Program Administrators should not become regulated banking institutions that are required to comply with 

banking laws as a result of OBR efforts, and is continuing to review compliance issues with respect to banking and 

lending laws. 

11. Full and Fair Disclosure

Finally, the OBR Working Group emphasizes that there must be full and fair disclosure to all customers regarding 

any financing of measures that utilizes OBR, including estimated loan costs, default provisions, 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 responsibility for drafting  disclosure language, the 

group may review such language to ensure that it complies all applicable state and federal statutes 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 does not require 100% agreement on each and 

every issue. However, the Working Group has taken pains to ensure there is substantial agreement on the 

principles and the expression of the principles detailed in the matrices. Where there is significant disagreement or 

the members recognized an issue as unfinished, the Working Group 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 interwoven with, and related to, the purposes of the OBR Working Group, it is a separate 

and distinct issue, and will be coordinated with on‐bill repayment at an appropriate time.  Outside financing 

opportunities that are presented to the parties will carry terms 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 and the legal and regulatory oversight of that 

marketplace. The Working Group, however, seeks to establish core guidelines and expectations regarding OBR 

matters, which will serve as a guide as outside financing opportunities are presented and evaluated.   

Also excluded from the OBR Working Group Report are specific Program 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 regarding specific repayment mechanisms, 

including issues relating to cost recovery and technical implementation.  Many of these items are specific to the 

individual PAs and therefore are not addressed in this report.  All parties understand that sundry billing options 

are a viable option for on‐bill repayment (as 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 Program 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 with different requirements and needs with 

respect to OBR.  Attached are tables (matrices) summarizing financing 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 renters, small C&I renters, and small C&I owners.  For the 

purposes of the Working Group, however, we created three matrices: 

• Residential  owner‐occupied properties 

• Residential rental properties 

• Small businesses rented  

The Small business owner‐occupied category represents a very small percentage of that customer class, and while 

small c/I owned properties resemble residential owner‐occupied properties in some ways, the business 

characteristics of small C/I customers are a stronger association than the differences between owned and rented 

properties. Thus three matrices were created by the working group.  

Residential owner­occupied properties. Much of the early OBR working group discussion focused on the issues 

related to residential owner‐occupied 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 

April 29, 2010, and comments provided to DOER by Working Group members.
Page 10 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

ongoing discussion. 

resolving issues for residential owner‐occupied properties.  Owned residential real estate financing represents the 

most straightforward financing segment and formed the basis for other segment proposals.   

Small C&I . With respect to small C&I customers, financed through owner obligations, the Working Group built 

upon the residential owned obligation structure to address business‐specific issues and collateral types.  Some 

Program Administrators have been running successful financing programs with thousands of C&I customers for a 

number of years. These programs have enjoyed very low default rates, very high repayment levels and customer 

satisfaction and strong associated energy savings.  The existing 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 

issues around leased and rented property for further resolution. 

Residential rental properties.  Residential rental properties garnered considerable discussion, but achieved only 

modest consensus due to the complexity of the problem. The “split incentive”, in which tenants pay utility costs but 

property owners pay the capital costs of energy efficiency improvement and therefore have very little incentive to 

make investments for which they realize no off‐setting energy savings.  The Working Group reviewed a meter 

approach involving landlord obligation, but did not achieve a clear consensus.  The matrix included in this report 

reflects only preliminary discussions and is presented neither as a consensus view nor as an encapsulation of the 

full Working Group’s current thinking.  In particular, the Program Administrators’ comments on rental repayment 

approaches are set forth separately in Section 4.    

Additionally, the discussions concerning rental properties and renters attempted to grapple with issues of 

customer income and program level equity.   For example, a point was raised that renters comprise 35% of the 

residential population statewide but even the sparse evidence available indicates that renters are under‐served as 

a percentage of non‐low income program participants.  The Working Group will continue to assess the particular 

challenges of the rental community to ensure full access to energy efficiency opportunities.    A further set of 

discussions related to customers whose income is above 60% of statewide median, the maximum level for 

qualification for low income energy efficiency programs.  While the Working Group agreed that  the questions of 

equitably serving renters and equitably serving households whose income is above 60% of median income (there 

is likely considerable overlap between those two groups) need to 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 recommended that households falling above60% of the state median household income2

should in effect be treated like households below 60% of median and not asked to take on energy efficiency 

financing debt. Rather, those members suggested that low‐income subsidies be extended to customers in the low‐

mid income range.    

Given the concerns about where and how to attach the obligation in residential rented properties, the Working 

Group was not able to reach a substantial consensus on a residential renter matrix.   A preliminary residential 

rental property proposal is attached 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 household incomes are at 60‐120% of the median, but the 60‐120% 

grouping was set indicatively rather 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 avoid a lowest common denominator approach.  

Where working group members expressed real differences, the Working Group has pointed up those issues and 

will address them in further work.  In commercial and residential properties most of the individual issues are in 

fact resolved but key issues, such as the structure of the obligation in residential rentals remain unsettled at this 

moment. On others, we have been able to craft acceptable solutions to parties. Thus for small C/I rented properties, 

some Working Group members felt it was essential to have customer service termination as an option, primarily to 

reduce perceived risk in the eyes of any potential lender. Program Administrators believed this requirement could 

substantially impede the operations of the existing Small C/I lending operations. A resolution was found in which a 

U.C.C., lien, sometimes known as a “mechanic’s lien” could be placed, 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 remain 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 have labeled these details 

as “TBD”. 

Finally, we expect to find that although the Working Group has recognized that a “one size fits all” approach does 

not work across broad classes of customers‐‐such as renters v. owners and residential v. commercial customers‐‐

we also expect to find that in order to maximize the use of outside capital, further distinctions may need to be made 

among subgroups of customers about questions such as loan terms, repayment schedules, loan requirements by 

size (loans above a certain size may require enhanced underwriting), and other distinctions that will be discovered 

and experimented with as we move further into this area and gain experience about what works and what doesn’t. 

2.3 ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED IN OBR WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS 

The following issues were not discussed in the OBR working group, at least not significantly in any efforts to 

develop specific approaches or recommendations to resolve the issues: 

• 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 design of the finance program, etc.). That “bucket” is being worked on by 

various parties and a separate progress report will be made to the EEAC.  Ultimately, to develop a complete 

and comprehensive set of financing packages, the OBR issues will be coordinated when addressing 

financing terms for specific financing offers.  Further, specific interest rates offered to customers will be 

determined by several factors, including the result of future program design decisions setting overall levels 

of rebates, interest buy‐downs and other customer incentives.  
Page 12 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

• PA implementation. – Once the overall OBR mechanism and financing approach is determined, what will 

PAs need to do in their billing systems to quickly and efficiently implement OBR repayments, or to 

implement repayment through a separate bill?  The requirements may be different depending on whether 

repayment is strictly On‐Bill as opposed to on a separate or “sundry” bill.  The PAs have scoped and 

commented on the common issues herein; understanding the solutions 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 in an appropriate manner.  Additionally, it 

may be appropriate to incorporate the complementary issue of financing 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 AND 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 owner­occupied properties.  The guiding purposes for this

version of the matrix are to deal with the large number of residential customers in owner­occupied 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

parallel processes.

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 loans 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 for 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 

respects  

Termination for non‐payment  No termination for nonpayment of EE

loan 

WG reviewed and considered 

consumer protections and current 

statutes on energy services, and 

recommends no termination for 

nonpayment of EE loans.  
Page 14 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue  Current Proposal  Comments 

Allocation of partial payments  Allocation of partial payments in 

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 payments 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 flow  Objective (aspirational) of positive 

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 

community. 

Also need to address customer 

eligibility, objective of positive cash 

flow, and loan term in relation to 

financial risks for specific financing 

offers.  

Savings guarantee  No  Do not guarantee savings, but 

provide best estimates on savings, 

and clear disclosure. Also provide 

education to customers on optimal 

practices and monitoring results. 

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 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue  Current Proposal  Comments 

Nature of payment:  fixed or floats 

with savings? 

Fixed over the term of the loan  Prepayment allowed without 

penalty. 

Eligible measures  Eligible measures TBD with an 

emphasis on non‐portable measures. 

Eligible measures should be cost 

effective approved measures and 

non‐portable.  List TBD 

Customer eligibility  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  Eligibility 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 

bills3.   

                                                            

3 Further research/review should be conducted concerning potential issues of a PA program relying 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 specific financing offer  Consider investment needed to 

achieve deeper savings. Could be 

minimum loan amounts per 

servicing issues and transaction 

costs. 

Maximum term  TBD for specific financing 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 capital, 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 

loans. 

Cost of capital  Being addressed related to source of 

capital, above (seeking lower cost 

capital) 

Disclosure requirement  Full and 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 multiple 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  Unknown 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 and repay without 

hardship. 

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 

procedures4. 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 collection procedures needs to be undertaken, including the treatment of 

customers installing electric and gas measures, as well as the role/selection of service agency. 
Page 18 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue  Current Proposal  Comments 

Who is at risk for defaults   Loan loss reserve or investors at risk 

for defaults. 

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 

funds5 pay for any defaults in the 

small business financing program 

currently) or other sources.   

QC on measures / installations  QC on measures/installations (see 

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 specific financing 

offerings are developed. 

                                                            

5 Question remains if program funds meet GCA requirements for cost 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 COMMENTS FROM WORKING MEMBERS) 

On Bill Repayment of commercial energy efficiency loans is already offered through select utilities in 

Massachusetts.  Current programs are financed with utility capital and ratepayer‐backed recovery.  Broadening the 

program to longer term loans and changing the expected capital source to the public markets has some 

implications for the delivery and structure of C&I OBR, but much of the program reflects existing best practices in 

business lending with OBR. 

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 

sale of property or change of tenant.  

Tie to owner simplifies issues in 

most respects  
Page 20 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue  Current Proposal  Comments 

Termination for non‐payment  UNDECIDED:  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 repayment 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 makes program more 

reliant on other measures such as 

property or fixture liens which may 

be more exclusionary and 

potentially more costly to maintain. 

NON­TERMINATION:  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 financing efforts have 

experienced low default 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 back up programs, 

are implemented. 
Page 21 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue  Current Proposal  Comments 

Allocation of partial payments  Allocation of partial payments in 

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 payments 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 cash 

flow for shorter payback 

measures.  No limits on longer 

measures. 

Positive cash flow not required as 

some measures have a significant 

payback period.  

Savings guarantee  No  Do not guarantee savings, but 

provide best estimates 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 

Fixed over the term of the loan 

Eligible measures  Eligible measures (regardless of 

fuel) TBD with an emphasis on 

non‐portable measures.  

Many programs specify 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 

considered portable.  Details TBD 

Customer eligibility  TBD 
Page 22 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue  Current Proposal  Comments 

Customer class  Small commercial as defined by 

the program eligibility 

requirements and further defined 

by loan maximum 

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 

and pooled (diversified) risk.  

PA’s continue to investigate legal 

issues from being party to a 

financial transaction. 

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?] 

consecutive months.  

For larger loan balances, tenant / 

owner must meet traditional 

underwriting standards to be 

performed by financing entity 

(exact terms TBD) 

Maximum loan amount  TBD  Consider 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  Outside 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 addressed (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 use of payment 

history.  

Disclosure must be complete and 

fair. 

Customer interest rate  Unknown at this time.    TBD 
Page 24 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue  Current Proposal  Comments 

Collection procedures and protections  Standard utility procedures and 

protections. 

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 

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.  

Who is at risk for defaults   Capital provider or loan loss 

reserve at risk for defaults. 

Structure of credit enhancement 

(loan loss reserve fund) and 

financing initiative TBD 

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 

funds6 pay for any defaults in the 

small business financing program 

currently) or other sources.   

QC on measures / installations  QC 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 cost 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 community, but significant 

issues remain unresolved despite the group’s best efforts.  Competing interests between 

tenant protections, low‐mid income advocacy, financial community requirements and PA 

concerns, have made it difficult to find a collectively acceptable approach.  Further 

discussions are required in this area, including some that go beyond the scope of the work 

group’s activities (including addressing the potential for additional subsidies for rental and 

60‐120% income communities and PA concerns over implementation cost/complexity).  

Despite a lack of consensus on key issues, the workgroup’s conversations have coalesced 

around a meter based obligation structure with certain elements widely supported.  

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 potential use of meter based 

repayment obligations.  Two significant issues (among many) have been identified as major 

barriers to rental adoption of energy efficiency measures.  The two issues are the split 

equity problems between tenant (receive energy savings) and landlords (pay higher costs 

for efficiency) and the economic disincentive to adopt energy efficiency measures.  Both 

issues are structural problems that are unlikely to be solved by market forces in the 

foreseeable future and require a new approach to drive energy efficiency adoption. 

As many council members are aware, the rental community is currently paying into System 

Benefit Charge (SBC) pools, but anecdotally7

 receiving very little of the benefits (rebates, 

interest rate buy‐down or other subsidies applied toward energy efficiency improvement).  

Among the most significant barriers to energy efficiency (EE) adoption in the rental market 

are the split incentives problem between landlord (LL) and tenants and an economic 

disincentive to adopt EE measures.  On Bill Repayment (OBR) provides one of the leading 

potential solutions for solving the split incentive issue through meter‐based obligations that 

would split the savings and cost of improvements equitably between landlords and tenants.   

For purposes of this report, \the group has focused on meter‐based obligation structures 

because they tied the cost of financing improvements to the energy user substantially 

bridging the split equity problem.   Meter obligations also had the added benefit of ensuring 

                                                           

7 PAs are reviewing programs to determine use of SBCs among renters.  
Page 26 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

that the proper incentives remain in place to facilitate appropriate participant behavior.  In 

order to appropriately balance the cost to the landlord (construction/remodel expenses) 

from adopting energy efficiency with the benefit expected to accrue 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) through a meter obligation.  The 

landlord would be required to pay‐in an upfront amount (which itself could be financed 

separately) equal to the amount needed to reduce the expected finance 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 terms8

. 

Although the Working Group has provisionally included a matrix reflecting this meter‐based 

model, it should be emphasized that the members have not reached consensus on this 

model.  While the matrix captures the thread of some discussions, it does not represent the 

view of the Working Group as a whole, and further discussions and analysis will be required 

before a consensus model can be established.  In particular, the Program Administrators 

have not endorsed the model set forth in the matrix and have instead advanced their 

comments separately.   These comments are preliminary, and the Program Administrators 

anticipate that significant further discussion (including discussions with representatives of 

the landlord and rental communities) and analysis will be required to develop a viable, 

mutually agreement repayment model for the rental sector.  

  

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 

based finance charges.  

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 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

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 capability 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 

below 120% SMI.   

We need to determine 

whether that down 

payment is feasible 

for/attractive to landlords.  

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:  Proposed:  Comments: 

Tenant can move at lease expiry 

or break lease subject to existing 

terms. 

positive.  

Tenants also need 

recourse if landlords 

violate the terms of the 

“green lease”. 

More research needed on 

“green lease” models. 

Nature of charge:  Financing 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 effective EE improvements 

as determined by DOER 

These items should not be 

portable 

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  RESIDENTIAL RENTAL ONLY 

Owners vs. renters  RENTAL 

Credit checks  YES, related to LL and 

investment property 
Page 29 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

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 

initial lease. 

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  Outside 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 disclosed 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 terms for eviction 

to include EE finance payment 

(Tenant) 

Landlord agreement to guaranty 

Agreement to treat 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 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

Issue:  Proposed:  Comments: 

EE finance payment backed by 

potential lien on investment 

property 

Interest rate  TBD  Subject to market 

conditions and subsidy $’s 

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% 

median income. 

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 

installation.   

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 

maintenance? 

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 and recommend principles 

and mechanisms for on‐bill repayment of outside financial capital resources that will be 

incorporated into the Program Administrator Energy Efficiency Investment Plans for the 

years 2011‐2012  and beyond.  These issues include: 

3⁄4 Status of customers whose  income is above 60% of  the statewide 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 residential energy 

efficiency programs, characterized as “Mass Save” and including primarily the 

electric and gas  9 . 

3⁄4 The “Pay and Save” pilot program mandated under the Green Communities 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 after 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, particularly those representing the Green Justice Coalition 

(GJC), advanced the position that residential customers whose income ranges above the 

60% of state median income  should be viewed as in the equivalent situation with respect to 

being asked to pay the customer share of energy efficiency measures, which is currently set 

at 25% of total measure costs.  This position posed several difficulties for the Working 

Group’s fulfillment of its charge. 

First, the question of customer share of efficiency program costs 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. Further, since the DPU is the 

regulatory arbiter of determinations about the income eligibility boundaries of low income 

                                                           

9 For the 2010‐2012 period, Program Administrators have designed statewide multifamily energy 

efficiency programs that will serve buildings of more than four dwelling units. Additionally, the Low 

Income programs are offering a parallel multifamily program built upon the traditional Low 

Programs offered. 
Page 33 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

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 burden of energy costs 

certainly impacts customers whose income is above 60% of median, there was no 

agreement in the group about where to set the upper end of income with respect to thinking 

about different policies on customer contribution.  It was noted that the federal Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets 80% of median as the upper range of low 

income for  the purposes of determing eligibility for federal housing 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, that could be considered as 

an upper boundary.  There was agreement that more work is needed to understand the 

issue and make recommendations.  The general consensus was that this income –related 

question is certainly valid but this Working Group was not the most appropriate place to 

consider it.  

3.2 SERVICE TO RENTERS 

In a discussion somewhat similar to the question of income‐related decisions, some 

members of the Working Group proposed intensive efforts to increase the percentage of 

residential program participants who are renters. Data in this area are scarce because PA’s 

have not been required previously to report on the numbers or percentages of renters 

served under the PA’s electric RCS program or the gas weatherization program, popularly 

known as Mass Save.  The RCS legislation specifically is targeted to 1‐4 family buildings, and 

as acknowledged elsewhere, until  this year, there was no statewide 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 statistics indicating that statewide, 

35% of dwelling units are occupied by renters, but fully developed PA or other data on what 

percentage of renters have been served are spotty at best, and need further work. 

This is again an issue that while central to the question of equitable service among 

residential customers, is somewhat 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 working with renters and 

landlords and did not come to any clear consensus beyond the recognition that there are 

complex, legal, financial and regulatory 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 numberous variations in between.  Further property owner 

perceptions of their own interests and the value of energy efficiency for them varies greatly. 

Most tenants pay their own utility costs, while the costs of capital improvement are borne 

by owners – with this common situation there is a widely recognized split incentive that 

works against finding an equitable balance of costs and benefits in rental housing, short of 
Page 34 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

regulatory or legislative solutions that would mandate certain efficiency practices. Such 

game changing initiatives are not currently on any legislative or regulatory agendas. 

The Working Group member consensus is that the issue of equitable service to renters is 

important but the equity issue itself is not in the scope of the OBR Working Group and 

beyond a recommendation that further work concerning renters is needed, the Working 

Group has not gone beyond the development of what is admittedly an early step in the 

residential renter matrix.  

3.3 PAY AND SAVE PILOT AND REPORT 

While the OBR Working Group discussions were in progress, the DPU, in accordance with a 

mandate in the Green Communities Act (Chapter 169 of the Acts of 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  for Small C/I participants.   These amounts are considerably 

less than the financed investments contemplated in the drive to achieve deeper and broader 

savings under the GCA mandate to acquire all cost‐effective energy efficiency. Indeed the 

existing Small C/I financing option offered by National Grid and others significantly exceeds 

the C/I limitation, with some thousands of customers participating in financing over the 

past several years. 

At the conclusion of time‐ and finance‐limited Pay and Save pilot 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 of participants and non‐

participants in the pilot.  The evaluators concluded there was a high percentage of free 

ridership with respect to financing, that participation was limited and that many customers 

felt the financing option was more trouble than it was worth. The survey found some 

conflicting  responses, including responses to questions with respect to whether increased 

financing would be attractive.  The evaluation concluded that there was little interest in 

financing, a conclusion, which some parties, including DOER believed was not warranted by 

the limited nature of the pilot.   

Despite the limited nature of the pilot there may be some lessons learned with respect to 

how customers view financing opportunities from their respective vantage points.  To be 

successful, any financing/OBR repayment mechanisms must be perceived by customers as 

providing good value and being customer‐friendly.  Therefore there may be value in further 

exploration of what was observed in the pilot. 
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

several months and many meetings.

GENERAL COMMENT:  The Program Administrators present these comments as a 

preliminary working proposal for a residential renter section.  The PAs regard these 

comments as a straw/position paper intended to reflect the PAs’ overarching 

concerns with the approach outlined in the rental matrix and as a means to focus 

discussion.  The Program Administrators stress that the following section requires 

additional analysis, discussion, and vetting, and does not represent a consensus 

position.   

Renters

• Overall, the PAs stress that the proposed rental option does not provide benefits 

over the owner option, but can create an unnecessarily complicated system that 

would insert the PAs into the relationship between landlords and tenants. The 

Program Administrators point out that the core beneficiary is the landlord by 

actually financing the difference between the total cost less the rebates, tax benefits 

and capital improvements to the property.  The tenant benefits primarily by a 

reduction in energy bills, thereby potentially reducing the cost of rent or the utility 

bill.  

• Instead of the approach outlined in the rental matrix, the Program Administrators 

propose developing a loan program for landlords (based on the owner‐obligation 

scenario).  Should the landlord wish to shift a portion of the cost to the tenant, that 

may be accomplished through a higher rent.  This general approach would avoid  

complex billing, transaction‐tracking and legal issues.  For example, given that the 

state sanitary code requires landlords to provide the means for heat and hot water, 

making tenants responsible to pay (even if in a loan) for new heating/DHW systems 

may violate the state sanitary code.  Furthermore, the PAs believe that the potential 

evictions associated with energy efficiency programs could be problematic and 

create unwanted “backlash” against the programs.  

4.1 AT‐RISK GROUPS 

 Several workgroup members have expressed concern over the implications of placing 

additional financial burdens on at‐risk groups (<60% median income and 60‐120% median 
Page 36 EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

• Restructure utility reba

  

income).  Although the model suggests setting financing costs at a safe margin10 below 

expected savings, there was concern that this group could be vulnerable to volatile income 

streams and more exposed to eviction, etc. as a result of the additional fixed payment 

obligations.  Several suggestions / issues are listed below. These comments do not reflect 

the consensus of the OBR Working Group (and some of the suggestions/issues are outside 

the scope of the OBR Working Group’s efforts), but are presented to set forth 

suggestions/issues raised by some 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 reach neighborhoods 

and multi‐unit buildings that may be occupied by a range of household incomes, 

some below 60% of median income, some in the 60‐120% median income range, 

and some above that. 

• We need to be cautious about offering financing to households in the 60% to ~ 

120% SMI range, as additional debt may adversely affect their financial security. 

There is still the issue of how to identify these customers and whether or not the 

utilities should be responsible for attempting to ID these customers and steer them 

to the appropriate EE programs. 

• For households in the 60~120% range, the group discussed offering higher levels of 

rebates and incentives than for households above the 120% range11.  

• Outreach and marketing (such as community mobilization initiatives) to be 

specifically tailored towards these particular sectors, including landlords. 

• In addition to getting to consensus on the renter matrix, several other steps must 

also be taken in order to ensure adequate participation and access to these 

programs by renters and 60‐120% homeowners: thought this piece concerned 

renters, not owners. 

tes/incentives and marketing/outreach. 

                                                          

10 The margin being the difference between finance payments and expected savings of which the 

target margin was never finalized although 10% and 15% were numbers used in discussions. 

11 Questions arose as to the appropriate level of increased incentives.  The PAs believe this implies a 

tiered rebate/incentive system and further program segmentation.  Further segmentation would 

need to be reviewed by the EEAC and DPU.  [PA NOTE:Further program segmentation would require 

large administrative undertaking and collection of income data. Such a separate effort for this 

specified income sector is not mandated under the GCA (as opposed to Low Income programs, which 

are). This issue merits discussion but would be a change to existing DPU‐approved plans. EMV work 

with allow some market research but with limits. and the research might not address overall 

program design.  
Page 37

• Program budgets should be allocated specific to renters and 60‐120% homeowners. 

Programs should be designed specifically 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, 2010
EEAC On Bill Repayment Working Group Report May 11, 2010

APPENDIX A ‐CASH FLOW MODEL OF COSTS, SAVINGS AND FINANCE   SOURCE: DOER 12Appendix‐ 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 Water 95% (May include some cooking, drying, fireplace, etc.)Targeted Energy bef. Imp. 1,568 $ Amount targeted for upgrade and efficiency gainsOld Boiler Efficiency 65% (Average of Natural Gas Fired Boiler pre 1975)New Boiler Efficiency 90% (Actual not AFUE - Targeted Boiler / Hot Water Efficiency)Boiler Replacement Cost 10,000 $ (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 credit

Net 10,000 $ 

Consumer Payment: Energy Use

Before After

Energy Cost Inflation 3% Yearly Monthly Therms 1,100 810

 Dep/yr Payment 417 $ 35 $ Cost 1.50$ 1.50$ 

Down 50.0% 5,000 $ 364 $ Savings 435 $ 36 $ Efficiency 65% 90%Principle 5,000 $ Net 19 $ 2 $ Heating Equiv. 679 679

Savings Ratio 105% Cost 1,650$ 1,215$ 435 $ 

Subsidized Market

Interest Rate 0.0% 6.5% PV of Subsidy 1,534 $ Current boiler & hot water subsidy is $1,600 for >95% 

Duration 144 months Discount Rate 6.5%Duration 12 years

Page 38

12  The 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 – GOVERNMENT GRANT FUNDING LIST
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

# Closing 

Date 

Title Agency Funding 

Number Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date

Energy-Related Grants Currently Open G-1 08/01/2010 Program Year 2010 Weatherization Formula Grants National Energy Technology Laboratory DE-FOA- 0000216 Only available for States and Federally Recognized Native American Tribal Governments 08-01-10 due date may impact our ability to support Commonwealth’s effort, if any. G-2 08/31/2010 

State Energy Program (SEP) PY 2010 

Formula Award Funding Opportunity Announcement

National Energy Technology Laboratory DE-FOA- 0000308 Only available for States 

56 Awards (25M total program funding) Has Mass Applied or is Considering proposing? Offer to assist Commonwealth? 

Environment-Related Grants Currently OpenG-3 09/02/2010 

“MARKET-BASED APPROACHES TO 

REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN HOMES AND BUILDINGS”

Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA-OARCPPD-10-11 

State governments County governments City or township governments Public and State controlled institutions of higher education Native American tribal governments (Federally recognized) Private institutions of higher education 

Multiple awards; 10 grants ranging in value from $60,000 - $180,000, and up to 4 large cooperative agreements ranging in value from $300,000 - $1,200,000 from this announcement, subject to the availability of funds, quality of evaluated proposals, and other applicable considerations. The total awarded amount is not expected to exceed $5,360,000. Have downloaded full announcement, RFP and EPA Grant Kit May be an opportunity to support cities & towns 

Housing-Related Grants Currently Open (http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail)G-4 02/16/2011 Assisted Housing Stability and Energy and Green Retrofit Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD-RA-01 

Owners of properties receiving project-based assistance pursuant to section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 17012), section 811 of the Cranston- Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013, or Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437f). 

No application associated with this announcement. Provides link to HUD portal for full announcements. None are currently open. This is what they have funded: 

Promoting Energy Efficiency and Creating Green Jobs These investments are powerful vehicles for economic recovery because they work quickly, are labor-intensive, create jobs where they are needed most, and lead to lasting neighborhood benefits. Many will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save Americans money by retrofitting housing to make it more energy efficient. • Public Housing Capital Fund: 

$4 billion invested in energy efficient modernization and renovation of our nation's critical public housing inventory. 

• Native American Housing 

 1 
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

 2 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

# Closing 

Date 

Title Agency Funding 

Number Eligibility Requirements Not Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date es

Block Grants: $510 million invested in energy efficient modernization and renovation of housing maintained by Native American housing programs, and the development of sustainable communities. 

• Assisted Housing Energy 

Retrofit: $250 million invested in energy efficient modernization and renovation of housing of HUDsponsored housing for low-income, elderly, and disabled persons. 

• Lead Hazard Reduction: $100 

million invested in lead based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities. 

Economic Development Administration Grants Currently OpenG-5 09/30/2010 Economic Development Assistance Programs Economic Development Administration EDA062220 09EDAP Not Applicable “Other Funding” Grants Currently OpenG-6 07/26/2010 Energy Audits and Renewable Energy Development Assistance Grants Business and Cooperative Programs RDCP-10- REAP- AUDITS 

Eligible entities include a unit of State, tribal, or local government; institutions of higher education; rural electric cooperatives; or a public power entity. Additional Information on Eligibility: Citizenship - To be eligible, applicants, owned by private persons, must be at least 51 percent owned by persons who are either: 1) citizens of the United States (U.S.),the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or American Samoa; or 2) legally admitted permanent residents residing in the U.S. Capacity to perform - The applicant must have sufficient capacity to perform the activities proposed in the application to ensure success. The Agency will make this assessment based on the information provided in the application. Legal authority and responsibility - Each applicant must have, or obtain, the legal authority necessary to carry out the purpose of the grant. 

The energy audits and renewable energy development assistance program is designed to help agricultural producers and rural small businesses reduce energy costs and consumption and help meet the nation’s critical energy needs. The 2008 Farm Bill mandates that the recipient of a grant that conducts an energy audit for an agricultural producer or a rural small business require the agricultural producer or rural small business to pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the energy audit, which shall be retained by the eligible entity for the cost of the audit. 30 Awards; $2.4 M Total Program Funding 07-26-10 due date may impact our ability to support any applications 
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

USDA Rural Development Special Initiatives For 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 not more than 50,000 inhabitants.” 

# Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date Business and Cooperative Grant AssistanceG-7 Repowering Assistance Program (Section 9004) Not Applicable G-8 

Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels 

Payments to Advanced Biofuel Producers (Section 9005)

Not Applicable 

G-9 Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG Program)

Rural public entities (towns, communities, State agencies, and authorities), Indian tribes and rural private non-profit corporations are eligible to apply for funding. At least 51 percent of the outstanding interest in any project must have membership or be owned by U.S. citizens or resident aliens. 

The RBEG program provides grants for rural projects that finance and facilitate development of small and emerging rural businesses help fund distance learning networks, and help fund employment related adult education programs. To assist with business development, RBEGs may fund a broad array of activities. 

G-10

Rural Energy for America Program Grants/Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assist (REAP/EA/REDA)Section 9007

Eligible entities include a unit of State, tribal, or local government; institutions of higher education; rural electric cooperatives; or a public power entity. The program is design to assist farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses. 

The REAP/EA/REDA Grant Program will provide grants for energy 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 energy audit are required to pay at least 25% of the cost of the audit. What types of projects are eligible? Energy audits and renewable energy development assistance will allow agriculture producers and rural small businesses to become more energy efficient and use renewable technologies. For all projects, the system must be located in a rural area, must be technically feasible, and must be owned by the applicant How to ApplyTo apply for Repowering Assistance Payments please contact your Rural Development State Office. See contact list) 

Section 9007-FY 2010 Notice of Funds Availability REAP-EAREDA_5-27-2010

NEED TO FIND OUT IF $ STILL AVAILABLE 

G-11

Rural Energy for America Program Grants Renewable Energy Systems/Energy Efficiency Improvement Program (REAP/RES/EEI)Section 9007

The program is designed to assist farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses that are able to demonstrate financial need. All agricultural producers, including farmers and ranchers, who gain 50% or more of their gross income from the agricultural operations are eligible. Small businesses that are located in a rural area can also apply. Rural electric cooperatives may also be eligible to apply. 

Rural Energy For America Program Grants/Renewable Energy Systems/Energy Efficiency Improvement Program (REAP/RES/EEI) The REAP/RES/EEI Grants Program provides grants for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance. It also provides funds to agricultural producers and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements. How does the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program compare to the Rural Energy for America Program Guaranteed Loan and Grant?To assist you in determining which program best fit your needs this comparison chart identifies the programs common and 

 3 
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

 4 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

USDA Rural Development Special Initiatives For 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 not more than 50,000 inhabitants.” 

# Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date 

distinct requirements in an easy to read format How much are the grants?The grants are awarded on a competitive basis and can be up to 25% of total eligible project costs. Grants are limited to $500,000 for renewable energy systems and $250,000 for energy efficiency improvements. Grant requests as low as $2,500 for renewable energy systems and $1,500 for energy efficiency improvements will be considered. At least 20% of the grant 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 savings for the agricultural producer or small business are eligible as energy efficiency projects. These include projects such as retrofitting lighting or insulation, or purchasing or replacing equipment with more efficiency units. Eligible renewable energy projects include projects that produce energy from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro power and hydrogen-based sources. The projects can produce any form of energy including, heat, electricity, or fuel. How to ApplyTo apply for funding for the REAP Grant Program please contact your Rural Development State Office.

Section 9007 9007-FY 2010 Notice of Solicitation of 

Applications_4-26-2010

Energy Coordinators Contacts

NEED TO FIND OUT IF $ STILL AVAILABLE

G-12 Rural Energy For America Program Grants (REAP Feasibility Study Grants)Section 9007

The program is designed to assist farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses. All agricultural producers, including farmers and ranchers, who gain 50% or more of their gross income from the agricultural operations are eligible. Small businesses that are located in a rural area also apply. Rural electric cooperatives may also be eligible to apply. 

SECTION 9007 

Rural Energy For America Program Grants 

(REAP Feasibility Study Grants) 

The REAP/Feasibility Grant Program provides grants for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance. It also provides funds to agricultural producers and rural small 

businesses to conduct feasibility study for a renewable energy system. How much are the grants?

The grants are awarded on a competitive basis and can be up to 25% of total eligible project costs. Grants are limited to 
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

 5 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

USDA Rural Development Special Initiatives For 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 not more than 50,000 inhabitants.” 

# Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date 

$50,000 for renewable energy feasibility studies. What types of projects are eligible? Eligible feasibility studies for renewable energy systems include projects that will produce energy from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro power and hydrogen-based sources. The energy 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 the applicant. How to ApplyTo apply for funding for the REAP Grant Program please contact your Rural Development State Office. Energy Coordinators ContactsNEED TO FIND OUT IF $ STILL AVAILABLE

G-13 Rural Economic Development Loan And Grant (REDLG)

To receive funding under the REDLG program (which will be forwarded to selected eligible projects) an entity must: 

• Have borrowed and repaid or pre-paid an 

insured, direct, or guaranteed loan received under the Rural Electrification Act or, 

• Be a not-for profit utility that is eligible to 

receive assistance from the Rural Development Electric or Telecommunication Program 

• Be a current Rural Development Electric or 

Telecommunication Programs Borrower 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN AND GRANT (REDLG) The REDLG program provides funding to rural projects through local utility organizations. Under the REDLoan program, USDA provides zero interest loans to local utilities which they, in turn, pass through to local businesses (ultimate recipients) for projects that will create and retain employment in rural areas. The ultimate recipients repay the lending utility directly. The utility is responsible for repayment to the Agency. Under the REDGrant program, USDA provides grant funds to local utility organizations which use the funding to establish revolving loan funds. Loans are made from the revolving loan fund to projects that will create or retain rural jobs. When the revolving loan fund is terminated, the grant is repaid to the Agency. What types of projects are eligible?REDLG grantees and borrowers pass the funding on to eligible projects. Examples of eligible projects include: 

• Capitalization of revolving loan funds • Technical assistance in conjunction with projects 

funded under a zero interest REDLoan 

• Business Incubators • Community Development Assistance to non-profits and 

public bodies (particularly job creation or enhancement) 

• Facilities and equipment for education and training for 

rural residents to facilitate economic development 

• Facilities and equipment for medical care to rural 

residents 

• Telecommunications/computer networks for distance 

learning or long distance medical care 

How to Apply
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

 6 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

USDA Rural Development Special Initiatives For 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 not more than 50,000 inhabitants.” 

# Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date 

To apply for funding for the REDLG program, please contact your Rural Development State Office.Availability of Funds

During FY 2010, approximately $33.077 million is available for loans. 

G-14 Rural Business Opportunity Grants (RBOG) Not Applicable G-15 Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grant (SSDPG) Not Applicable G-16 Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) Not ApplicableHousing and Community Facilities Grant AssistanceG-17 Rural Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Grants Not Applicable G-18 Housing Application Packaging Grants Not ApplicableG-19 Individual Water and Waste Grants Not Applicable G-20 Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants Not ApplicableG-21 Technical and Supervisory Assistance Grants Not Applicable G-22 Housing Preservation Grants Not ApplicableG-23 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants Not ApplicableG-24 Community Facilities Grants Not ApplicableG-25 Rural Community Development Initiative Not ApplicableUtilities Grants
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

 7 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

USDA Rural Development Special Initiatives For 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 not more than 50,000 inhabitants.” 

# Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date G-26 High Energy Cost Grant Program

Eligibility: To be an eligible applicant under this program: 

• You must be an eligible applicant; • The grant project must serve an eligible 

extremely high energy cost community; 

• The proposed project must improve energy 

generation, transmission, or distribution facilities service an eligible community; and 

• The administrative costs of the project must 

not exceed 4 percent of grant funds. 

Eligible Applicant: You are eligible to apply if you are any of the following: 

• a legally-organized for-profit or nonprofit 

organization such as, but not limited to, a corporation, association, partnership (including a limited liability partnership), cooperative, or trust; 

• a sole proprietorship; • a State or local government, or any agency 

or instrumentality of a State or local government, including a municipal utility or public power authority; 

• an Indian tribe, a tribally-owned entity, and 

Alaska 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 to participate in programs of the Rural Utilities Service or under the Rural Electrification Act. 

High Energy Cost Grant ProgramPurpose: The High Energy Cost Grant Program provides financial assistance for the improvement of energy generation, transmission, and distribution facilities servicing eligible rural communities with home energy costs that are over 275 percent of the national average. Eligible Energy Projects: Grants under this program may be used for the acquisition, construction, installation, repair, replacement, or improvement of energy generation, transmission, or distribution facilities in communities with extremely high energy costs. On-grid and off-grid renewable energy projects, and energy efficiency, and energy conservation projects are eligible. Denali Commission High Energy Cost Grants (CFDA 10.857) are made to the Denali Commission for energy generation, transmission, and distribution facilities serving rural Alaskan communities with average home costs exceeding 275% of the national average. Visit the Denali Commission for 

more information. State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants (CFDA 10.858) are made to state government entities to establish and support revolving funds to provide a more cost-effective means of purchasing fuel for remote communities that are not served by surface transportation year round. State agencies that are interested in this program should consult the Agency Contact below for more information about eligibility and how to apply. 

• Program Regulations

• Grants under this program have supported revolving 

loan program of the Alaska Energy Authority and the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. 

Contact InformationKaren Larsen Rural Development Electric Programs U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Stop 1560, Room 5165-South Washington, DC 20250-1560 Telephone: (202) 720-9545 Fax: (202) 690-0717 Email karen.larsen@wdc.usda.gov

G-27 Denali Commission High Energy Cost Grants Not Applicable G-28 State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants Not Applicable G-29 Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program Not ApplicableG-30 Public Television Digital Transition Grant Program Not Applicable
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

 8 

Government Grants (Federal) www.grant.gov

USDA Rural Development Special Initiatives For 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 not more than 50,000 inhabitants.” 

# Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date G-31 Community Connect Grant Program Not ApplicableG-32 Weather Radio Transmitter Grant Program Not ApplicableG-33 Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans and Grants Not ApplicableG-34 Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants (ECWAG) Not ApplicableG-35 Wastewater Revolving Fund Grants Not ApplicableG-36 Solid Waste Management Grants Not ApplicableG-37 Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal Grants to alleviate health risks Not ApplicableG-38 Section 306D Water and Waste Grants for Alaskan Villages, incl. technical assistance Not ApplicableG-39 

Section 306E Grants for the Construction, 

Refurbishment and Servicing of Low and Moderate Income Individual Well Systems

Not Applicable

G-41 Technical Assistance and Training Grants for Rural Waste Systems Not ApplicableG-42 Predevelopment Planning Grants Not Applicable
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

Government Grants (State) 

Massachusetts Green Communities http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeasubtopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Communities&sid=Eoeea) # Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date G-43 Massachusetts Green Communities Grant

MUST Apply to be Designated a Green Community prior to submitting Grant. Current 2010 Grant Schedule is CLOSED: 

DATE EVENT Friday – March 19, 2010 Begin accepting grant applications Friday – May 14, 2010 Deadline for designation applications to be 

submitted by communities intending on submitting grant applications by May 28th 

Friday – May 28, 2010 Grant Applications due Monday – June 28, 2010 Announce Grant Awards 

The Grant Program, an initiative of the Green Communities Division, provides funding to help municipalities pursue energy efficiency measures, large renewable energy projects, and innovative methods that use less fossil fuel. Cities and towns can apply for the Grant Program after they have demonstrated that they have met the following five criteria and have been 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 or Alternative 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 Facilities

Criterion #2: Adopted an expedited application and permit process for as-of-right energy facilities 

• Guidance for Expedited Permitting Options - revised 3/26/10

Criterion #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 05/04/10

Criterion #4: Purchase only fuel-efficient vehicles 

• Guidance and Model Policy for Purchasing only Fuel Efficient Vehicles

Criterion #5: Set requirements to minimize life-cycle energy costs for new construction; one way to meet these requirements is to 

adopt the new Board of Building Regulations and Standards (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 1 

of 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 following 

guidelines: 

• Qualification Guidelines for Green Community Grant Program

If you want to participate in the Grant Program and are served by a municipal light plant (MLP), the MLP must adopt the Massachusetts 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 how communities across the nation can manage their energy use and costs and advance the clean energy economy. Approximately $7 million dollars is available for award in June 2010 to municipalities who meet these criteria. Below are the Program 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 Application

 9 
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

Government Grants (State) 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development # Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date G-44 Section 8 Energy Retrofit Applications Local Housing Authorities 

Commonwealth and Local Housing Authority Jointly propose to US Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The following Communities have submitted Proposals 

Billerica Housing Authority - 15 River StreetNorwood Housing Authority - William Shyne CircleSomerville Housing Authority - Bryant Manor, 75 Myrtle Street

Whitman Housing Authority - Harvard Court

Housing Energy Programs DHCD's Energy Programs provide eligible households assistance in the following areas: paying a portion of winter heating bills; heating system repair and replacementG-45 Cold Relief Information The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program assists low-income individuals and families with the cost of heating their homes during the winter season. The Program is managed by the DHCD in conjunction with 22 regional nonprofit and local government 

organizations.

G-46 Heating System Repair & Replacement

Program (HEARTWAP)

The Heating System Repair and Replacement Program provides heating system repair and replacement services to low-income households.

G-47 Low Income Home Energy Assistance 

(LIHEAP)

Known commonly as Fuel Assistance, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program provides eligible households with help in paying a portion of winter heating bills.

G48 Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) The Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program provides eligible households with full-scale home energy conservation services.Grant and Funding Programs In 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 and the revitalization of our cities and towns. G49 Bridge Financing (BF) The Bridge Financing Program provides up to $2 million in short-term financing (eighteen months or less) to bridge funding timing 

gaps for ready-to-go projects that meet CDBG requirements.

G50 Community Development Action Grant 

(CDAG)

The Community Development Action Grant Program (CDAG) provides funding to communities for projects that build local economies, eliminate blight, create jobs and produce workforce and affordable housing that would not occur by private enterprise 

alone.

G51 Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG)

The Community Development Block Grant Program is a federally funded, competitive grant program designed to address revitalization efforts and the needs of low- and moderate-income residents by supporting housing, community and economic development activities in small cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth

G52 Community 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 and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to Massachusetts for distribution through the Massachusetts Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) Program. The money will be granted to non-entitlement cities and towns.

G53 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) The Community Services Block Grant is a federally funded, poverty reduction program that was created to promote and provide an array of services and activities to encourage self-sufficiency and to make permanent improvements in the lives of low-income 

families and individuals.

G54 Economic Development Fund (EDF) The Economic Development Fund, a component of the Massachusetts Community Development Block Grant Program, provides funding for projects that create and/or retain jobs, improve the local and/or regional tax base, or otherwise enhance the quality of life 

in the community.

G55 Gateway Plus Action Grant Funding to 18 Gateway Cities to support local strategic planning efforts to increase diversity of housing options, increase economic 

opportunities, foster and strengthen civic engagement, and revitalize neighborhoods.

G56 Individual Development Account (IDA) The Individual Development Account is a state funded pilot program that provides funds for low to moderate income wage earners to 

reach self sufficiency and ultimately achieve homeownership.

G57 Massachusetts Downtown Initiative (MDI) The primary mission of the Massachusetts Downtown Initiative is to make downtown revitalization an integral part of community 

development in cities and towns across the Commonwealth.

G58 Neighborhood 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 rehabilitating housing and making it affordable for low and moderate-income 

families.

 10 
National Grid – Government Grant Funding List 

Government Grants (State) 

 11 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development # Opportunity Eligibility Requirements Notes Application Submitted Level of Funding Requested Anticipated Award Date G59 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) NSP1 is a $54.8 million grant program from the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) awarded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Massachusetts and four of its cities. These NSP funds are to be used primarily for the 

acquisition and rehabilitation of abandoned and foreclosed properties. NSP2 is a competitive grant program from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) awarded by federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

G60 Peer to Peer Technical Assistance Program The Peer-To-Peer Technical Assistance Program provides small grants to municipalities for short-term problem solving or technical 

assistance projects

G-61 

The Massachusetts Business Resource Team is a 

new service is available in Massachusetts under the Massachusetts Executive Office of Economic Development. The Business Resource Team is here to help businesses identify and access state programs and resources that match current needs. Whether you're expanding, relocating, hiring new employees or looking for working capital, the Massachusetts Business Resource Team can help you. 1-877-BIZTEAM 

G-62 Berkshire GrowthG-63 Economic Development Council of Western MassachusettsG-64 How to Start a Business in MassachusettsG-65 MassDevelopmentG-66 Massachusetts Office of Business DevelopmentG-67 Massachusetts Office of International Trade & InvestmentG-68 Massachusetts Port AuthorityG-69 Massachusetts Small Business Development Center 

Network

G-70 Massachusetts State GovernmentG-71 Procurement Technical Assistance CenterG-72 U.S. Export Assistance CenterG-73 State and Local Government on the Net
ATTACHMENT C

NSTAR – ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANT SEARCH FINDINGS 
Energy Efficiency Grant Search Findings

June 2010
Summary

• Federal, state, and private sources of energy efficiency funding were researched• Federal

• The State Energy Program (SEP) PY 2010 is currently accepting applications

•MA’s portion of the SEP is $605,000•SEP requires 20% contribution by state

• State

• No funding sources

• Private

• Limited options available to non-profits and institutions
Sources: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/recovery_act.html

American Recovery 

and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009

+ $11 billion

Recovery Act 

EECBG Program

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

$3.2 billion

State Energy 

Program

Energy Efficiency

$3.1 billion

Weatherization 

Assistance

Program

Weatherization of low-income housing

$5 billion

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds 
Sources: 

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; 

Recovery Act 

EECBG Program

$3.2 billion

Formula Grants

$2.7 billion

Competitive Grants

$0.5 billion

State of MA

$14.8 million

Retrofit Ramp-up 

Program

(Apps Due 12/2009)

General Innovation 

Fund

(Apps Due 12/2009

MA Cities

$27.5 million

MA Counties 

and Tribes

$0.9 million

Indicates end of branch (i.e. extent of available information)

Recovery Act Energy Efficiency 

Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
Source: 

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Co mmunities&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer

green

communities

eecbg

prg&csid=Eoeea

State of MA 

$14.8 million

Sub-grants to 

Municipalities

Solar Thermal and PV, 

Energy savings

Thermal-efficiency

$12.2 million

(max of $150,000)

PV Consultants

$825,000

Development of

MassEnergyInsight

Web-based data system for

municipalities to manage

energy use and costs of 

buildings and fuels

$1.5 million

Center for 

Ecological Training

Develop building energy

code training curriculum 

$175,000

MA’s Division of ARRA Funds
S

h

//

/

/d

/d

/

i

i

/

/

C

G

d

l

Sub-grants to Municipalities

Solar Thermal and PV, Energy savings 

Thermal-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 at 

http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/green_communities/grant_program/EECBG-Awards.xls
Source: 

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Co mmunities&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer

green

communities

eecbg

prg&csid=Eoeea

MA Cities

Clean Technology and energy efficiency at

municipalities and schools

$27.5 million

MA’s Division of ARRA Funds

Amherst $162,000 Fitchburg $168,000 Peabody $494,200 Arlington $159,700 Framingham $657,000 Pittsfield $189,100 Attleboro $179,600 Haverhill $542,700 Plymouth $514,300 

Barnstable $202,400 Holyoke $175,700 Quincy $881,200 Beverly $169,600 Lawrence $651,300 Revere $485,500 

Billerica $180,200 Leominster $175,500 Salem $174,300 Boston $6,506,200 Lowell $954,700 Somerville $651,100 Brockton $865,000 Lynn $788,100 Springfield $1,498,200 

Brookline $494,400 Malden $501,500 Taunton $519,600 Cambridge $139,400 Marlborough $178,000 Waltham $630,500 Chelsea $164,000 Medford $504,000 Westfield $170,300 Chicopee $499,100 Methuen $179,200 Weymouth $485,800 Everett $149,300 New Bedford $869,300 Woburn $174,600 Fall River $861,300 Newton $799,600 Worcester $1,733,000 

Total $26,478,500
Notes: $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;

SEP

$3.1 billion

State of MA

$54.9 million

EE at State Facilities

Administrators: Vivek Mohta, Eric Friedman

$12.6 million

MA EE Transformation

Administrator: Vivek Mohta

$20 million

MA Solar Stimulus

Administrators: Vivek Mohta, Natalie Howlett

$20 million

State Energy Program (SEP)
State Energy Program (SEP)

Administrators:

Program Name Implementation 

Date

Objective Description $ 

Amount

High Performance Buildings Program/MA EE Transformation 

4/1/09-3/31/12 Demonstrate solutions to a number 

of long-standing challenges in improving building energy performance and facilitate market transformation

• Deep energy retrofit, outreach, education• Financing programs• Market transformation• $500K-$5M awards

$20M

Leading by Example/EE at State Facilities

4/1/09-3/31/12 Accelerate and expand clean 

energy projects at public buildings

• Accelerate pipeline of clean energy projects

$14.9M

MA Solar Stimulus 4/1/09-3/31/12 Fostering substantial expansion of 

the installed capacity of solar PV in MA

• Provide technical assistance• Provide financial incentives• Identify opportunities for market expansion

$20M

Total $54.9M
Sources: 

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

pdf

WAP

$5 billion

MA

Low Income (<60% of state median)

$122 million

Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
Notes: Tentative allocation. Where did money end up?

Da

id MacLellan is NSTAR Electric’s Polic

Ad

isor Co

ncil Member

(

/Eh

d/d

/dh

d/

d/

/

l

2009

df)

Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)

II.3 SubgranteesTentativeGrantee City Funding Units

Action for Boston Community Development Boston $ 10,042,805 1,423ACTION, Incorporated Gloucester $ 8,506,370 1,182Berkshire Community Action Council Inc. Pittsfield $ 3,007,805 423Citizens for Citizens Fall River $ 8,572,490 1,214Community Action of the Franklin, Hampshire and Quabbin Greenfield $ 4,653,995 657Community Action Programs, Intercity Chelsea $ 10,256,750 1,450Expiring Use/Preservation Special Project Initiative Boston $ 6,000,000 923Greater Lawrence Community Action Council Inc. Lawrence $ 7,669,940 1,084Housing Assistance Corporation Hyannis $ 2,881,175 405Public Housing Special Project Initiative Boston $ 25,000,000 3,846Quincy Community Action Programs Quincy $ 5,045,885 711South Middlesex Opportunity Council Framingham $ 8,711,120 1,232Springfield Partners in Community Action Springfield $ 8,466,965 1,199Worcester Community Action Council Worcester $ 8,324,195 1,177TOTALS $ 117,139,495 16,926
Sources: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?State=US&ee=1&re=1http://www

treas

gov/recovery/docs/guidance

pdf

Other 

Federal Grants

Treasury Renewable

Energy Grants

Reimbursement for EE property 

expenses

USDA 

Renewable Energy 

Grants

Reimbursement for EE property 

expenses

Tribal Energy 

Program Grant

Reimbursement for EE property 

expenses

Other Federal Energy Efficiency ‘Grant’ Programs
Sources: 

Treasury Renewable Energy Grants

Reimbursement for EE property 

expenses

Other Federal Energy Efficiency ‘Grant’ Programs

Specified Energy Property Credit Termination Date Applicable Percentage of Eligible Cost Basis Large Wind Jan 1, 2013 30% Closed-Loop Biomass Facility Jan 1, 2014 30% Open-loop Biomass Facility Jan 1, 2014 30% 

Geothermal under IRC sec. 45 Jan 1, 2014 30% Landfill Gas Facility Jan 1, 2014 30% 

Trash Facility Jan 1, 2014 30% 

Qualified Hydropower Facility Jan 1, 2014 30% Marine & Hydrokinetic Jan 1, 2014 30% Solar Jan 1, 2017 30% 

Geothermal under IRC sec. 48 Jan 1, 2017 10%* Fuel Cells Jan 1, 2017 30%** 

Microturbines Jan 1, 2017 10%*** 

Combined Heat & Power Jan 1, 2017 10% 

Small Wind Jan 1, 2017 30% 

Geothermal Heat Pumps Jan 1, 2017 10%
Source: 

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2c+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Green+Co mmunities&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=doer

green

communities

gc

grant

program&csid=Eoeea

Green Communities 

Grant Program

MA Cities and Towns

$7 million

(Apps due 5/28/10, Announcement of grant awards 6/28/10)

Green Communities Grant Program
Green Communities Grant Program

ACTON GREENFIELD LINCOLN PALMER

ANDOVER HAMILTON LOWELL PITTSFIELDARLINGTON HANOVER MASHPEE SALEMATHOL HOLYOKE MEDFORD SPRINGFIELDBECKET HOPKINTON MELROSE SUDBURYBELCHERTOWN KINGSTON MONTAGUE TYNGSBOROUGHCAMBRIDGE LANCASTER NATICK WENHAMCHELMSFORD LENOX NEWTON WORCESTEREASTHAMPTON LEXINGTON NORTHAMPTON

As of May 21, 2010, the following 35 municipalities were designated ‘Green Communities’ and are therefore eligible for the Green Communities Grant.
Sources: http://www.massenergystarhomes.com/; http://www.massenergystarhomes.com/homebuilders/value.htm; 

http://www.masscec.com/index.cfm?pid=11052

MA Energy Efficiency 

; http://www.masstech.org/Grants_and_Awards/comm_hydro_09/hydro_09.html

Rebate Programs 

MA Energy Star

Sponsored by local utilities

Rebates to homeowners who build

Energy Star qualified homes

Commonwealth

Solar Stimulus

Commonwealth 

Hydropower Initiative

State Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs
Notes:

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 

ffi

i

/

Private Sector Research

Rockefeller

Kresge

Foundation

Foundation

of Ecological

Use of Energy

Ford 

Foundation Energy 

Foundation

Gordon and 

Betty 

Moore

Soros

Google.org

Kaiser

Bill and 

Melinda 

Gates

Foundations

Non-profits and gov’t 

entities. Foundation 

has Southeast and 

Midwest Focus

No current EE grants 

but Charleston, SC 

received $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 Program Administrator intends to discontinue. 

1. Table 1 summarizes the planned and reported costs, savings, and benefits 

associated with each BCR Activity and the corresponding variance between the 

planned and reported values. An explanation 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 have 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 Light Compact does not plan to discontinue 

any programs. 
Variance Summary

Sector BCR Activity Plan2 Report Variance3 Plan2 Report Variance3 Plan2 Report Variance3Residential A02a Residential Lost Opportunity 1,028,413 $ 442,635 $ -57% 5,975 2,023 -66% 3,650,409 $ 1,163,373 $ -68%

Residential A02b Energy Star HVAC 347,753 $ 62,539 $ -82% 1,895 498 -74% 956,954 $ 264,201 $ -72%

Residential A03a Residential Retrofit 1-4 2,360,062 $ 2,826,273 $ 20% 34,282 29,838 -13% 17,668,466 $ 13,745,762 $ -22%

Residential A04a Residential Lighting 633,615 $ 404,361 $ -36% 76,019 12,885 -83% 10,208,585 $ 1,775,504 $ -83%

Residential A04b Residential Appliances 255,804 $ 226,509 $ -11% 2,654 4,684 76% 774,119 $ 1,513,556 $ 96%

Low Income B03a Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 1,122,962 $ 824,610 $ -27% 6,339 4,259 -33% 3,550,402 $ 3,454,183 $ -3%

Low Income B03b Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 409,214 $ 169,814 $ -59% 1,215 193 -84% 2,349,996 $ 909,542 $ -61%

C&I C02a C&I Lost Opportunity 359,183 $ 466,762 $ 30% 5,936 14,425 143% 1,175,997 $ 2,716,446 $ 131%

C&I C03a Large C&I Retrofit 740,775 $ 448,602 $ -39% 13,883 35,170 153% 2,540,552 $ 5,098,054 $ 101%

C&I C03b Small C&I Retrofit 2,809,853 $ 3,029,003 $ 8% 59,896 59,663 0% 10,695,408 $ 10,178,248 $ -5%

Residential Subtotal 4,625,647 $ 3,962,316 $ -14% 120,825 49,928 -59% 33,258,532 $ 18,462,396 $ -44%

Low Income Subtotal 1,532,176 $ 994,424 $ -35% 7,554 4,451 -41% 5,900,398 $ 4,363,725 $ -26%

C&I Subtotal 3,909,811 $ 3,944,366 $ 1% 79,716 109,258 37% 14,411,957 $ 17,992,748 $ 25%

Total 10,067,635 $ 8,901,106 $ -12% 208,095 163,637 -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)/Plan

PA Costs ($) Net Lifetime Savings (MWh) Benefits ($)1

TABLE 1
Variance Analysis 

Table 1 and the following analysis respond to the request in a Hearing Officer 

Memorandum regarding Annual Reports from June 22, 20101 for sections identifying all 

programs for which savings, costs, or benefits vary by more than 20 percent from planned 

values and explaining the reasons behind this variance. 

Analysis Highlights

In general, there are three explanations for underspending in 2009: 

1. The 2009 EEP featured aggressive spending goals that were 72% higher than 

proposed Supplemental 2008 EEP expenditures. The implementation of several 

BCR Activities and measures were delayed due to the May 2009 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 Residential 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 underspending 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 participant uptake for several BCR Activities. 

This includes the following: 

• Residential Lost Opportunity, where increases in Low Income 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 approval affected implementation of the Major 

Renovation pilot program. Additionally, the economic 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 expenditures due to lower uptake resulted in lower 

savings. 

Benefits ($): Lower expenditures due to lower uptake resulted in lower savings, which 

drove lower benefits. 

ENERGY STAR® HVAC 

PA Costs ($): As stated above, underspending in this program was primarily the result of 

the late approval and delayed program implementation. 

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower expenditures 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 overspent 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 were 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 domestic hot water instant savings measures 

(which includes faucet aerators, low flow showerheads, and pipe and tank wrap) as 

compared to measures with higher savings and benefits such as insulation, air sealing and 

heating system and refrigerator replacements to. The economic downturn may have been 

a contributing factor as well since the participant costs for measures with lower savings 

and benefits are lower. 

Residential Lighting 

PA Costs ($): The underspending in this program was due to the late approval, which 

delayed implementation of new measures such as LED fixtures. Also, the economic 

downturn affected sales of CFL bulbs and other lighting products. 

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower sales of CFL bulbs and other lighting products 

resulted in lower than projected savings. Furthermore, declines in two key assumptions 
resulted in the significant decrease in net lifetime MWh savings, despite the increase in 

the installation rate from 84% to 97% due to the 2008 Residential Lighting Markdown 

Impact Evaluation2

 that offset some of the decline. 

1. The 2009 program year study entitled Results of the Multistate CFL Modeling 

Effort3 reduced the net-to-gross ratio from 139% to 41%. 

2. The 2008 Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation4 reduced the 

deemed gross annual kWh savings for CFL screw-in bulbs from 57 to 47. 

Benefits ($): The significant decrease in net lifetime MWh savings drove the significant 

decrease in benefits. 

Residential Appliances 

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Savings were substantially higher than planned, due to the 

higher than planned uptake on two measures with particularly high savings: ECM Heaters 

and Refrigerators. 

Benefits ($): As savings were substantially higher than planned, benefits were 

substantially higher than planned. The variance in benefits was even higher than the 

variance in savings due to the fact that there are additional non-electric benefits 

associated with ECM Heaters. 

Low-Income BCR Activities

Low-Income Retrofit 1-4 

PA Costs ($): The underspending in this program was due to lower than projected 

participation. 

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower spending contributed to lower than projected 

savings. Greater uptake of measures with significant non-electric benefits has offset 

declines in electric benefits. As a result, there is little variance in benefits despite a 

significant variance in savings. 

Low-Income Retrofit Multifamily 

PA Costs ($): The underspending in this program was due to lower than projected 

measure uptake, likely due to the economic downturn. 

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Lower spending 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 Light Compact generally 

experiences a high variance in savings and 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 higher 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 projected due to a higher uptake of non-lighting 

measures than projected. Non-lighting measures have higher savings, and therefore, 

higher benefits, than lighting measures. 

Large C&I Retrofit 

PA Costs ($): The underspending in this program was due to lower uptake than projected. 

The economic downturn may have made it difficult for larger companies and 

organizations to pay the participant costs associated with larger projects. 

Net Lifetime Savings (MWh): Despite underspending, savings were significantly higher 

than planned. This is 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 projected due to a higher uptake of non-lighting 

measures than projected. Non-lighting measures 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 providing these reports in response to a D.P.U. 

request during the Cape Light Compact’s 09-119 proceeding. 
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:38

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

AllCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 506,001 61 48,215 63,189.36 642,511.84 458 644,449.00 99.7%Low-Income Multi-Family 28,246 15 4,417 10,248.70 63,037.39 45 73,050.00 86.3%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

534,247 705,549.23

3.0% 10.8%

52,632 73,438.06 76

0.9% 4.3% 4.6%

503 717,499.00

4.6% 17.5%

Residential New Construction 230,592 17 26,419 43,518.99 236,260.26 168 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 5,040,135 384 2,193,041 80,508.51 202,361.23 3,800 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 310,406 356 65,218 30,300.00 152,225.00 1,966 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 3,260,769 674 414,514 303,033.57 2,184,641.55 3,955 1,934,464.00 112.9%Energy Star HVAC 45,060 33 10,612 15,044.00 50,144.00 95 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

8,886,962 2,825,632.04

49.6% 43.1%

2,709,804 472,405.07 1,464

47.7% 27.6% 89.2%

9,984 1,934,464.00

91.4% 47.2%

C&I New Construction 66,116 6 0 1,468.83 26,749.38 21 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 1,470,906 4 646,048 89,045.66 278,867.32 20 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 3,807,812 63 1,261,621 436,960.94 1,474,876.05 297 1,446,021.00 102.0%C&I Govt Small 1,244,667 14 640,560 452,331.50 859,601.40 54 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 1,008,114 3 0 3,435.41 107,264.01 9 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 554,394 4 283,740 176,893.84 255,130.37 17 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 359,732 7 83,248 4,573.00 25,625.61 22 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

8,511,741 3,028,114.14

47.5% 46.2%

17,932,950

2,915,217 1,164,709.18 101

51.3% 68.1% 6.2%

1,710,552.31 1,641

440 1,446,021.00

4.0% 35.3%

10,927 Report Total 5,677,653 6,559,295.41 4,097,984.00

Budget Comparison 4,365,066.83 4,097,984.00 106.5%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:42

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

AquinnahCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 773.00 0.0%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 88.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

0 0.00

0.0% 0.0%

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 861.00

0.0% 13.7%

Residential New Construction 1,829 1 1,829 2,334.40 2,534.40 1 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 18,126 0 0 0.00 297.00 4 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 100 0 0 0.00 50.00 1 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 700 0 0 0.00 1,155.78 6 4,643.00 24.9%Energy Star HVAC 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

20,755 4,037.18

100.0% 100.0%

1,829 2,334.40 1

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

12 4,643.00

100.0% 74.0%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 774.52 0.0%C&I Govt Small 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

0 0.00

0.0% 0.0%

20,755

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2,334.40 1

0 774.52

0.0% 12.3%

12 Report Total 1,829 4,037.18 6,278.52

Budget Comparison 1,155.78 6,278.52 18.4%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:43

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

BarnstableCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 118,491 11 11,105 11,399.45 146,436.54 96 145,968.00 100.3%Low-Income Multi-Family 5,597 8 2,649 9,072.46 25,036.44 31 16,546.00 151.3%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

124,088 171,472.98

2.7% 12.6%

13,754 20,471.91 19

0.7% 4.1% 8.1%

127 162,514.00

6.5% 19.5%

Residential New Construction 51,324 2 5,727 2,617.75 58,811.12 39 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 1,339,916 19 397,711 17,534.55 66,148.83 698 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 54,999 65 11,628 5,580.00 27,605.00 352 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 537,726 99 76,847 44,200.10 333,809.72 628 337,370.00 98.9%Energy Star HVAC 7,179 3 2,253 1,964.00 7,776.00 14 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

1,991,144 494,150.67

43.2% 36.3%

494,166 71,896.40 188

26.2% 14.4% 79.7%

1,731 337,370.00

88.7% 40.5%

C&I New Construction 10,086 1 0 95.00 6,527.28 5 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 1,076,345 2 616,314 86,330.00 154,573.59 7 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 847,393 18 473,394 141,163.08 304,984.23 63 334,156.31 91.3%C&I Govt Small 56,098 2 0 597.24 26,427.33 6 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 2 0 1,935.41 2,061.76 3 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 368,898 2 283,740 176,036.15 197,441.38 4 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 135,026 2 2,688 1,313.00 3,875.00 5 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

2,493,846 695,890.57

54.1% 51.1%

4,609,078

1,376,136 407,469.88 29

73.0% 81.5% 12.3%

499,838.19 236

93 334,156.31

4.8% 40.1%

1,951 Report Total 1,884,055 1,361,514.22 834,040.31

Budget Comparison 810,266.93 834,040.31 97.1%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:44

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

BourneCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 29,561 4 2,620 4,773.60 33,669.42 27 38,474.00 87.5%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4,361.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

29,561 33,669.42

2.1% 5.5%

2,620 4,773.60 4

0.5% 2.7% 3.0%

27 42,835.00

3.3% 15.8%

Residential New Construction 39,815 2 2,554 1,499.76 54,628.30 39 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 167,495 45 15,884 599.30 5,947.44 372 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 15,501 20 2,780 1,450.00 7,740.00 110 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 178,034 49 31,437 18,565.60 118,284.78 238 112,005.00 105.6%Energy Star HVAC 92 1 92 416.00 416.00 1 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

400,937 187,016.52

27.8% 30.6%

52,747 22,530.66 117

11.0% 12.5% 88.6%

760 112,005.00

91.6% 41.3%

C&I New Construction 17,770 1 0 166.25 3,732.61 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 495,349 7 249,648 79,974.65 181,154.31 28 116,475.62 155.5%C&I Govt Small 372,878 2 173,811 70,988.86 167,278.28 6 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 2,537.50 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 95,305 0 0 0.00 31,535.25 3 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 28,970 1 0 1,600.00 4,737.50 2 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

1,010,272 390,975.45

70.1% 63.9%

1,440,770

423,459 152,729.76 11

88.4% 84.8% 8.3%

180,034.02 132

43 116,475.62

5.2% 42.9%

830 Report Total 478,827 611,661.39 271,315.62

Budget Comparison 333,108.51 271,315.62 122.8%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:45

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

BrewsterCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 16,577 0 0 0.00 9,335.40 15 22,427.00 41.6%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 2,542.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

16,577 9,335.40

4.0% 4.0%

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

15 24,969.00

2.8% 15.4%

Residential New Construction 3,695 0 0 0.00 2,717.16 5 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 108,444 24 6,599 169.00 3,630.95 179 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 16,861 14 2,440 1,300.00 8,410.00 113 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 162,554 27 12,156 9,087.26 117,137.09 206 100,399.00 116.7%Energy Star HVAC 8,712 2 813 932.00 9,208.00 16 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

300,266 141,103.20

72.0% 60.3%

22,008 11,488.26 67

78.6% 68.2% 95.7%

519 100,399.00

95.2% 61.7%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 46,494 2 5,714 4,731.95 20,631.53 6 37,261.60 55.4%C&I Govt Small 49,847 0 0 0.00 60,970.00 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 23.75 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 3,960 1 289 625.00 2,025.00 2 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

100,301 83,650.28

24.0% 35.7%

417,144

6,003 5,356.95 3

21.4% 31.8% 4.3%

16,845.21 70

11 37,261.60

2.0% 22.9%

545 Report Total 28,011 234,088.88 162,629.60

Budget Comparison 147,104.02 162,629.60 90.5%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:39

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

Cape CodCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 479,688 53 40,463 59,065.76 612,537.45 436 608,167.00 100.7%Low-Income Multi-Family 20,605 15 4,417 10,248.70 57,293.18 39 68,936.00 83.1%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

500,293 669,830.63

3.0% 11.2%

44,880 69,314.46 68

0.9% 5.2% 4.3%

475 677,103.00

4.6% 18.1%

Residential New Construction 185,813 15 23,022 39,010.89 218,956.50 153 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 4,704,165 378 1,957,617 73,482.51 192,528.65 3,555 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 306,010 346 64,178 29,830.00 150,565.00 1,930 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 3,073,384 652 388,607 291,074.87 2,075,917.67 3,750 1,726,896.00 120.2%Energy Star HVAC 44,875 32 10,519 14,628.00 49,312.00 93 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

8,314,248 2,687,279.82

49.4% 44.8%

2,443,943 448,026.27 1,423

49.2% 33.8% 89.7%

9,481 1,726,896.00

91.4% 46.3%

C&I New Construction 66,116 5 0 1,350.08 24,060.06 18 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 1,470,906 4 646,048 89,045.66 278,867.32 20 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 3,745,433 63 1,261,621 436,960.94 1,453,728.20 290 1,327,782.89 109.5%C&I Govt Small 800,835 10 203,858 94,401.72 498,076.94 47 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 1,008,114 3 0 3,435.41 107,074.01 8 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 554,394 4 283,740 176,893.84 255,130.37 17 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 359,732 7 83,248 4,573.00 25,625.61 22 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

8,005,530 2,642,562.51

47.6% 44.0%

16,820,070

2,478,515 806,660.65 96

49.9% 60.9% 6.0%

1,324,001.38 1,587

422 1,327,782.89

4.1% 35.6%

10,378 Report Total 4,967,338 5,999,672.96 3,731,781.89

Budget Comparison 4,199,476.50 3,731,781.89 112.5%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:54

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

ChathamCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 14,054 0 0 0.00 17,027.16 12 11,342.00 150.1%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1,286.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

14,054 17,027.16

2.3% 9.8%

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

12 12,628.00

2.9% 8.8%

Residential New Construction 2,773 1 0 100.00 592.23 3 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 310,495 12 285,381 9,076.00 10,191.25 110 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 17,032 19 3,040 1,600.00 8,840.00 112 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 148,486 21 13,476 7,295.89 84,602.27 154 75,638.00 111.9%Energy Star HVAC 997 2 813 932.00 1,764.00 3 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

479,784 105,989.75

79.5% 61.2%

302,710 19,003.89 55

99.9% 95.2% 96.5%

382 75,638.00

91.2% 52.9%

C&I New Construction 0 1 0 732.58 732.58 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 25,458 0 0 0.00 15,524.19 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 82,350 1 430 223.60 32,607.64 19 54,666.75 59.6%C&I Govt Small 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 476.20 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 1,642 0 0 0.00 877.80 2 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

109,450 50,218.41

18.1% 29.0%

603,288

430 956.18 2

0.1% 4.8% 3.5%

19,960.07 57

25 54,666.75

6.0% 38.2%

419 Report Total 303,140 173,235.32 142,932.75

Budget Comparison 134,237.07 142,932.75 93.9%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:55

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

ChilmarkCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 2,741 0 0 0.00 1,131.30 1 129.00 877.0%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 15.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

2,741 1,131.30

5.1% 6.7%

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 144.00

2.8% 0.6%

Residential New Construction 39,040 0 0 0.00 5,816.97 2 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 3,019 1 0 0.00 134.10 11 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 540 3 340 120.00 220.00 5 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 8,712 2 3,727 1,030.63 9,535.58 17 18,764.00 50.8%Energy Star HVAC 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

51,311 15,706.65

94.9% 93.3%

4,067 1,150.63 6

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

35 18,764.00

97.2% 80.1%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4,505.28 0.0%C&I Govt Small 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

0 0.00

0.0% 0.0%

54,052

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1,150.63 6

0 4,505.28

0.0% 19.2%

36 Report Total 4,067 16,837.95 23,413.28

Budget Comparison 10,666.88 23,413.28 45.6%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:56

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

DennisCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 41,297 4 4,057 3,515.25 54,716.83 44 48,205.00 113.5%Low-Income Multi-Family 13,240 0 0 0.00 31,080.50 1 5,464.00 568.8%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

54,537 85,797.33

4.0% 15.4%

4,057 3,515.25 4

1.0% 2.9% 1.7%

45 53,669.00

4.4% 20.1%

Residential New Construction 0 2 0 300.00 400.00 3 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 467,506 92 305,181 9,151.88 15,264.74 405 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 29,893 36 6,498 3,060.00 14,870.00 196 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 230,616 94 31,957 76,693.22 207,761.56 334 127,094.00 163.5%Energy Star HVAC 2,251 8 718 3,228.00 4,676.00 11 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

730,265 242,972.30

53.8% 43.6%

344,354 92,433.10 232

86.0% 76.5% 97.9%

949 127,094.00

93.1% 47.6%

C&I New Construction 5,859 0 0 0.00 995.75 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 22,410 0 0 0.00 4,756.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 476,070 1 51,816 24,811.38 210,257.66 21 86,471.99 243.2%C&I Govt Small 5,152 0 0 0.00 3,250.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 62,215 0 0 0.00 9,600.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

571,706 228,859.41

42.1% 41.0%

1,356,509

51,816 24,811.38 1

12.9% 20.5% 0.4%

120,759.73 237

25 86,471.99

2.5% 32.4%

1,019 Report Total 400,227 557,629.04 267,234.99

Budget Comparison 503,816.55 267,234.99 188.5%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:09

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

EasthamCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 17,405 1 55 1,335.00 24,753.23 17 18,432.00 134.3%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 2,089.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

17,405 24,753.23

2.8% 10.7%

55 1,335.00 1

0.0% 3.6% 1.7%

17 20,521.00

4.7% 21.2%

Residential New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 105,433 8 1,767 34.00 3,231.90 96 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 9,425 15 2,280 1,200.00 4,580.00 74 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 117,559 29 17,558 9,475.23 75,599.30 159 58,421.00 129.4%Energy Star HVAC 1,533 1 92 416.00 1,448.00 3 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

233,950 84,859.20

37.3% 36.8%

21,697 11,125.23 53

13.4% 30.2% 88.3%

332 58,421.00

91.0% 60.3%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 173,592 0 0 0.00 74,845.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 115,613 5 61,743 23,796.69 39,122.68 12 17,888.15 218.7%C&I Govt Small 8,068 0 0 0.00 6,462.75 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 78,457 1 78,000 625.00 807.29 2 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

375,730 121,237.72

59.9% 52.5%

627,085

139,743 24,421.69 6

86.5% 66.2% 10.0%

36,881.92 60

16 17,888.15

4.4% 18.5%

365 Report Total 161,495 230,850.15 96,830.15

Budget Comparison 139,475.21 96,830.15 144.0%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:10

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

EdgartownCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 8,296 1 1,368 647.40 5,933.49 5 9,216.00 64.4%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1,045.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

8,296 5,933.49

2.7% 2.5%

1,368 647.40 1

0.7% 0.3% 7.7%

5 10,261.00

3.9% 8.7%

Residential New Construction 1,569 1 1,569 2,173.70 2,853.70 2 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 31,943 1 228 4.00 1,012.70 67 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 1,010 3 300 150.00 430.00 9 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 27,478 5 5,516 2,204.75 16,829.07 42 67,126.00 25.1%Energy Star HVAC 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

62,000 21,125.47

19.8% 8.8%

7,613 4,532.45 10

3.7% 2.2% 76.9%

120 67,126.00

93.0% 57.1%

C&I New Construction 0 1 0 118.75 118.75 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 40,529 0 0 0.00 10,444.52 1 40,131.38 26.0%C&I Govt Small 201,968 1 195,236 199,741.00 202,028.73 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

242,497 212,592.00

77.5% 88.7%

312,792

195,236 199,859.75 2

95.6% 97.5% 15.4%

205,039.60 13

4 40,131.38

3.1% 34.1%

129 Report Total 204,217 239,650.96 117,518.38

Budget Comparison 33,207.08 117,518.38 28.3%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:11

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

FalmouthCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 66,446 8 4,220 12,839.20 114,506.45 62 83,327.00 137.4%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 9,445.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

66,446 114,506.45

3.7% 14.7%

4,220 12,839.20 8

0.7% 7.6% 3.8%

62 92,772.00

4.9% 18.4%

Residential New Construction 25,367 1 4,881 2,334.24 19,419.61 19 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 566,740 34 331,402 12,225.40 22,066.31 304 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 43,750 49 17,310 6,360.00 19,765.00 232 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 459,410 99 73,243 46,079.14 346,726.27 571 235,810.00 147.0%Energy Star HVAC 8,476 3 1,533 1,448.00 8,176.00 11 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

1,103,744 416,153.19

62.1% 53.3%

428,369 68,446.78 186

68.3% 40.7% 89.4%

1,137 235,810.00

90.4% 46.8%

C&I New Construction 16,847 1 0 95.00 7,206.01 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 54,932 1 0 2,310.66 15,853.54 4 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 405,165 10 192,906 84,383.78 180,505.68 43 175,408.69 102.9%C&I Govt Small 62,705 1 0 181.28 36,784.19 6 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 55,900 0 0 0.00 7,634.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 12,757 1 1,615 60.00 1,615.00 3 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

608,306 249,598.42

34.2% 32.0%

1,778,496

194,521 87,030.72 14

31.0% 51.7% 6.7%

168,316.70 208

59 175,408.69

4.7% 34.8%

1,258 Report Total 627,109 780,258.06 503,990.69

Budget Comparison 641,738.40 503,990.69 127.3%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:12

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

HarwichCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 29,867 5 4,247 4,920.30 33,438.07 22 32,738.00 102.1%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 3,711.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

29,867 33,438.07

1.7% 7.3%

4,247 4,920.30 5

2.4% 10.7% 4.0%

22 36,449.00

3.2% 19.0%

Residential New Construction 16,810 4 7,548 3,061.04 24,339.48 23 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 296,845 47 111,226 4,144.40 11,101.58 263 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 20,767 17 3,292 1,600.00 10,635.00 132 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 201,612 48 27,617 16,175.94 128,926.50 221 102,527.00 125.7%Energy Star HVAC 1,717 0 0 0.00 2,280.00 5 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

537,751 177,282.56

30.9% 38.9%

149,683 24,981.38 116

86.3% 54.3% 92.8%

644 102,527.00

93.3% 53.3%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 232,943 2 6,161 3,540.62 85,855.62 19 53,316.05 161.0%C&I Govt Small 29,203 1 13,424 11,099.56 64,014.56 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 889,999 1 0 1,500.00 85,240.75 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 23,036 0 0 0.00 9,671.13 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

1,175,181 244,782.06

67.4% 53.7%

1,742,800

19,585 16,140.18 4

11.3% 35.1% 3.2%

46,041.86 125

24 53,316.05

3.5% 27.7%

690 Report Total 173,515 455,502.69 192,292.05

Budget Comparison 248,220.19 192,292.05 129.1%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 13:41

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

Marthas VineyardCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 26,313 8 7,752 4,123.60 29,974.39 22 36,282.00 82.6%Low-Income Multi-Family 7,641 0 0 0.00 5,744.21 6 4,114.00 139.6%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

33,954 35,718.60

3.1% 6.4%

7,752 4,123.60 8

1.1% 1.1% 14.8%

28 40,396.00

5.1% 11.0%

Residential New Construction 44,779 2 3,397 4,508.10 17,303.76 15 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 335,970 6 235,424 7,026.00 9,832.58 245 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 4,396 10 1,040 470.00 1,660.00 36 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 187,385 22 25,907 11,958.70 108,723.88 205 207,568.00 52.4%Energy Star HVAC 185 1 92 416.00 832.00 2 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

572,714 138,352.22

51.5% 24.7%

265,861 24,378.80 41

37.4% 6.3% 75.9%

503 207,568.00

91.6% 56.7%

C&I New Construction 0 1 0 118.75 2,689.32 3 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 62,379 0 0 0.00 21,147.85 7 118,238.11 17.9%C&I Govt Small 443,832 4 436,702 357,929.78 361,524.46 7 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 190.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

506,211 385,551.63

45.5% 68.9%

1,112,880

436,702 358,048.53 5

61.5% 92.6% 9.3%

386,550.93 54

18 118,238.11

3.3% 32.3%

549 Report Total 710,315 559,622.45 366,202.11

Budget Comparison 165,590.33 366,202.11 45.2%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:13

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

MashpeeCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 23,119 1 1,136 648.50 16,311.55 22 50,138.00 32.5%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 5,683.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

23,119 16,311.55

3.6% 8.6%

1,136 648.50 1

1.6% 1.9% 1.3%

22 55,821.00

3.9% 23.9%

Residential New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 130.00 1 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 188,623 9 11,076 1,422.40 8,681.12 169 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 27,770 26 4,680 2,500.00 14,805.00 136 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 203,730 36 16,372 8,544.15 85,177.38 213 112,199.00 75.9%Energy Star HVAC 956 1 72 316.00 1,564.00 4 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

421,079 110,357.50

66.2% 58.3%

32,200 12,782.55 72

45.1% 37.1% 93.5%

523 112,199.00

93.2% 47.9%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 54,116 0 0 0.00 4,614.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 94,082 2 23,220 9,971.18 31,420.27 6 66,024.94 47.6%C&I Govt Small 43,420 1 14,781 10,485.63 25,686.56 7 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 1 0 554.90 752.50 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

191,618 62,473.33

30.1% 33.0%

635,816

38,001 21,011.71 4

53.3% 61.0% 5.2%

34,442.76 77

16 66,024.94

2.9% 28.2%

561 Report Total 71,337 189,142.38 234,044.94

Budget Comparison 132,909.20 234,044.94 56.8%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:15

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

Oak BluffsCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 9,408 4 5,130 2,476.50 13,997.00 10 10,633.00 131.6%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1,205.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

9,408 13,997.00

5.5% 11.6%

5,130 2,476.50 4

5.0% 3.1% 22.2%

10 11,838.00

7.1% 13.8%

Residential New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 16,109 0 0 0.00 471.10 59 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 1,501 1 100 50.00 440.00 10 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 53,719 12 11,083 7,409.35 29,741.54 56 47,588.00 62.5%Energy Star HVAC 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

71,329 30,652.64

41.3% 25.5%

11,183 7,459.35 13

10.9% 9.4% 72.2%

125 47,588.00

88.7% 55.4%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 2,570.57 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 5,769 0 0 0.00 2,624.64 1 26,466.21 9.9%C&I Govt Small 86,040 1 86,040 69,828.00 70,342.90 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 190.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

91,809 75,728.11

53.2% 62.9%

172,546

86,040 69,828.00 1

84.1% 87.5% 5.6%

79,763.85 18

6 26,466.21

4.3% 30.8%

141 Report Total 102,353 120,377.75 85,892.21

Budget Comparison 46,363.18 85,892.21 54.0%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:16

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

OrleansCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 5,308 1 1,375 1,175.50 3,646.15 6 15,660.00 23.3%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1,775.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

5,308 3,646.15

0.7% 1.2%

1,375 1,175.50 1

0.8% 2.2% 1.5%

6 17,435.00

1.6% 11.5%

Residential New Construction 31,894 1 2,312 598.10 17,530.62 9 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 183,492 13 18,558 1,234.67 7,796.07 94 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 7,400 11 1,360 700.00 3,450.00 55 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 114,618 26 7,211 9,704.89 91,982.60 164 65,772.00 139.9%Energy Star HVAC 4,485 4 1,604 1,764.00 3,828.00 8 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

341,889 124,587.29

42.3% 42.0%

31,045 14,001.66 55

17.6% 26.2% 84.6%

330 65,772.00

89.2% 43.3%

C&I New Construction 15,554 0 0 0.00 2,295.12 3 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 392.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 318,300 8 142,983 37,869.08 111,374.39 25 68,796.26 161.9%C&I Govt Small 91,882 0 0 0.00 48,494.09 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 34,909 1 656 350.00 5,583.72 3 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

460,645 168,139.32

57.0% 56.7%

807,842

143,639 38,219.08 9

81.6% 71.6% 13.8%

53,396.24 65

34 68,796.26

9.2% 45.3%

370 Report Total 176,059 296,372.76 152,003.26

Budget Comparison 207,003.14 152,003.26 136.2%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:17

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

ProvincetownCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 8,086 1 741 440.05 19,432.56 10 14,500.00 134.0%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1,644.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

8,086 19,432.56

6.7% 23.5%

741 440.05 1

2.7% 7.0% 5.9%

10 16,144.00

7.7% 15.0%

Residential New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 7,032 2 912 16.00 261.00 33 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 800 3 300 150.00 400.00 8 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 64,089 9 23,368 4,697.26 36,299.01 69 36,368.00 99.8%Energy Star HVAC 720 0 0 0.00 516.00 1 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

72,641 37,476.01

59.8% 45.4%

24,580 4,863.26 14

89.4% 77.7% 82.4%

111 36,368.00

85.4% 33.8%

C&I New Construction 0 1 0 261.25 261.25 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 28,831 1 2,185 693.73 18,482.47 4 54,927.93 33.6%C&I Govt Small 7,095 0 0 0.00 3,982.31 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 531.87 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 4,811 0 0 0.00 2,379.30 1 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

40,737 25,637.20

33.5% 31.1%

121,465

2,185 954.98 2

7.9% 15.3% 11.8%

6,258.29 17

9 54,927.93

6.9% 51.1%

130 Report Total 27,506 82,545.77 107,439.93

Budget Comparison 74,214.04 107,439.93 69.1%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:18

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

SandwichCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 35,266 7 3,912 6,228.70 44,203.14 31 35,702.00 123.8%Low-Income Multi-Family 1,768 7 1,768 1,176.24 1,176.24 7 4,047.00 29.1%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

37,034 45,379.38

4.5% 12.0%

5,680 7,404.94 14

5.9% 19.7% 13.5%

38 39,749.00

5.1% 16.1%

Residential New Construction 5,847 0 0 0.00 1,217.15 2 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 263,710 20 41,342 2,687.56 12,079.45 270 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 12,800 19 1,870 910.00 6,255.00 115 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 228,097 43 24,975 15,254.89 173,738.07 291 136,380.00 127.4%Energy Star HVAC 3,878 4 1,625 1,864.00 3,832.00 8 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

514,332 197,121.67

62.1% 52.0%

69,812 20,716.45 86

72.1% 55.0% 82.7%

686 136,380.00

91.2% 55.3%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 925.39 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 34,319 0 0 0.00 7,904.00 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 183,518 3 21,332 9,232.49 84,553.22 19 70,390.30 120.1%C&I Govt Small 59,100 0 0 0.00 42,627.38 4 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 1 0 302.79 920.29 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

276,937 136,930.28

33.4% 36.1%

828,303

21,332 9,535.28 4

22.0% 25.3% 3.8%

37,656.67 104

28 70,390.30

3.7% 28.6%

752 Report Total 96,824 379,431.33 246,519.30

Budget Comparison 303,670.67 246,519.30 123.2%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:19

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

TisburyCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 5,868 3 1,254 999.70 8,912.60 6 11,342.00 78.6%Low-Income Multi-Family 7,641 0 0 0.00 5,744.21 6 1,286.00 446.7%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

13,509 14,656.81

2.7% 9.5%

1,254 999.70 3

0.3% 1.0% 23.1%

12 12,628.00

8.0% 14.2%

Residential New Construction 2,341 0 0 0.00 4,636.19 2 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 255,085 4 235,196 7,022.00 7,559.40 69 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 945 2 200 100.00 370.00 8 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 54,677 2 4,114 1,111.50 32,110.70 51 38,689.00 83.0%Energy Star HVAC 92 1 92 416.00 416.00 1 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

313,141 45,092.29

62.8% 29.2%

239,602 8,649.50 9

60.5% 9.0% 69.2%

131 38,689.00

87.3% 43.5%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 16,081 0 0 0.00 8,078.69 5 37,669.81 21.4%C&I Govt Small 155,824 1 155,426 86,425.00 86,762.85 2 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

171,905 94,841.54

34.5% 61.4%

498,555

155,426 86,425.00 1

39.2% 90.0% 7.7%

96,074.20 13

7 37,669.81

4.7% 42.3%

150 Report Total 396,282 154,590.64 88,986.81

Budget Comparison 54,846.20 88,986.81 61.6%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:20

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

TruroCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 9,098 0 0 0.00 11,445.63 11 5,929.00 193.0%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 672.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

9,098 11,445.63

13.2% 16.1%

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

11 6,601.00

9.3% 14.4%

Residential New Construction 2,014 2 0 28,500.00 30,432.18 2 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 6,972 4 570 8.00 214.00 31 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 1,070 0 0 0.00 510.00 11 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 48,368 12 2,885 3,050.97 27,036.89 60 27,663.00 97.7%Energy Star HVAC 1,533 2 813 932.00 1,448.00 3 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

59,957 59,641.07

86.8% 83.9%

4,268 32,490.97 20

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

107 27,663.00

90.7% 60.5%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 11,422.89 0.0%C&I Govt Small 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

0 0.00

0.0% 0.0%

69,055

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

32,490.97 20

0 11,422.89

0.0% 25.0%

118 Report Total 4,268 71,086.70 45,686.89

Budget Comparison 38,482.52 45,686.89 84.2%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:21

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

WellfleetCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 11,441 2 696 3,558.20 16,071.27 11 10,247.00 156.8%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1,161.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

11,441 16,071.27

5.3% 16.1%

696 3,558.20 2

5.0% 25.1% 6.9%

11 11,408.00

5.1% 17.6%

Residential New Construction 2,527 0 0 0.00 4,420.05 5 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 13,167 4 2,166 60.00 521.63 60 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 3,426 5 500 250.00 1,480.00 31 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 66,861 16 5,224 6,667.28 51,320.73 97 35,788.00 143.4%Energy Star HVAC 720 0 0 0.00 516.00 1 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

86,701 58,258.41

40.1% 58.3%

7,890 6,977.28 25

56.4% 49.2% 86.2%

194 35,788.00

90.2% 55.3%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 403.75 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 17,960 1 5,401 3,580.67 8,311.50 6 17,528.78 47.4%C&I Govt Small 0 1 0 71.25 593.75 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 67,155 0 0 0.00 13,778.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 32,800 0 0 0.00 2,550.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

117,915 25,637.00

54.6% 25.6%

216,057

5,401 3,651.92 2

38.6% 25.7% 6.9%

14,187.40 29

10 17,528.78

4.7% 27.1%

215 Report Total 13,987 99,966.68 64,724.78

Budget Comparison 75,703.50 64,724.78 117.0%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:22

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

West TisburyCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4,189.00 0.0%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 475.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

0 0.00

0.0% 0.0%

0 0.00 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 4,664.00

0.0% 10.6%

Residential New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 1,462.50 8 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 11,688 0 0 0.00 358.28 35 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 300 1 100 50.00 150.00 3 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 42,099 1 1,467 202.47 19,351.21 33 30,758.00 62.9%Energy Star HVAC 92 0 0 0.00 416.00 1 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

54,179 21,737.99

100.0% 90.1%

1,567 252.47 2

100.0% 11.5% 66.7%

80 30,758.00

98.8% 69.7%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 8,690.91 0.0%C&I Govt Small 0 1 0 1,935.78 2,389.98 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

0 2,389.98

0.0% 9.9%

54,179

0 1,935.78 1

0.0% 88.5% 33.3%

2,188.25 3

1 8,690.91

1.2% 19.7%

81 Report Total 1,567 24,127.97 44,112.91

Budget Comparison 19,351.21 44,112.91 43.9%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.
 http://www.capelightcompactenergysave.com/activity.htm 

Annual Number of

Program kWh Savings Participants Participants

Annual

kWh Savings Expenditures

Actual

Expenditures

Actual

Page 1 of 1

01/15/10 14:23

Number of

Current Period Cumulative for Reporting Period

Budget of Budget

Actual %

Town Name:Program Name:Program Period:Current Dates:Cumulative Dates:

YarmouthCLC Energy Efficiency Program200911/01/09 - 11/30/0901/01/09 - 11/30/09

Program Activity by Town

Low-Income Single-Family 53,671 8 6,299 8,232.01 67,544.05 50 75,078.00 90.0%Low-Income Multi-Family 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 8,510.00 0.0%LI Special Projects 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%LI SubtotalLI % of Total

53,671 67,544.05

3.4% 14.2%

6,299 8,232.01 8

1.2% 14.5% 5.3%

50 83,588.00

4.3% 20.4%

Residential New Construction 3,748 0 0 0.00 4,318.60 3 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Lighting 678,295 45 427,842 15,119.35 25,392.38 471 0.00 0.0%Energy Star Appliance 44,515 47 6,200 3,170.00 21,220.00 253 0.00 0.0%Residential Conservation Service 311,624 44 24,281 15,583.05 197,515.50 345 163,462.00 120.8%Energy Star HVAC 1,625 1 92 416.00 1,864.00 4 0.00 0.0%Res SubtotalRes % of Total

1,039,807 250,310.48

66.4% 52.5%

458,415 34,288.40 137

88.0% 60.3% 91.3%

1,076 163,462.00

93.2% 39.9%

C&I New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 980.32 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Large Retrofit 29,734 1 29,734 405.00 405.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I Small Retrofit 401,365 2 24,688 12,988.04 144,467.00 19 163,046.63 88.6%C&I Govt Small 15,387 2 1,842 977.90 11,505.74 7 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt Large 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Govt New Construction 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0%C&I Products & Services 26,400 0 0 0.00 1,175.00 1 0.00 0.0%C&I SubtotalC&I % of Total

472,886 158,533.06

30.2% 33.3%

1,566,364

56,264 14,370.94 5

10.8% 25.3% 3.3%

56,891.35 150

29 163,046.63

2.5% 39.8%

1,155 Report Total 520,979 476,387.59 410,096.63

Budget Comparison 409,526.55 410,096.63 99.9%

dwr_eas7_results_by_town 07/02/07 **All information presented is preliminary and subject to change.