# Cape Light Compact

Annual Report on Ener gy Efficiency Activities in 201 2

Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources August 1, 2013This page intentionally blank.

### Table of Contents

I. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 1
A. Purpose of Annual Report

................................ ................................ ................................ 4

B. Organization of Annual Report

................................ ................................ ........................ 5
C. Summary of Program Portfolio

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

II. Program Performance

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10
A. R esidential Sector Programs

................................ ................................ .......................... 10
1. Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10
2. Residential Sector Performance Highlights

................................ ............................. 16
3. Residential Programs

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

a. Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

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

b. Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

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

c. Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit

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

d. Residential Mass Save/Home Energy Services

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

e. Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting

................................ ................................ .............. 32

f. Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances

................................ ................................ .......... 35

4. Residential Pilot Programs

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

a. Residential Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot

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

b. Residential New Construction

– Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

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

c. Residential New Construction

— Multi

- Family (4

- 8 story) Statewide Pilot

.................. 42

d. Residential New Construction

– Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

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

e. Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot (Non

- Statewide)

................................ .......................... 45

f. Power Monitor Pilot (Cape Light Compact

- Specific)

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

g. 2012 Energy Education Activities

................................ ................................ .................. 50

C. Low

- Income Sector Programs

................................ ................................ ....................... 51
1. Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 51
2. Low

- Income Sect or Performance Highlights

................................ .......................... 54
3. Low

- Income Programs

................................ ................................ ............................. 55

a. Low

- Income Residential New Construction

................................ ................................ .. 55

b. Low

- Income Retrofit

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58

D. Commercial & Industrial Sector Programs

................................ ................................ .... 611. Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 61
2. C&I Sector Performance Highlights

................................ ................................ ........ 64
3. C&I Programs

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 67

a. C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

................................ .............................. 67

b. C&I Large Retrofit

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

c. C&I Small Retrofit

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 75

III. Evaluation Measurement and Verification Activities

................................ .......................... 79
A. Summary

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

B. Residential Pro gram Studies

................................ ................................ .......................... 82
C. Low

- Income Program Studies

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

D. Commercial and Industrial Program Studies

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

E. Special and Cross Sector Studies

................................ ................................ ................. 122

F. Future Studies

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 134

IV. Statutory Budget Requirements

................................ ................................ ......................... 137
A. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 137

B. Minimizat ion of Administrative Costs

................................ ................................ ......... 137
C. Competitive Procurement

................................ ................................ ............................ 140

D. Low

- Income Spending

................................ ................................ ................................ . 141

V. P erformance Incentives

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 142

VI. Audits

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 143

VII. Appendices

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 144
A. Glossary of Defined Terms

– Includes Types of Costs in Each Budget Category and a Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations.

................................ ................................ ........ 144

B. Cost

- Effectiveness Supporting Tables and Documentation

– Includes the D.P.U. 08

- 50 Tables, the Screening Tool, and Technical Reference Manual.

................................ .. 144
C. Program and Pilot Program EM&V Studies

– Includes evaluation studies for the residential, low

- income, and C&I sector programs and pilot programs.

..................... 144

D. Performance Incentives Supporting Documentation

– Includes documentation that supports the Compact’s determination of actual performance incentives earned though the performance metrics.

................................ ................................ .............................. 144

E. Other Supporting Documentation

– Includes additional supporting documentation with regard to competitive procurement activities in 2012.

................................ ................. 144

F. Lost Base Revenue Information

– Includes a reference to the information on savings on which LBR is based.

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 144Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 1 of 14 4

I. INTRODUCTION

Cape Light Compact Overview

The Cape Light Compact (“Compact”) is exceptionally pleased with the results of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Energy Efficiency Plan (“2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan”), the first of such plans envisioned by the Green Communities Act

. The Compact, along with the other Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Program Administrators (the “Program Administrators” or “PAs”)

, 1 diligently implemented their respective plans over the past three years, successfully achieving significant goals

. The Compact doubled its benefits each year and doubled its savings from 2010 to 2012, all while keeping costs consistent with planned levels. The Compact and othe r Program Administrators also faced a number of challenges throughout the three

- year term, including a depressed economy. Despite such challenges, the Cape Light Compact reached its plan goals through attentive program implementation, especially during th is third year of the plan.

This Energy Efficiency Annual Report (“Annual Report”) provides the results of the final year of the first three

- year plan . As such, the Cape Light Compact takes this opportunity to reflect on the three years in total. The tabl e below provides the Cape Light Compact’s planned and actual expenditures, benefits, annual MWh savings, lifetime MWh savings, and benefit

- cost ratios (“BCRs”) at the sector level for the three years in total. As the table shows, the Compact almost met al l of its goals at the sector level and in total. Specifically, at the portfolio level, the Compact spent 99 percent of its planned budget and achieved 8 2 percent of planned benefits, whi ch results in a final BCR of 3.2 as compared to the planned BCR of 3. 8. Annual and lifetime energy savings were also close to planned goal

, as actual savings were 8 9 percent and 8 6 percent of planned goals, respectively.

1 The Massachusetts Program Administrators are: Bay State Gas Company d/b/a Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, The Berkshire Gas Company, Blackstone Gas Company, Cape Light Compact, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company d/b/a Unitil, National Grid, New England Gas Company, NSTAR Electric Company, NSTAR G as Company, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 2 of 14 4

PA Costs Benefits Annual MWh Savings Lifetime MWh Savings BCR

Planned Residential 29,938,315 $ 158,227,867 $ 41,051 381,843 4.37
Low-Income 7,826,419 $ 23,946,384 $ 4,290 44,332 3.06 C&I 18,980,086 $ 66,507,816 $ 32,835 417,879 3.03 Total 56,744,820 $ 248,682,067 $ 78,177 844,053 3.77 Actual Residential 31,850,580 $ 120,682,866 $ 37,870 323,842 3.32
Low-Income 7,395,926 $ 21,005,360 $ 4,042 43,589 2.84 C&I 17,050,091 $ 61,600,520 $ 27,883 358,026 3.05 Total 56,296,597 $ 203,288,745 $ 69,794 725,457 3.18 Percent of Goal Residential 106% 76% 92% 85% 76% Low-Income 94% 88% 94% 98% 93% C&I 90% 93% 85% 86% 101% Total 99% 82% 89% 86% 84% Cape Light Compact 2010-2012 Summary Results

Additionally, as noted in the Cape Light Compact’s 2012 M id

- Term Modification ( “ MTM ” ) , its 2012 MTM budget was determined using preliminary 2 011 projected carryover (D.P.U. 11

- 116, Exh. B, at 1). This is because the Cape L ight Compact developed the 2012 MTM with the intention of maintaining its three

- year plan goals. Therefore, it is important to view this 2012 Annual Report within the context of the three

- year plan, consistent with how the Cape Light Compact developed and implemented programs in 2012.

Statewide Overview

D uring program year 2012 , the Program Administra tors continued to build on the nationally acclaimed successes of program years 2010 and 2011. Among the many awards and accomplishments achieved during program year 2012, the American Council for an Energy

- Efficient Economy (“ACEEE”) ranked Massachusetts number one in the nation for its energy efficiency efforts for the second year in a row.

Most notably in 2012, the PAs successfully delivered on their very ambitious goals for the program year, as reviewed and approved by the Massachusetts Department of Pu blic Utilities (the “Department”) in D.P.U. 09

- 116 through 09

- 127 and as submitted in each PA’s 2012 MTM dated October 28, 2011. The PAs were able to attain historic levels of energy savings while maintaining budgetary control and complying with the direc tive of the Green Communities Act to seek all cost

- effective en ergy efficiency opportunities. The 2012 goals were intentionally designed to be very challenging stretch goals, and achievements in savings and benefits reached unprecedented levels in Massach usetts for residential, low

- income, and commercial and industrial (“C&I”) programs. The PAs successfully implemented the ir programs in the field while also continuing this unprecedented ramp

- up of spending and savings levels for energy efficiency programs to meet goals not just for program year 2012, but for the full life of the three

- year plans, and to sow the seeds for additional savings going forward.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 3 of 14 4

The accomplishments of 2012 were achieved despite a slower

- than

- expected recovery in the economy, low n atural gas prices, and a significant increase in savings goals. In the wake of these challenges, the PAs continued to proactively work toward developing new delivery methods to reach more customers and to encourage customers to move forward with greater c ommitments and investments in energy efficiency. For example, during 2012, the PAs focused on refining their marketing approach to achieve deeper savings from participating customers, and worked diligently to reach a broader range of customers to implemen t all cost

- effective program offerings. The PAs also continued to develop new technologies and new initiatives in 2012 in order to expand programming efforts and achieve their goals.

The Program Administrators continued to engage in very high levels of in tegration, coordination

, and cooperation

– all of which are hallmarks of the 2010

- 2012 T hree

- Y ear P lan s . Examples of this statewide coordination in 2012 include the establishment of consistent guidelines and protocols for delivery of the Voluntary Accelerated Rebate Pilot, which will be implemented in 2013, and continued expansion of upstream product offerings.

In 2012, the Program Administrators created the Evaluation Management Committee (“EMC”)

, similar to the successful C&I and Residential Manag ement Committees. The EMC, comprised of PA representatives and the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (“EEAC” or “Council”) consultants, serves as a steering committee for statewide evaluation issues. The EMC plans, prioritizes

, and delinea tes the research studies to be undertaken. The PAs worked together to engage in 25 studies across a wide span of program sectors in 2012, underscoring the fact that the evaluation, measurement

, and verification (“EM&V”) of these program offerings remains a critical and vital tool for both PAs and interested stakeholders in an ever

- changing marketplace.

The Program Administrators continued to be actively engaged with the EEAC and worked collaboratively with the EEAC’s consultants to meet detailed reporting and data collection deadlines in 2012. The PAs review ed and expand ed upon many areas of policy and reporting, including continuing accurate data development, evaluation and measurement of successes and areas in need of modification, transparent codes and standards, and building the framework necessary to ensure the ability to continue to offer successful and sustainable energy efficiency programs in the Commonwealth.

In addition, the PAs were at the forefront of creating a culture of sustainability through public education . In May 2012, the PA s hosted an Appreciative Inquiry Summit, the first of its kind for energy efficiency in Massachusetts, which provided a venue for a diverse array of nearly 300 key stakeholders, including customers, civic leaders, con tractors, key trade allies, energy efficiency experts, and other s , to provide the PAs with insights to guide efforts designed to continue to create a culture of sustainability in the Commonwealth. Additionally, s ome PAs hosted an Energy Efficiency Confere nce and Expo in 2012, which featured a full day of programming focused primarily on business and municipal customers.

Throughout 2012, the PAs continued their efforts to integrat e gas and electric energy efficiency services and expand statewide marketing e fforts, which, through the use of the Mass Save brand,Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 4 of 14 4

continued to be an integral part of promoting energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts. The 2012 marketing campaign introduced a renewed, simplified Mass Save message.

Simultaneously with the activ ities and achievements noted above, the Program Administrators devoted considerable time and effort in 2012 to developing their 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year E nergy E fficiency P lans (“2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plans”)

. During the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan development p rocess, each PA focused on increasing savings goals and reducing costs, streamlining the participation process in all sectors

, and realigning outreach and delivery efforts to be more customer

- focused, all of which built on the achievements and lessons lear ned from 2010 through 2012.

Given the unprecedented nature of these efforts, and the ambitiou s goals established in the 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plans, program year 2012 performance has been an outright success for energy efficiency in Massachusetts. Over the term of the 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year P lans, the Program Administrators have achieved unprecedented levels of savings and benefits within budget, and look forward to continuing these efforts and achieving additional successes going forward.

A. Purpose of Annual R eport

The Cape Light Compact is pleased to provide its Annual Report for 2012. The purpose of the Annual Report is to:

● Provide a comparison of the Compa ct ’s planned, preliminary year

- end, and evaluated (where applicable) expenses, savings, and benefits at the portfolio, sector, and program levels for the program year.

● Identify significant 2 variances between the Compact ’s planned and evaluated costs, savings, and benefits for the program year, and discu ss reasons for such variances.

● Discuss how program perf ormance during the program year informs the Compact ’s proposed modifications to program implementation, if any, during upcoming years.

● Describe the EM&V act ivities undertaken by the Compact that have not been included in previous Annual Reports, and explai n how the results of the EM&V studies impact program cost

- effectiveness.

● If the Compact received performance incentives, they would be described in this Annual Report

. 3

2 Unless otherwise noted, “significant” variances are defined throughout this Annual Report as variances of +/

- 20 percent or more between the stated values.

3 As a public entity and municipal aggreg ator, the Cape Light Compact does not collect any performance incentives. As such, this section of the Annual Report is not applicable to the Cape Light Compact.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 5 of 14 4

B. Organization of Annual Report

The Compact ’s 2012 Annual Report is organized as follows:

● Section I.C provides summary information on program performance at the portfolio and sector levels.

● Section II provides detailed information on program performance at the sector and program levels for the residential, low

- income, and C&I sectors.

● Section III provides detailed information on the EM&V studies included in the Annual Report for each sector.

● Section IV addresses statutory budget requirements.

● Section V would address the Program Administrator’s performance incentives if it applied to the Compac t

.

● Section VI addresses energy efficiency audits conducted during the past five years , where applicable

.

● Section VII consists of Appendices A through F

, which provide further detailed supporting documentation for this report.

C. Summary of Program Portfolio

T he purpose of this section is to provide summary information on program performance at the portfolio and sector levels.

To better reflect a full year of planned program activity and a focus on three

- year plan goals, the 2012 planned values in this report w ere derived by taking the difference between the Cape Ligh t Compact's 2011 MTM (D.P.U. 10

- 147) and the Cape Light Compact's 2011 Annual Report (D.P.U. 12

- 54) and adding it as carryover to the Cape L ight Compact's 2012 MTM (D.P.U. 11

- 116).

In 201 2 , t he Cape Light Compact invested 53 percent more funds toward energy efficiency programs and services in our communities than in the 201 1 program year. Since the passage of the Green Communities Act and implementation of all available cost

- effective efficie ncy opportunities, the Compact expenditures have increased from approximately $5 million annually to over $25 million

. T his more than quintupling of investments in energy efficiency represents the Towns ’ and Counties ’ continued commi tment to serving our c ustomers.
The Cape Light Compact highlights just a few of the many accomplishments in this third year of its 201 0

- 2012 T hree

- Y ear P lan:Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 6 of 14 4

● We c elebrated the 2012 Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (“ NEEP ”) Business Leaders Award for Energy Efficiency fo r our customer, the Sea Crest Beach Hotel, 4 a premier lodging and conference destination in Falmouth, Massachusetts that made maximizing energy efficiency a top priority when undertaking a $15 million overhaul of the resort, with everything from new insula tion and windows, high efficiency Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (“HVAC”) and lighting fixtures, to room occupancy sensors and water saving measures throughout the hotel.

● We r eceived, along with other regional PAs, the 2012 ENERGY STAR® Award for Sustained Excellence for the Residential Products Initiative, and 2012 ENERGY STAR® for Hom es Leadership in Housing Award.

● We c ompleted a significant number of high

- profile

, large customer projects and commitments that more than doubled our large C&I p rogram investments in 2012 over the prior year

, including:

o A new construction project that doubled the size of a major regional ice arena, without increasing energy costs

– an estimated annual energy savings of more than 500,000 kWh through measures such as a new Green Machine refrigeration system that reduces the energy needed to freeze and condition the ice, building envelope improvements such as a low

- emissivity ( low

- e ) ceiling and 3.5

- inch thick foam insulation in rink walls, and using rejected

wa ste heat from the rink refrigeration system to help meet water heating load;

o A state

- of

- the

- art “tunnel” batch washer system installed at Cape Cod Commercial Linen Services

– the largest on

- Cape provider of commercial laundering services for the Cape and South Shore’s large hospitality industry. The multi

- chambered washer is almost 40 feet long and is estimated to save annually more than 100,000 kWh of electricity, 80,000 therms of natural gas

, and over 20 million gallons of water;

o Installation of two new 250

- ton air

- cooled optimized

- IPLV screw chillers at one of Cape Cod’s only two regional hospitals, with expected annual energy savings of more than 430,000 kWh; and

o An Advanced Buildings project at Massachusetts Maritime Academy’s new library building, th e American Bureau of Shipping Information Commons, which houses the Academy’s archives and museum, library

, and 360

- degree ship’s bridge simulator, and includes geothermal heating and cooling and a day

- lighting design wi th louvers on exterior windows.

4 For more information, see http://www.neep.org/neep

- supporters/business

- leadership/case

- studies/sea

- crest

beach

- hotel

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 7 of 14 4

● We s ign ed a multi

- year energy efficiency memorandum of understanding with one of the world’s largest private, non

- profit ocean research institutions

.
Tables 5 I.A and I.B provide summary information on program performance at the portfolio and customer sector le vels, respectively.

As shown in Table 1.A above, significant variances ex ist at the portfolio level for:

● All metrics between p lanned and preliminary values, except a nnualized e nergy and

w inter d emand savings; and

● Most metrics between planned and evaluated values, with the exception of t otal p rogram

c osts, w inter d emand savings, and Total Resource Cost (“ TRC ”) costs

. With regard to the variances between planned and evaluated results, the Compact’s 2012 planned values we re develope d as part of the Compact’s 2012 MTM su bmitted in October of 2011, therefore the plan values do not reflect the results of evaluations contained in th e Compact’s 2011 Annual Report filed in Augu st of 2012. The Compact’s 2012 preliminary results update the planned values based on actual production, but do not reflect the results of evaluations. The

5 The Cape Light Compact is also providing the Department of Public Utilities with working Microsoft® Excel spreadsheets for all of the tables included in this Annual Report. Such tables include all formulas and functions used in each table.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 8 of 14 4

variances between preliminary and evaluated resu lts are therefore attributable to evaluations contained in b oth the Compact’s 2011 and 2012 Annual Rep orts.

Each sector contributed to these variances as follows:

● Re sidential (for l ifetime e nergy , l ifetime d emand, s ummer d emand, lifetime non

- electric benefits (“ N EB ”)

, TRC b enefits, n et b enefits , and BCR ): Please reference section II.A.1 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this sector.

● Low

- Income (for l ifetime d emand, w inter d emand, lifetime NEB, TRC b enefits, and n et b enefits ) : Please reference section II.B.1 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this sector.

● C&I ( total program costs, l ifetime e nergy, a nnual e nergy, l ifetime d emand, s ummer d emand, w inter d eman d, and lifetime NEB ): Please reference section II.C.1 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this sector.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 9 of 14 4

As shown in Table 1.B above, significant variances exist at the sector level between planned and evaluated values for r esidential TRC b enefits, n et b enefits , and BCR ; and l ow

- i ncome T RC b enefits and n et b enefits. There are no significant variances at the C&I sector level

.

● Within the r esidential sector, the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation, Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment, Residential Multi

- F amily Retrof it, Residential Mass Save

, Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting

, and Residential ENER GY STAR® Appliance s programs are contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values. Please reference section II.A.2 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances by program within this sector.

● Within the l ow

- i ncome sector, the Low

- Income Residential New Construction and Low

- Income Retrofit programs are contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values. Please reference section II.B.2 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances by program within this sector.

● Within the C&I sector, the C&I New Construction and Major Renovation, C&I Large Retrofit

, and C& I Small Retrofit programs are contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values. Please reference section II.C.2 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances by program within this sector.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 10 of 14 4

II. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

The purpose of this section is to provide detailed information on program performance at the sector and program levels for the r esidential, l ow

- i ncome, and C&I sectors.

A. Residential Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2012, the Compact implemented the following residential programs and residential pilots:

Residential Programs

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

● Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit

● Residential Mass Save

● Residential ENERGY STAR ® Lighting

● Residential ENERGY STAR ® Appliances

Residential Pilots

● Residential Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot

● Residential New Construction

– Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

● Residential New Construction

– Multi

- Family (4

- 8 story) Statewide Pilot

● Residential New Construction

– Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

● Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot (Non

- Statewide)

● Power Monitor Pilot (Cape Light Compact

- Specific)

Tables II.A.1 through II.A.3 provide summary information on the performance of the residential programs at the sector, end use, and program levels, respectively.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 11 of 14 4

Within the r esidential sector, the following programs are contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values:

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (for all metrics except t otal p rogram

c osts and TRC b enefit s ): Please reference section II.A. 3. a for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (for t otal p rogram c osts , l ifetime d emand,

s ummer d emand, w inter d emand, TRC c osts, n et b enefits

, and BCR): Please reference section II.A. 3. b for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this
program.

● Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit (for l ifetime e nergy, l ifetime d emand, s ummer d emand, winter demand, lifetime NEB, TRC b enefits, n et b enefits

, and BCR): Please reference section II.A. 3. c for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this
program.

● Residential Mass Save (for l ifetime e nergy, a nnual e nergy, l ifetime d emand, s ummer d emand, w inter d emand, lifetime NEB , TRC b enefits, n et b enefits, and BCR ): Please reference section II.A. 3. d for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 12 of 14 4

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting (for TRC c osts and BCR): Please reference section II.A. 3. e for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this
program.

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances (for t otal p rogram c osts, w inter d emand, lifetime NEB, TRC c osts, n et b enefits, and BCR): Please reference section II.A. 3. f for a more detailed di scussion of the cause of the variances for this program.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 13 of 14 4Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 14 of 14 4Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 15 of 14 4Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 16 of 14 4

Sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 provide more detailed information on the performance of each residential program and pilot, respectively.

2. Residential Sector Performance Highlights

During 2012, th e Program Administrators built upon existing residential programs and significantly expanded initiatives to increase participation in all residential programs. Selected highlights are presented below.

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation 6

– In 2012, with 121 communities adopting the Stretch Energy Code, this program faced a market in which energy codes continued to change. Single family development picked up from previous years, but opportunities to capture future energy savings became increasi ngly difficult due to evolving code requirements. To address these barriers, the Program Administrators offered technical assistance as well as incentives to exceed the baseline. The PAs also increased market penetration while providing energy savings fo r residents. During 2012, the Program Administrators provided multiple trainings and participated in several recruitment events targeted at builders and trade allies new to performance

- based construction. The PAs continued to participate in three pilots ( Residential New Construction

– Major Renovation Statewide Pilot; Residential New Construction

– Multi

Family (4

- 8 story) Statewide Pilot ; and Residential New Construction

– Lighting Design Statewide Pilot ) multi

- family new construction, major renovations, and lighting design) to aid in identifying the next generation of energy savings opportunities. It is expected that builders will continue to look to the Program Administrators to provide training, technical assistance

, and incentives to meet the new ene rgy code. A t the end of 2012, over 40 Home Energy Rating System (“HERS”) companies participated in the program. Finally, the Program Administrators in western Massachusetts continued to participate in

6 Prior to 2012, the program was called Massachusetts New Construction with ENERGY STAR ®

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 17 of 14 4

the Western Massachusetts Storm Recovery Program . The storm recovery program contacted all of the communities affected by the 2011 tornado and distributed thousands of flyers to builders, building code offices, homeowners, tornado relief centers, town meetings/events

, and churches.

● Residential Cooling & Heat ing Equipment

– In 2012, the Program Administrators exceeded their annual statewide goals for cooling equipment, duct sealing

, and the early replacement of old, inefficient equipment in the Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment program, also known as the “ COOL Smart ” program . PAs held quality installation training sessions, including trainings on system design, duct diagnostics, brushless fan motors

, and ENERGY STAR ® HVAC quality installation. A customer incentive for specified eligible energy

- efficient heat p ump w ater h eaters (“HPWH”) installed to replace an existing electric water heater, or for new construction

, was introduced in 2012. Over 2

, 100 HPWHs were installed in 2012 statewide , with retail stores stocking and heavily promoting this energy

- sav ing measure. In October, the Program Administrators held their annual COOL Talk meeting. This event is a forum for the PAs to share the program offerings, as well as a chance for contractors to articulate their own experiences with the program. The PAs also continued to offer technical support to contractors engaged in quality efforts, and continued to participate in joint electric and gas integration at events such as the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors Annual Trade Show and the annual GasNetworks ® fall conference.

● Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit

– At the conclusion of 2012, most PAs were close to or had already exceeded program goals. Energy

- efficient lighting, instant savings measures, and weatherization continued to be in high demand. The mul ti

- family working group, consisting of representatives from both residential and C&I, coordinated between the two sectors to deliver comprehensive, whole

- facility energy efficiency services.

The Multi

- Family Market Integrator continued to be an invaluable resource to the multi

family program in 2012, as illustrated by a year

- over

- year increase of 25 percent in incoming calls for multi

- family services. This trend of successfully enrolling faci lities can be credited to capitalizing on previously established relationships with facility owners/property managers, as well as the increased effort to create brand recognition through statewide marketing efforts.

● Residential Mass Save

– Program y ear 2012 was the first full year of the market model. Two groups of Residential Mass Save participating contractors, Home Performance Contractors (“HPCs”) and Independent Installation Contractors (“IICs”), with over 90 contractor companies statewide, provided services in addition to those offered by the lead vendor.

The Contractors Best Practices Working Group continued to highlight the PAs’ commitment to ongoing communication with participating contractors in the program. The group served as a forum to provi de an open line of communication between HPCs, IICs, lead vendors

, and PAs to discuss any matters related to the program with an independent third

- party facilitator.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 18 of 14 4

In 2012, the HEAT Loan program continued to offer loans ($500 to $25,000), and the offerin gs were expanded to include central air conditioning and residential electric customers in individually metered condominium units. The PAs saw an increase in both the average loan amount and the number of customers financing multiple measures. In additio n, the PAs implemented various initiatives throughout the year, including pre

weatherization and early boiler replacement incentives, sales and technical trainings, and marketing bonuses.

● Residential ENERGY STAR ® Lighting

– In 2012, the Residential ENERGY STAR ® Lighting program produced strong results, with all the PAs meeting or exceeding savings goals. The ENERGY STAR ® qualification of new LED products sparked new manufacturer interest in the Program Administrators’ residential programs. Manufacturing p artners were eager to create and enhance LED Negotiated Cooperative Promotions with new and existing retail partners. As a result of increased LED product availability, the Massachusetts Program Administrators were able to surpass their statewide LED bulb goal by 362 percent and their LED fixture goal by 98 percent.

● Residential ENERGY STAR ® Appliances

– The Residential ENERGY STAR ® Appliances program results varied by Program Administrator and measure. ENERGY STAR ® qualified refrigerators and freezers, as well as the second refrigerator and freezer recycling program, were once again strong performers for this program. Pool pumps, computers, and ENERGY STAR ® televisions also performed well. Other measures, such as advanced power strips, LCD monitors, and room air cleaners, lagged behind expectatio ns. The PAs introduced a short

- term mark down of ENERGY STAR ® room air conditioners with an Energy Efficiency Rating of 10.8 or higher through independent retailers.

A more detailed discussion of each of the abov e programs follows.

3. Residential Programs

a. Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation program was to capture lost opportunities, encourage the construction of energy

- effic ient homes, and drive the market to one in which new homes are moving towards net

- zero energy.
Targeted Customers: The target market for this program included homebuilders, contractors, architects/designers, trade allies, HERS raters, homebuyers, realtors , developers, low

- income and affordable housing developers, code officials, and consumers in the market for new homes or major renovations.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a newly constructed dwelling unit.

Beginning in 2013 , the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as setCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 19 of 14 4

forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Envelope

● Refrigeration

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered by each Program Administrator in its service territory and coordinated regionally through the Joint Manage ment Committee (“JMC”). The JMC contractor was responsible for tracking and reporting program activity and advised the JMC on necessary program changes and enhancements. A separate third

- party vendor conducted quality assurance/quality control (“ QA/QC ”) of field activities. The JMC utilized a market

based network of trained contractors who offered energy efficiency and r ating services to homebuilders.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, Ja nuary 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.4 provides information on the performance of Residential New Construction & Major Renovation program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 20 of 14 4

This program had 198 participants in 2012, which is more than double the amount of program participants in either 2010 or 2011 . This increase in participants can be attributed to increased program recognition, as well as the recruitment of several large projects. De spite the general trend toward smaller single

- family projects within the Compact’s territory, there were a record number of large multi

- family new construction projects. The number of participants per project was higher than expected, enabling the Cape Li ght Compact to keep costs low while reaching the increased volume of customers. The increase in participation and the size of the projects completed resulted in a decrease in program costs per participant.

Due to the nature of multi

- family units , which ge nerally install hard

- wired fixtures, the number of compact fluorescents lamps (“ CFLs ”) was less than expected. Thus, lifetime energy savings

we re in line with expectations, w hile annualized energy savings we re lower than expected, which

cause d the average energy measure life to increase. Annualized summer and winter demand savings decreased, while lifetime demand savings increased slightly, which cause d the average demand measure life to increase.

The decrease in annualized energy savings, annualized summ er demand savings, and annualized winter demand savings can all be attributed to the decrease in anticipated lighting measures. While heating, cooling, and hot water measures tend to have higher savings per unit than lighting measures, the program initial ly planned to have a higher percentage of program savings provided by screw

- in lighting measures. The increase in savings associated with the increase in heating,Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 21 of 14 4

cooling

, and hot water measures installations was not significant enough to offset the decrease in savings associated with fewer lighting measure installations as compared to plan.

The lifetime NEBs increased due to the increase in heating measures installed. Hea ting measures provide substantive other resource and participant benefits.

As stated previously, the Compact’s 2012 budget is a combination of carryover from 2011 and anticipated 2012 expenditures needed beyond the 2011 carryover. The actual TRC costs in 2011 were lower than originally projected in the 201 1 MTM process. In 2012, the TRC costs continued to be lower than projected to achieve the savings.

Because the TRC benefits associated with the program increased while the TRC costs decre ased, the net be nefits and BCR we re greater than planned, and the program wa s cost

- effective.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows:

● MA RNC Program Incremental Cost Report: This report provides estimates of the incr emental costs per square foot involved in building high efficiency homes that m eet the criteria of the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation p rogram. Incremental costs (costs above those of typical homes built outside the program) are estimated for single family, low

- rise multi

- family buildings of three or fewer stories, and mid

- to high

- rise multi

- family buildings of four stories or more for each i ncentive option offered by the p rogram. The study had no impact on savings. The study is discusse d in more detail in Section III, Study 1.

The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report , the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 20 1 5. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II ( January 31, 2013).

b. Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment program , also known as the COOL Smart program, was to raise residential consumer awareness and market shar e of properly installed high

- efficiency cooling equipment and systems, and increase market share of ENERGY STAR ® furnaces equipped with an electronically commuted motor.

Targeted Customers: The program targeted residential customers in the market to purch ase new or replacement HVAC equipment, including: new systems in existing and new homes (new systems); replacement systems in existing homes (new equipment/old systems), including the early retirement of existing equipment; and improvements in operational systems in existingCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 22 of 14 4

homes (new equipment/old systems). The program also targeted: HVAC contractors and technicians; suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors of HVAC equipment; new

- home builders; and remodeling contractors.

Definition of Program Partic ipant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account served under this program.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses: HVAC

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered by each Program Administrator in its service territory. Delivery was through a common vendor selected through a common Request for Proposal (“ RFP ”) . Whenever poss ible, there was coordination with the related gas Program Administrator’s initiatives. To this end, the COOL Smart and GasNetworks’ High Efficiency Heating and Hot Water (also known as “HEHE”) programs worked to procure a single, joint circuit rider to su pport both programs in the field. Program initiatives were also piggybacked onto the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation and Residential Mass Save/Home Energy Services (“HES”) programs:

● Participating residential new construction program builders and their HVAC contractors were referred to the COOL Smart program for training and Quality Installation Verification (“QIV”). Whenever appropriate, these training s were jointly provided with GasNetworks.

● HES participants were referred to COOL Smart for HVAC measures using COOL Smart literature, which is part of the standard HES information package.

Quality control follow

- up inspections were performed by independent inspectors on up to 10 perce nt of installations to verify equipment installation and performance.

The program continued to use equipment distributors to assist customers with filling out their rebate forms, to sell high

- efficiency and QIV

- related technology, and to provide indoor tra ining labs for HVAC contractors.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Thr ee

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, Janua ry 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.5 provides information on the performance of Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 23 of 14 4

The s ignificant variances for this program can be attributed to the change from the planned measure mix to the actual measure mix. The plan expected more cooling

- only measures to be installed than heating/cooling and water heating measures

, more energy savings were expec ted to be provided from the heating/cooling measures

, and most of the demand savings were expected to be provided by water heating measures. During the program year, significant ly more heating and motor measures and fewer cooling and water heating measure s were installed than anticipated.

Program costs were higher than expected due to the increase in heating and motor measures, which tend to have higher incentive and TRC costs relative to cooling

- only measures. There was a significant, unanticipate d incre ase in participation due to the quantity of piggyback motor measures installed with gas heating systems

. T his increase in participation can likely be attributed to the successes of both the gas heating equipment and HEAT Loan programs. A l arger increase in participants as compared to program costs caused the program costs per participant to decrease.

Lifetime and annualized energy savings were higher than planned due to the increase in heating and motor equipment and lower

- than

- expected installations of c ooling equipment. Heating equipment typical ly provides greater energy savings per unit than cooling equipment.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 24 of 14 4

The life time and summer demand savings we re also impacted by the change in measure mix. Fewer cooling and water heating measures were installe d as compared to plan, both of which strongly contribute d to demand savings.

Lifetime NEBs were higher than expected due to the increase in motor installations. Motors provide the greatest NEBs as compared to heating or cooling measures

.
Because the TRC b enefits associated with the program decreased while the TRC costs increased, th e net benefits and BCR we re lower than planned, and the program wa s cost

- effective.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows :

● 2012 Residential Heating, Water Heating, and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: Net

- to

Gross, Market Effects, and Equipment Replacement Timing: The study updated Net

- to

Gross (“NTG”) ratios for certain prescriptive equipment available in the Residential Heating & Water Heating and Residenti al Cooling & Heating Equipment p rograms. It also analyzed net market effects (“NME”) and looked into the t iming of equipment replacement. Results indicate that NTG ratios are slightly higher than previously estimated for many measures. Further, NME analyses and data provide qualitative evidence to support this finding. The study also found program

- induced a ccelerated replacement of equipment that was not being captured in savings estimates ; however

, the level of replacement varied by equipment being installed. The net effect for the Compact
was to decrease savings and benefits for the 2012 evaluated results

. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 2.

● Massachusetts Residential Non

- Energy Impacts (NEIs): Deemed NEI Values Addressing Differences in NEIs for Heating, Cooling, and Water Heating Equipment that is Early Replacement Compared to Replace on Failure : This memorandum provides adjusted deemed non

- energy impacts (“ NEI ”) values that address the differences in NEIs for residential heating, cooling, and water heating equipment that is early replacement compared to replace on failure. T hese deemed NEIs update the NEIs provided in the residential NEI report submitted by the PAs to the Department on August 15, 2011 in their 2010 Energy Efficie ncy Annual Reports in D.P.U. 11

- 63 through D.P.U. 11

- 73, and D.P.U. 11

- 126 . The results of this s tudy decreased net lifetime benefits for 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 25.

The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. Wi th respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact wil l review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 25 of 14 4

c. Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The p urpose of the Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit program was to address the energy efficiency retrofit opportunities in facilities with five or more residential dwelling units in the market rate sector.

Targeted Customers: This program targeted residential multi

- family facilities with five or more dwelling units

. Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a dwelling uni t served under this program.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Motors and Drives

● Refrigeration

● Domestic Hot Water

● Building Envelope

● End Use Behavior

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered cooperatively by the gas and electric Program Administrators. The Multi

- Family Market Integrator was responsible for facilitating the delivery of program services as well as acting as the conduit for participant inquiries to ensure that participants were not inconvenienced by having to contact multiple parties direc tly during the project lifecycle.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Th ree

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 26 of 14 4

Table II.A.6 provides information on the performance of the Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit
program.

In general, the Cape Light Compact does not have many traditio nally defined Residential Multi

- Family customers (for example, high rises and apartment complexes) in its territory

. The majority of the Cape Light Compact’s r esidential m u lti

- f amily customers are condominium

owners. While electric measures like lighting and thermostats are easily implemented in this market , there are more significant barriers to condominium owners for implement ing weatherization measures. In many cases
, t hey need to involve the condominium association in the decision making process in order to implement a majority of the recommended weatherization measures.

In 2011, this program fell short of its goals, and the Cape Light Compact aimed to make up for this shortfall in 2012 by installing more weatherization measures and a similar amount of lighting measures as actually installed in 2011. Over the course of 2012, the program ended up installing more lighting measures and fewer weatherization measures than an ticipated. Overall, the program served more customers than expected. While costs were in line with planned program spending, the increased amount of participants resulted in lower program costs per participant.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 27 of 14 4

Annualized and lifetime energy savings were higher than anticipated, with lifetime energy savings experiencing a greater increase ; therefore

, t he average energy measure life wa s greater than anticipated. Annualized and lifetime demand savings were lower than anticipated, with lifetime demand savin gs experiencing a greater decrease ; therefore

, t he average demand measure life wa s less than anticipated.

Energy savings were higher than expected due to the increase in lighting measures, as well as higher than anticipated savings per electric weatheriza tion job

. Lifetime, annualized summer, and annualized winter demand savings were all lower than planned because of the change in measure mix. As noted above, the program did not see as much weatherization work completed as expected. The Cape Light Compa ct continues to work with its implementation vendor to explore opportunities to increase whole

- facility enrollment for condominium associations as well as increase implementation rates of recommended measures.

Lifetime NEBs were also impacted by the chang e in measure mix mentioned above. Weatherization measures have greater non

- electric benefits than lighting measures. Fewer weatherization measures installed caused lifetime NEBs to decrease, which the increase in lifetime lighting NEBs did not offset.

TR C benefits decreased primarily due to the decrease in l ifetime NEBs caused by the change in measure mix. TRC benefits associated with the program decreased more than TRC costs decreased, causing the net benefits and BCR to be lowered than planned. The pr ogram remained
cost

- effective.

The re are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program

. The significant variance s from preliminary to evaluated results are attributable to the following evaluations filed with the Compact’s 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- 54: the Demand Impact Model ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 9)

, which updated load shapes and coincidence factors for the program ; and the Multi

- Famil y Program Impact Analysis ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 6)

, which collected information to inform program attribution, including measurement of installation rates, persistence, free

- ridership, and spillover

. The Compact regularly reviews best avai lable information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 28 of 14 4

d. Residential Mass Save/Home Energy Services

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential Mass Save/HES program was to provide residential customers with energy efficiency recommendations that enable them to identify and initiate the process of installing cost

- effective energy efficiency improvements.

Targeted Cus tomers: The HES target market is all non

- low

- income residential customers living in single

- family houses or one

- to four

- unit buildings that are not part of a larger site where an association exists (such as a condominium association with multiple four

- un it buildings). The program aims to reach the aforementioned customers who are interested in making their homes more energy

- efficient. The HES program is fuel

- blind.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric acco unt served under this program.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses :

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Envelope

● Refrigeration

Delivery Mechanism: Residential Mass Save/HES was implemented by each PA’s competitively procured lead vendor.

The program was delivered by lead vendors selected through a competitive bidding process. Lead vendors were responsible for managing and training market

- based participants

, such as participating Independent Installation Contractors and Home Performance Contractors

. Additional lead vendor responsibilities included:

● Consistent statewide training

● Data reporting

● Achieving aggr essive savings

● Customer satisfaction

● Quality control standardsCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 29 of 14 4

● Scheduling requirements

● Technical assistance

● Maintaining and reporting health and safety information

Two groups of Residential Mass Save participating contractors, HPCs and IICs, provided

serv ices in addition to those services offered by the lead vendor. All participating contractors had to meet program eligibility and requirements. HPCs independently recruited customers, provided Home Energy Assessments (“HEAs”)

, and implemented weatherizati on measures. IICs provided installation of weatherization measures for those customers who received an HEA from the lead vendor. IICs also had the opportunity to independently recruit customers and refer them to the lead vendor for the HEA.

In order to r eceive incentives or program rebates, customers were required to have an HEA through either the PA’s lead vendor or via a participating HPC to identify and prioritize all
cost

- effective energy efficiency improvements. Insulation work, whether performed by an HPC or IIC, is subject to quality control inspection(s) performed by the PA vendor or third

- party vendor. This ensured that high quality was maintained, and that installations met Building Performance Institute standards or similar standards set by th e PAs.

The gas and electric PAs remained under contract with Competitive Resources, Inc. (“CRI”) , a third

- party Quality Control vendor responsible for performing QC inspections of program implementation vendors and participating contractors. The QC vendor provided valuable information and feedback to the Program Administrators on program successes and identified areas of possible improvement.

The Program Administrators are working together toward a “best practices” approach to provide more coordinated stat ewide training to reinforce quality installation techniques for the HES program. It is expected that training requirements for contractors to retain their status as a HES participating contractor will increase over time. Additionally, contractors must ma intain a high level of customer satisfaction to continue in the program.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan w as approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.7 provides information on the performance of the Residential Mass Save program.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 30 of 14 4

In 2011, this program completed fewer insulation and air sealing jobs than originally planned, and installed more lighting measures than anticipated. In 2012, the transition to the market model led to a couple of delays in implementation as th e program participants were not fully on board until the second quarter of 2012. Originally, the Cape Light Compact planned to compensate for the 2011 shift in measure mix by installing more insulation and air sealing and fewer lighting measures as compar ed to the 2011 Annual Report. During the course of 2012, however, the 2011 trends held constant as customers received lighting measures and thermostats (which have lower costs and shorter measures lives) through their assessments, but insulation and air s ealing (which have higher costs and longer measure lives) were backlogged in 2012 as the transition was completed.

Participants in the Residential Mass Save program have steadily increased over the three

- year period, with 2012 seeing the highest number of participants. The high number of participants in 2012 wa s partly due to the increase in the number of assessments because the Compact widely marketed the programs

. T he 2012 measure mix described above, combined with the increase in participants, resulted in lower program costs per participant than expected.

Annualized energy savings were not significantly impacted

, whereas lifetime energy savings decreased significantly due to the decrease in weatherization measures. The increase in lighting measures all owed the annualized energy savings to remain in line with planned expectations. The increase in lighting measures, which have shorter measure lives than weatherization measures, reduced the average energy measure life.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 31 of 14 4

The lifetime and annualized summer d emand savings we re lower than expected

, while the annualized winter demand savings we re higher than expected due to the measure mix mentioned above. Insulation and air sealing have greater summer

- based savings since they provide savings during the hotter months, so the decrease in such measures decreased the lifetime and annualized summer demand savings. Lighting measures have greater winter

- based savings since they are used more often during the darker months, so the increase in lighting measures increas ed the annualized winter demand savings. Lighting measures also have a comparably shorter measure life, which explains the reduction in average measure life on the demand side.

L ifetime NEB s were lower than expected due to the lower number of insulation and air sealing jobs, which save other fuels during the colder months and provide greater non

- electric

, non

- resource benefits than lighting measures.

TRC benefits we re lower than planned due to few er weatherization jobs than expected. Because the total benefits associated with the program decreased while the total resource costs increased, the net benefits and BCR we re lower than planned, though the program remained cost

- effective.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows:

● HES Realization Rate Results Memo: This study produced PA

- specific realization rates (the ratio of ex ante to ex post savings) used to adjust insulation and air sealing savings

. The study decrease d program savings for the Compact ’s 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 3.

● 2012 Home Energy Services Pre

- Weatherization Initiative Evaluation: This evaluation assessed the impact of add itional incentives on a customer’s decision to overcome pre

weatherization barriers (overcoming these barriers make s them eligible to install certain recommended HES measures). The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The stud y is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 9.

T he variance s from pr eliminary to evaluated results are also attributable to the following evaluations filed with the Compact’s 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- 54: the Demand Impact Model ( 2011 Annual R eport, Appendix C, Study 9) which updated load shapes and coincidence factors for the program ; and the 2011 Home Energy Services Net

- to

- Gross Evaluation ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 4)

. The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studi es that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 32 of 14 4

e. Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential ENERGY STAR ® Lighting program was to increase consumer awareness of the importance and benefits of purchasing ENERGY STAR ®

- qualified lighting products and expand the availability, consumer acceptance, and use of high

- quality energy

- efficient lighting technologies and controls.

Targeted Customers: All residential electric customers were targeted by this program.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account served under this program. In the case of upstream lighting, pa rticipants are determined by dividing units by an agreed upon factor per measure, as set forth below.

Residential Lighting Assumptions

2012 Lighting program Widget per Participant
Screw

- in Bulbs 8
Screw

- in Bulbs

- Hard to reach 4
Screw

- in Bulbs

- Specialty bulbs 8
LEDs 1 Indoor Fixture (incl. Torchieres) 2
Outdoor Fixture 2
LED Fixtures 1
Screw

- in Bulbs

- School Fundraiser 4

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses: L ighting

Delivery Mechanism: This program utilizes upstream incentive s and an online catalog channel

.
A manufacturer/retailer outreach contractor recruited and trained retailers to participate in the program, placed point

- of

- purchase materials and rebate coupons in participating retail stores, oversaw the Negotiated Cooperative Promotions (“NCP”) process, and acted as a liaison for Program Administrators, manufacturers, and retailers.

A rebate fulfillment contractor collected data and payment requests from manufacturers, retailers, and consumers, processed rebate coupons and NCPs, and provided documentation to the Program Administrators for program tracking and evaluation purposes.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 33 of 14 4

An Internet/mail

- order sales channel contractor purchased and stocked products offered through the catalog and the Residential Mass Save website, staffed a toll

- free line for customers, and processed catalog and website purchases.

Significant Di fferences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P .U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.8 provides information on the performance of the Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting program.

This program was within goal for all metrics except TRC cost s and BCR

. TRC costs were lower than expected because of lower EM&V and incentive dollars needed to achieve the same level of savings.

Because the total benefits associated with the program increased while the TRC costs decreased, the BCR is greater than planned, and the program wa s cost

- effective.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 34 of 14 4

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows:

● Massachusetts Consumer Survey Results Winter

- 2012: This consumer survey was performed in December 2012 and Ja nuary 2013 with the objective of tracking key lighting market indicators and understanding likely and actual consumer responses to the increased lighting efficiency standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( “ EISA ” ). The resul ts of thi s study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 4.

● Residential Lighting Shelf Survey and Pricing Analysis: This evaluation included a light bulb shelf

- stocking survey and a hedonic p ricing regression analysis. The results of the shelf

- stocking survey demonstrated that participating stores carry a greater proportion of
energy

- efficient compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs than incandescent or halogen bulbs. The results of thi s study di d not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in mo re detail in Section III, Study 5.

● Lighting Retailer, Supplier Perspectives on the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR ® Lighting Program: The study performed in

- depth interviews with lighting man ufacturers and high

- level buyers and conducted surveys with store managers in order to understand their perceptions of the current impacts of EISA on the lighting market

, as well as to explore the perspectives on the growing LED market and program impacts on the lighting market. The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in mo re detail in Section III, Study 6.

● Lighting Onsite Inventory and Saturation Study: The objective of this study was to perform lighti ng inventories and estimate socket saturations in Massachusetts homes. The study also examined lighting purchase behavior and searched for evidence of incandescent bulb stockpiling. Saturation for all energy

- efficient light bulbs, including CFLs, LEDs, a nd fluorescent tubes, increased to 39 percent statewide in 2013. The results of this study will increase opportunities for energy saving opportunities by increasing the number of bulbs found in indoor fixtures. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 7.

● Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program: Early Impacts of EISA : The objective of this study was to interpret the results and effects of the first full

- year of implementation of the increased lighting efficiency standards mandate d by EISA on the Massachusetts residential lighting market. The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 8.

The Compact regularly reviews best available information to ad just strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor programCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 35 of 14 4

performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.

f. Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential ENERGY STAR ® Appliances program was to increase consumer awareness of the importance and benefits of purchasing ENERGY STAR ®

- qualified appliances and electronic products, and to expand the availability, consumer acceptance, and use of high

- quality energy

- efficient technologies.

Targeted Customers : All residential electric customers were targeted by this program.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account served under this program. For the upstream com ponent of this program, a one

- for

- one assumption is made for television products and a two

- for

- one assumption is made for smart strips.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Refrigeration

● Process

Delivery Mechanism: The program utilizes upstream incentives and mail

- in rebates, which dramatically increased sales and lowered costs of product s for customers.
A manufacturer/retailer outreach contractor recruited and trained retailers to participate in the program, placed point

- of

- purchase materials and rebate forms in participating retail stores, oversaw the NCP process for televisions, and acted as a liaison for Program Administrators, manufacturers, and retailers.

A rebate fulfillment contractor collected data and payment requests from manufacturers, retailers

, and consumers, processed rebate applications and NCPs, and provided documentation to the Program Administrators for program tracking and evaluation purposes.

For recycling, the customer contacted a vendor either via Internet or telephone to schedule a pic k

- up. The vendor then issued an incentive payment to the customer and properly disposed of the appliance.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : T he Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These u pdates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year RevisionsCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 36 of 14 4

(D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.9 provides information on the performance of the Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances program.

In 2011, this program experienced greater demand in refrigerators and television s and installed fewer room air conditioners and non

- television process

- related measures (e.g., computer monitors and smart s trips) than expected. The Cape Light Compact increased its 2012 plan values for these measures in an attempt to make up for the 2011 shortfall. However, the 2012 program year did not meet its planned target for room air conditioners or non

- television
pro cess

- related measures, which impacted the costs and savings for this program. The Cape Light Compact continued to install more refrigerators and television s in 2012 than initially planned.

As stated previously, the Compact’s 2012 budget is a combination o f carryover from 2011 and anticipated 2012 expenditures needed beyond the 2011 carryover. In 2011, this program expended more than originally forecasted in the 2011 MTMs, and the budget remaining for 2012 ended up being 45 percent lower than necessary to implement the program in 2012 . As a result, this program wa s over budget for 2012.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 37 of 14 4

In 2011, the program fell short of its overall participation goals due to the measure mix changes mentioned above, which the Cape Light Compact planned to make up in 2012. During 2012, the Cape Light Compact worked to launch a room air conditioner program that did not generate planned demand. In addition, with the advent of customers purchasing tablet

- like devices, computer and monitor purchases were lower than expected. The 2012 participation le vel for this program, however, wa s consistent with the 2010 and 2011 participation levels.

The apparent increase in program costs and decrease in participants result ed in a higher program cost per participant.

Lifetime, annualized summer, and annualized winter demand savings all decreased relative to plan due to the change in measure mix mentioned above. Room air conditioners and

non

- television process measures were expected to make up the majority of program demand savings, but no t as many measures were installed as planned.

Refrigerators we re the only measures that provide NEB benefits in this program. The 2012 planned NEBs are negative

, because in 2011 the program provided more NEBs than anticipated such that the Cape Light Com pact exceeded its NEB goals for the program before the start of 2012. The increase in refrigerator rebates in 2012 relative to plan resulted in an increase in lifetime NEBs.

TRC costs we re higher than planned because of the increase in refrigerator rebate s, which have higher customer costs relative to most other measures included in the program. Due to the higher TRC costs, the program’s net benefits and BCR we re lower than projected, although the program remain ed cost

- effective.

There are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program. The variance s from preliminary to evaluated results are attributable to the Demand Impact Model evaluation that was filed in the Compact’s 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- 54 ( 2011 Annual Report , Appendix C, Study 9)

, which updated l oad s hapes and c oincidence f actors for the
program

. The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those re sults and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification unde r the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.

4. Residential Pilot Programs

The purpose of the Annual Report is to provide actual measured and verified cost, participation, savings

, and benefits data on the performance of programs. To the extent that s uch final actual data for pilot programs is available, it is provided in this report.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 38 of 14 4

a. Residential Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The Residential Deep Energy Retrofi t P ilot was implemented to investigate the potential for energy savings of at least 50 percent of total on

- site energy use through deep retrofits of existing residential buildings

, and to identify incremental savings and how to reduce the costs and challen ges associated with deep retrofits.

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis R ather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered as a pilot in order for the Program Administrators to study a new approach to achieving energy savings. The Program Administrato rs will analyze the information gathered from the pilot to determine market viability, cost

- effectiveness, and, if applicable, adoption rates.

Targeted Customers: The pilot targeted home owners, property owners, and property managers considering renovatio ns and willing to invest in extensive carbon reductions. In addition, the pilot targeted advanced building remodelers, architects, designers, trade allies, and others involved in renovation or restoration of residential buildings.

Definition of Program Pa rticipant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account served under this program

. Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Envelope

● End Use Behavior

Delivery Mechanism: Project design details and assistance to the Residential Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot contractors performing the work were handled through technical specialist
contractor and program manager.
Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal Was Measured: The overall goal of the pilot was to attract participants i nto this “deeper” energy

- savings initiative, knowing that costs and project complexities can be barriers to deep energy retrofit participation. T he Compact finished its last deep energy retrofit project in 2012.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 39 of 14 4

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discuss ed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.10 provides information on the performance of the Residential Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot. Because of the nature of the pilot programs, the table for this pilot program does not include savings and benefits. The Compact has provided all information that is available.

The Cape Light Compact’s evaluated total program costs we re significantly lower than planned due to lower participation than anticipated. Planned budgets for 2010 and 2011 were not fully spent, and while there was interest in the program, uptake was not as high as expected. Challenges of participant planning, financing

, and general project understanding continued. I n 2012

, there was one completed project.

There are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report t hat apply to this pilot program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 40 of 14 4

b. Residential Ne w Construction

– Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: Th is pilot was implemented to capture lost opportunities and to encourage energy

- efficient additions and renovations to existing homes.

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis Rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered as a pilot in order for the Program Administrators to study a new approach to achieving energy savings. The Program Administrators analyzed the information gathered from the pilot to determine market viability, cost

- effectiveness, and, if applicable, adoption rates. Following completion of the pilot, the Program Administrators reviewed the results and determined to transition the pilot as part of the HES program.

Ta rgeted Customers: This pilot targeted customers who were undergoing extensive renovations to their home and/or building an addition onto their existing home.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account served under this program.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Envelope

Delivery Mechanism: The Program Administrators, along with the JMC, originally included this pilot as an offering under the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® program, but subs equently determined it was more appropriate to offer the program as part of the HES
program for 2013 through 2015

. This pilot combines elements of the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation program (for the addition) and the HES program (for the existing portion) to provide a comprehensive whole

- house approach. Each home in the pilot had an analysis performed in order to better understand the existing structure. Recommendations were provided to the homeowner for the existing portion of the home (under a n HES model) and also to increase the energy efficiency of the new addition by a market

- based rater in the program.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: During the course of 2012, the pilot focused more extensively on contractors and expanded eligibility to include additional types of additions and rehabs.

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal Was Measured: The overall goal of the pilot was to attract participants into this “broader and deeper” ener gy

- savings initiative. Ultimately, achievement of this goal is measured by the pilot’s cost

- effectiveness.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 41 of 14 4

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2 011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.11 provides information on the performance of the Residential New Construction

– Major Renovation Statewide Pilot. Because of the nature of the pilot programs, the table for this pilot program does not include savings and benefits. The Compact has provided all information that is available.

The Cape Light Compact’s actual total pilot costs we re significantly lower than planned due to lower participation than anticipated. The planned budget for 2011 was not fully spent

, resulting in a carryover into 2012. While there was interest in the pilot , uptake was not as high as expected. Challenges to the pilot included smaller

- than

- e xpected projects and coordinating with renovation schedules. The Compact continues to look at way s to address this market.

The re are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this p ilot program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 42 of 14 4

c. Residential New Construction

— Multi

- Family (4

- 8 story) Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The pilot was implemented to broaden participation and achieve deeper savings in the multi

- family new construction 4

- 8 story category through an incentiv e design that encourages such action.

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis Rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered as a pilot in order for the Program Administrators to study a new approach to achieving energy savings. The Program Administra tors analyzed the information gathered from the pilot to determine market viability, cost

- effectiveness, and, if applicable, adoption rates. The Program Administrators utilized these pilot results and adopted this pilot into the Residential New Constructi on & Major Renovation p rogram.
Targeted Customers: This pilot targeted 4

- 8 story multi

- family new construction projects.

Definition of Program Participant: Participants are defined as the number of dwelling units served under this program.

Targeted End U ses:

● Lighting

● Hot Water

● HVAC

● Motors and Drives

● Envelope

Delivery Mechanism: This pilot was delivered by the Program Administrators and the statewide new construction program lead vender.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Progr am Design: None.

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal Was Measured: The overall goal of the pilot was to attract participants into this “broader and deeper” energy

- savings initiative. Ultimately, achievement of this goal is measured by the pilot’s cost

- effectiveness.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 2012 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modificati ons (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 43 of 14 4

Table II.A.12 provides information on the performance of the Residential New Construction

– Multi

- Family (4

- 8 story) Statewide Pilot. Because of the nature of the pilot programs, the table for this pilot program does not incl ude savings and benefits. The Compact has provided all information that is available.

Though the Cape Light Compact supports this statewide pilot, it does not have enough

m ulti

- f amily (4

- 8 story) homes in its service territory to be able to participate in this pilot. Therefore, no budget was allocated to this pilot in the plan, and there are no results from 2012 to report.

The re are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report tha t apply to this pilot program

.

d. Residential New Construction

– Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The Program Administrators worked with build/design teams and homeowners to identify innovative solutions to approach energy savings through proper lighting desig n on a portfolio level.

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis Rather than as a Full Program : This initiative was offered as a pilot in order for the Program Administrators to study a new approach to achieving energy savings. The Program Administrators analyzed the information gathered from the pilot toCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 44 of 14 4

determine market viability, cost

- effectiveness, and, if applicable, adoption rates. Following completion of the pilot in 2012, the Program Administrators incorporated this pilot into the Residential New Construct ion & Major Renovation p rogram for 2013 through 2015.

Targeted Customers: The target audience for this pilot included homebuilders, contractors, architects/designers, trade allies, HERS raters, homebuyers, realtors, developers, low

- income and affordable h ousing developers, and consumers in the market for new homes or major renovations.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account served under this program.

Targeted End Uses: High efficiency lighting and control s.
Delivery Mechanism: The Program Administrators, along with the JMC, included this pilot as an offering under the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR ® program.
Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Ho w Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal Was Measured: The overall goal of the pilot was to attract participants into this “broader and deeper” energy

- savings initiative. Ultimately, achievement of this goal is measured by the pilot’s cost

- effectiveness.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.13 provides information on the performance of the Residential New Construction

— Lighting Design Statewide Pilot. Because of the nature of the pilot programs, the table for this pilot program does not include savings and benefits. The Compact has provided all information that is available.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 45 of 14 4

The Cape Light Compact’s evaluated total program costs we re significantly lower than planned because no customers participated in the pilot in 2012. Opportunities were limited in 2012. Many of the completed new construction projects were multi

- unit, affordable housing. Because of the nature of these projects, there is not generally over

- lighting or the need for a lighting designer. Other challenges to the pilot program included coordinating with the design and construction schedules for smaller projects.

There are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this pilot program

.

e. Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot (Non

- Statewide)

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: This pilot was designed to study the reliability and energy savin gs of heat pump water heaters.

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis Rather than as a Full Program : This initiative was offered as a pilot in 2011 to determine if the initiative is cost

- effective. In 2012, this measure is included in the Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment p rogram.
Targeted Customers: This pilot targeted residential customers with stan d

- alone electric water heaters.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 46 of 14 4

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique househol d served by the pilot program.

Targeted End Uses: Hot Water

Delivery Mechanism: The HPWH s w ere installe d by a plumbin g contractor i n 2010. The units were monitored and evaluated by a third party contractor during 2011.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design : None.

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal Was Measured: The pilot’s stated goal was measured through an evaluation completed in June 2012 and filed with the Compact’s 2011 Annual Report in D

. P

. U

. 12

- 54 as described in Appendix C, Study 14 . The overall performance of the HPWHs shows great promise. In general, these HPWHs were more than twice as efficient as a traditional electric resistance tank water heater. T he evaluation found minimal issues with these new units , which performed with remarkable energy and cost savings as compared to ele ctric res istance water heaters.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 2012 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modificati ons (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.14 provides information on the performance of the Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot. Because of the nature of the pilot programs, the table for this pilot program does not include savings and benefits. The Compact has provided all information that is available.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 47 of 14 4

The Cape Light Compact’s Residential Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot concluded in 2011. In 2012

, the Compact added h eat p ump w ater h eaters as a measure in the Residenti al Cooling & Heating Equipment p rogram.

Ther e are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this pilot program

.

f. Power Mon itor Pilot (Cape Light Compact

- S pecific)

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: In 2009, the Cape Light Compact conducted Phase I of t his pilot, in an effort to gain insight to behavioral aspects of energy use. The Compact identified 91 participants on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard and installed an in

- home energy monitoring system in each participant’s home. The monitoring system enab les the participant to view their electricity consumption in real time, displaying energy usage down to the minute. Participants had access to an online dashboard, which offered participants feedback on their energy consumption and demand, savings metrics in kWh, dollars, and carbon dioxide 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 social networking sy stem with other pilot members.

In March of 2010, an independent third

- party evaluation of Phase I was completed and included in the Cape Light Compact’s 2009 Annual Report. The results of the evaluation indicated aCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 48 of 14 4

strong customer interest in the pilot, high levels of customer satisfaction with the pilot

, and significant energy savings. On average, customers saved 9.3 percent, controlling for temperature differences and for other Cape Light Compact program activity. This is equivalent to 2.9 kW h of saved electricity per day.

I n the fall of 2010, the Cape Light Compact supplemented its review of the p ilot program with qualitative in

- depth interviews of ten participants. The interviews were conducted by an independent third party and primarily discussed participants ’ thoughts an d patterns of interaction with the monitoring system and their feedback regarding suggestions on changes or features they would like to see in the energy monitoring system. Findings from these interviews provided insight into how and why participants are motivated to stay engaged with the system over longer periods of time and provide further evidence t o the evaluation’s conclusions.

As a result of the findings in the report and follow up interviews, the Compact extended the pilot by offering Phase II in 2 011 and 2012 . Phase II of the pilot planned to include both residential and commercial participants but due to networking issues, there were no commercial participants. The purpose of Phase II and its associated evaluation is to provide the basis for det ermining whether to transition the p ilot into a p rogram. The evaluation of Phase II evaluate s the savings associated with the pilot, as well as the persistence of the energy s avings identified in Phase I.

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis Rather than as a Fu ll Program : This initiative was offered as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost

- effective.

Targeted Customers: Phase I of this Pilot targeted year

- round residential customers. Phase II of this p ilot targeted year

- round residential customers, a s well as a few small commercial
customers , but as noted above there were no commercial participants.

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique household in whic h pilot hardware was installed.

Targeted End Uses: The p ilot targets all residential and commercial end uses through either motivating customers to change their behavior to save energy or to take energy saving actions.

Delivery Mechanism: The Cape Light Compact and its implementation vendor, Tendr il, Inc.

, del ivered this Pilot.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None

.
How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal Was Measured: An evaluation of the pilot’s first and second phase s has been completed.

Docket/Exhibit wher e the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting

c ertain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year RevisionsCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 49 of 14 4

(D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.A.15 provides information on the performance of the Power Monitor Pilot. Because of the nature of the pilot programs, the table for this pilot program does not include savings and benefits. The Compact has provided all information that is available.

The Cape Light Compact’s 2012 actual total progr am costs we re higher than anticipated because of statewide evaluation costs after implementation. In addition to the evaluation costs, 2012 also included costs to continue software support for the 365 parti cipants in Phase I and Phase II.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows:

● Massachusetts Cross

- Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation In tegrated Report: This report includes impact findings of behavior/f eedback programs and pilots administered by National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachusetts Electric Company

, and the Cape Light Compact during the 2012 program year. It also includes process findings for the Compact’s Smart Home Energy Monitoring Pilot ( “ SHE MP ” ) from 2009 to 2012. The study also established savings estimate ratios to adjust implementer estimates in order toCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 50 of 14 4

report savings in future years. The study had no impact on savings for the Compact. The full report is included in Section III, Study 22.

g. 2012 Energy Education Activities

The Compact is committed to energy education and outreach to its community and continues to be a nationally recognized leader in the design and implementation of its energy education activities . As a unique energy efficiency administrator and municipal aggregator, the Compact strives to support the community in efforts to encourage the development of deeper and broader knowledge of energy efficiency technology and practices, moving towards an energy

- literate society

. Toward this goal, the Compact’s 2012 Energy Education Activities continued to see a substantial increase in its outreach efforts (see Appendix E 5 for more detail). Highlights for 2012 inc lude:

● Over 100 education

- based presentations, field trips

, and all

- school Energy Carnivals: students learn the basic lessons of energy efficiency, energy forms

, and energy sources in a first

- hand, fun

, and engaging way. Over 7,000 students and teachers were reached.

● A standards

- based graduate level course for teachers to introduce and reinforce energy education concepts for the classroom

.

● Three informal science educator workshops for science and nature center staff

.

● A Teacher Workshop in partnership with NSTAR and National Energy Education Development Project (“NEED”) a nd in

- service training for school systems reaching over 200 teachers in the Compact’s service territory.

● Sponsorship for five teachers to summer teacher training programs sponsored by NEED and KidWind.

For the ninth year in a row, the Compact was proud to have our schools recognized by the NEED and the MA DOER for their outstanding work in energy education outreach to their communities:

● State Elementary Rookie of the Year

- The Forestdale School’s 5 th Grade

● State Middle School of the Year

- Bourne Middle School’s Energy Savers Club

● National and State Elementary School of the Year

- Eastham Elementary School

● State Senior School of the Year

- Sandwich High School

● National and State Special Project of the Year

- Harwich Middle School

The Com pact’s greatest successes were seen with the “kids as teachers” model

, where high school and middle school students were trained to present information on energy efficiency,Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 51 of 14 4

renewable energy, and related topics to younger students and community members. A s evidenced in requested programs from year to year, schools have moved towards adopting energy education into their yearly scope and sequence of classroom activities and thus continue to reach more individuals.

The Compact continues its collaboration with NEED of Manassas, VA, a 501(C)3 non

- profit educational organization affiliated with the Department of Energy in Washington, D.C. Using a model for science

- based facts, the Compact and NEED created curriculum materials to align with the Massachusetts stat e standards for science and technology, allowing teachers to introduce lesson plans discussing energy efficiency and conservation.

C. Low

- Income Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2012

, the Compact implemented the following low

- income programs and associated init iatives: 7

● Low

- Income Residential New Construction

● Low

- Income Retrofit 8

o Low

- Income 1

- 4 Family

o Low

- Income Multi

- Family

Tables II.B.1 through II.B.3 provide summary information on the performance of the low

- income programs at the sector, end use, and progr am/initiative levels, respectively.

7 The Compact did not offer any pilot pro grams in the low

- income sector during 2012. However, low

- income new construction customers were eligible for the R esidential New Construction

– Multi

- Family ( 4

- 8 story ) Statewide P ilot. Please see the residential pilot descriptions for more information

.

8 In their 2012 Mid

- Term Modification filings, the Program Administrators proposed a consolidation of the low

- income single

- family retrofit and low

- income multi

- family retrofit programs in order to form one low

- income retrofit program, noting the expected benefits of increasing flexibility to meet customer needs.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 52 of 14 4

Within the l ow

- i ncome sector, the following programs are contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values:

● Low

- Income Residential New Construction (for t otal p rogram c osts, l ifetime e nergy,

a nnual e nergy, l ifetime d emand, s ummer d emand, w inter d emand, lifetime NEB, TRC b enefits, TRC c osts, n et b enefits, and BCR): Please reference section II.B.a for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● Low

- Income Retrofit (for l i fetime d emand, lifetime NEB, TRC b enefits

, and n et b enefits ): Please reference section II.B.b for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 53 of 14 4Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 54 of 14 4

Section II.B.2 provides detailed information on the performance of each low

- i ncome program.

2. Low

- Income Sector Performance Highlights

During 2012, the Program Admi nistrators built upon existing low

- income programs and expanded initiatives to inc rease participation across the low

- income programs. Selected highlights are presented b elow.

Low

- Income Residential New Construction

The Low

- Income Residential New Construction p rogram provided incentives to low

- income low

- rise and high

- rise projects. Incentives were based on final achieved and verified performance of the participating project. The program also provided additional incentives for high efficiency gas and cooling equipment, along with compact fluorescent lamps and appliance rebates.

Low

- Income Retrofit

In 2012, the Program Administrators continued to leverage funds from the Department of Energy’s We atherization Assistance Program, which is administered by the Department ofCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 55 of 14 4

Housing and Community Development

, for their low

- income energy eff iciency programs. This approach provided simplicity through a seamless, integrated experience for the participants, deeper efficiency penetration consistent with a whole house/building approach, as well as the ability to reach as many low

- income residents as practicable with the greatest amount of eligible services.

In addition to public housing authorities and non

- profit facilities, “for profit” multi

- family facilities were also eligible to participate in the Low

- Income Multi

- Family initiative in 2012, as long as 50 percent of the occupants qualified as low

- income, and provided that the PA had budget dollars to serve this new market in its territory.

A more detailed discussion of each of the above programs follows.

3. Low

- Income Programs

a. Low

- Income Residential New Construction

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Low

- Income Residential New Construction program was to encourage the construction of energy

- efficient homes, and to drive the market to one in which new homes are moving towards near

- zero energ y.
Targeted Customers: The target market for this program included homebuilders, contractors, architects/designers, trade allies, HERS raters, homebuyers, realtors, developers, low

- income and affordable housing developers, code officials, and consumers in the market for new homes and/or major renovations.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a newly constructed dwelling unit.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth i n Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Refrigeration

● Hot Water

● Envelope

Delivery Mechanism: The program is administered by each Program Administrator in its service territory and coo rdinated regionally through the JMC.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 56 of 14 4

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 2012 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.B.4 provides information on the performance of Low

- Income Residential New C ons truction program

.

Building timelines and demands in the new construction program are difficult to predict in a given year. For example, no l ow

- i ncome n ew c onstruction units were completed in 2011. However, as noted in the 2011 Annual Report, with pr oduction schedules that are tied to funding cycles, many low

- income new construction projects began in 2011 with expected completion in 2012. As a result, 54 projects were completed in 2012, which is the most projects the Compact has completed in a single year during the three

- year plan for this program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 57 of 14 4

Program costs increased due to the increase in completed projects. TRC costs increased for the

same reason. The increase in participants caused the average program cost per participant to decrease.

Lifet ime and annualized energy savings increased due to the increase in heating measures and refrigerators. The greater increase in lifetime energy savings relative to annualized demand savings resulted in an increased average energy measure life. Lifetime and annualized demand savings decreased due to fewer

- than

- expected cooling measure installations. The Cape Light Compact did not install quite as many screw

- in lighting measures as anticipated for this program in 2012, which also contributed to t he savings trends identified above.

Lifetime NEBs increased due to the increase in heating measures and dishwashers, both of which have comparably greater non

- electric benefits (both resource and non

- resource)

.
TRC benefits we re also higher than expected d ue to the increase in participants. Because TRC benefits increased more than TRC costs, the net benefits and BCR also increased for the
program. The program wa s robustly cost

- effective.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to th is program are as follows:

● Status of Ongoing Low Income Lighting and Heating Metering Study: This study assesses lighting hours of use (“HOU”) and the prevale nce of secondary heating in low

income households in Massachusetts. The two overarching objectiv es of the study are to determine a daily low

- income

- specific lighting hours of use value to replace the current assumption, and to determine the prevalence of low

- income customers who use a secondary heating source to warm their homes (and how best to inco rporate secondary heating usage into future evaluations). Th ese results are preliminary; the study is ongoing and will be finalized by early September. The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more d etail in Section III, Study11.

The variance s from preliminary to evaluated results are attributable to the following evaluations filed with the Compact’s 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- 54 : The Massachusetts Mini Baseline Study ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 3)

, which reduced electric savings based on the penetration rates of high efficiency lighting and appliances ; and the Demand Impact Model ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 9)

, which updated load shapes and coincid ent factors for the program

. The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor programCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 58 of 14 4

performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.

b. Low

- Income Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: Two initiatives, the Low

- Income 1

- 4 Family initiative and the Low

- Income Multi

- Family initiative, were incorporated in the Low

- Income Retrofit program in 2012.

The purpose of the Low

- In come 1

- 4 Family initiative was to increase energy efficiency and reduce the energy cost burden for income

- eligible customers through the installation of electric, oil, and propane energy efficiency measures to achieve deeper and broader energy savings

cons istent with a comprehensive, whole

- house approach.

The purpose of Low

- Income Multi

- Family initiative was to deliver energy

- efficient products and services directly to income

- eligible residential customers living in multi

- family facilities with five or more dwelling units.

Targeted Customers: The Low

- Income 1

- 4 Family initiative targeted residential customers living in one

- to four

- unit dwellings who were at or below 60 percent of the state median income level and who qualified to receive fuel assistance a nd/or utility discount rate(s). For two

- to four

- unit dwellings, 50 percent of the occupants had to qualify as low

- income.

The Low

- Income Multi

- Family initiative targeted public housing authorities, non

- profit housing developers, for

- profit housing develo pers, landlords, property managers, and residential customers at, or below, 60 percent of median income living in multi

- family properties consisting of five or more units.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric ac count served under this initiative for single

- family units

. A participant is defined as a dwelling unit served under this initiative for multi

- family units.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● Heating and Ventilation

● Refrigeration

● Hot Water

● EnvelopeCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 59 of 14 4

Delivery Mechanism: PAs used a lead vendor and/or worked closely with their respecti ve Community Action Program (“CAP”) agencies on all aspects of the program design and implementation. All PAs wor ked in conjunction with the Low

- Income Energy Affordability Network. The Multi

- Family Advisory Committee was tasked with prioritizing low

- inc ome multi

- family projects for each PA, using benchmarking software called WegoWise. The lead vendor/CAP agencies were responsible for providing coordination of energy efficiency services to the customers, working with installation contractors to ensure th at the proper initiative guidelines were enforced, ensuring that the customers met the eligibility requirements for program participation, and providing the CAP and/or PA with the required documentation of all work performed.

Significant Differences in Act ual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pendi ng)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.B.5 provides information on the perf ormance of Low

- Income Retrofit program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 60 of 14 4

Beginning in 2011, this program provided significantly higher incentives per home than planned due to a shift to more comprehensive visits designed to serve customers in one year instead of over the course of multiple years. In addition, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding increased the per participant incentive and as a result, fewer participants were served with the program budget as compared to plan.

Most of the program savings and benefits were consistent with the program goals, except for

a nnualized winter demand savings and lifetime NEBs. Annualized winter demand savings were lower than expected due to a decrease in lighting measures, which typically provide more savings during winter months. Lifetime NEBs decreased due to a decrease in w eatherization units , which typically provide substantive non

- electric benefits (both resource and

non

- resource)

. 9

TRC benefits we re lower than expected due to the decrease in lighting and weatherization

measures. Because TRC benefits decreased more than T RC costs decreased, the net benefits also decreased, although the program remain ed cost

- effective.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply t o this program are as follows:

● Status of Ongoing Low Income Lighting and Heating Metering Study: This study assesses lighting hours of use and the prevalence of secondary heating in low

- income households in Massachusetts. The two overarching objectives of the study are to determine a dail y low

- income

- specific lighting HOU value to replace the current assumption, and to determine the prevalence of low

- income customers who use a secondary heating source to warm their homes (and how best to incorporate secondary heating usage into future evaluations). Th ese results are preliminary; the study is ongoing and will be finalized by early September. The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study11.

The variance s from preliminary to evaluated results are attributable to the following evaluations filed with the Compact’s 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- 54 : t he Low Income Single Family impact evaluation ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 17)

, which quantified the gross per unit savings generated by each low

- i ncome measur e ; t he Demand Impact Model ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 9)

, which updated load shapes and coincident factors for the
program ; and Additional Non

- Energy Impacts for Low Income Programs ( 2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 28)

, which updated cert ain non

- energy impact factors

. The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With

9 Note that in 2012, the Compact received a credit for two low

- income multi

- family gas weatherization projects that were initially billed as 2011 projects.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 61 of 14 4

respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 201 3)

.

D. Commercial & Industrial Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2012

, the Compact implemented the following Commercial and Industrial programs:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

● C&I Large Retrofit

● C&I Small Retrofit

The Compact did not offer any C&I pilots in 2012.

Tables II.C.1 through II.C.3 provide summary information on the performance of the C&I programs at the sector, end use, and program levels, respectively.

The Cape Light Compact has a history of significant variances between plan ned and act ual costs, savings

, and benefits for its C&I programs. As a smaller Massachusetts PA, small absolute changes in total program costs, savings

, and benefits can result in significant variances. As a result, relatively modest changes in the timing or scale and scope of a few projects can add up to a significant variance in total program costs, savings

, and benefits. Also, the limited number of l arge C&I customers on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard make forecasts of expenditures, savings

, and benefits for thi s sector particularly challenging.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 62 of 14 4

Within the C&I sector, as shown below in Table II.C.3, the following programs are contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (for t otal p rogram c osts, s u mmer d emand, winter demand, and lifetime NEB ): Please reference section II.C.a for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● C&I Large Retrofit (for all metrics ): Please reference section II.C.b for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● C&I Small Retrofit (for l ifetime e nergy, a nnual e nergy, l ifetime d emand, s ummer d emand, lifetime NEBs ): Please reference section II.C.c for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 63 of 14 4Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 64 of 14 4

Section II.C.2 provides detailed information on the performance of each C&I program.

2. C&I Sector Performance Highlights

During 2012, the Program Administrators built upon existing C&I programs and significantly expanded initiatives to increase participation across all C&I programs. Selected highlights are presented below.

● Proactive Research of Emerging Technologies

– In 2012, the Massachusetts Technical Advisory Committee (“MTAC”), the entity designed to field inquiries on the appropriateness of new technologies to be offered under the Massachusetts programs, achieved several key milestones. First, discussions were initiated in 2012 regarding the merger of the separate residential and C&I committees in order to evaluate promising new technologies in a consistent statewide manner. These committees merged in 2013.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 65 of 14 4

Second, in 2012, the MTAC reviewed 18 commercial nat ural gas and electric technologies and approved 3 as eligible for energy efficiency incentives under the Residential Mass Save program. 10 Third, the energy use of major medical equipment in the healthcare sector, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines and other energy intensive medical equipment

, was evaluated. The MTAC provided the vehicle for investigating opportunities for this sector and contracted with the Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems (“Fraunhofer”) for this analysis in 2012. 11

Another important technology evaluated by the MTAC was rooftop unit controls for existing packaged cooling and heating equipment. C&I buildings typically have multiple packaged units with no control communication between these units. The potential for both natural gas and electric savings appears very promising, and initial inquiries indicate that there are thousands of applicable units in the Commonwealth that could benefit from this technology. The Cape Light Compact provided an initial test site in 2012

, and the MTAC has hired an independent consulting engineer to perform before

- and

- after monitoring of this site. (A report was issued in the first quarter of 2013

, and this technology went on to be approved for implementation later in 2013.)

● Refinemen ts to Upstream Lighting Initiative

– 2012 was the first full year of operation for the Upstream Lighting Initiative, known to customers as “Bright Opportunities.” After a dramatic customer response upon roll

- out in late 2011, the initiative continued to
g arner high volume throughout 2012, yielding over 21,000 participants and more than $18 million in buy

- downs paid statewide for high efficiency linear fluorescents and LED lamps. During 2012, a number of new LED lamp types were added to the initiative, sub stantially expanding the variety of possible applications for participating customers to use this technology. By the second quarter, the LED product selection had been expanded to include A

- lamps, PAR Lamps in three sizes, MR16s, and decorative fixture la mps for chandeliers.

As part of the initiative’s early success, program LED lamp prices dropped sufficiently enough that the PAs lowered incentives for certain lamps and enacted a minimum threshold customer contribution to ensure that the discounted produc t held value for participants, as manufacturers and distributors were able to lower their margins with increased volumes. Additionally, the PAs proactively addressed the rare earth shortage and the subsequent material price increases that impacted the lig hting industry in late

10 Of the other 15 technologies conside red by MTAC in 2012, three were denied approval; the remaining 12 technologies continued into 2013 for additional evaluation

– either in field monitoring studies or because the MTAC was awaiting additional documentation from applicants.

11 The final Fraunh ofer report, presented in early 2013, demonstrated that savings opportunities exist primarily in powering down machinery between uses rather than making changes to equipment specifications for lower energy use during operation. Such changes to hospital op erating protocols would require recertification of equipment operators and procedures, thus limiting the accessibility of such savings.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 66 of 14 4

2011 and 2012. By monitoring market pricing changes, the PAs increased incentives for eligible linear fluorescent lamps to reduce the incremental cost between standard and high

- efficiency lamps.

The high participation levels experie nced in 2012 were the result of a number of promotional efforts undertaken by the PAs. A special college LED promotion led to 75,000 LED lamps being installed in college dorm rooms across Massachusetts. Another effort targeted state and municipal facilit ies and yielded more than 120,000 reduced wattage T8 lamps. Preferred Distributor recognition, along with higher incentives, was also developed to stimulate demand for the program’s linear fluorescent products, resulting in an increase of 1 million units in the third and fourth quarters of 2012.

Quality assurance and quality control was another key component of this initiative in 2012. The PAs issued an RFP for a QA/QC vendor in early 2012 and awarded contract
to Competitive Resources, Inc. Starting in t he third quarter of 2012, CRI began inspecting 5 percent of participant sites on a monthly basis to verify the installation of lamps purchased through the program, as well as to gather field data on wattage of lamps replaced and customer satisfaction with the upstream products, particularly with regard to LEDs installed in dimming applications.

● Development of Upstream HVAC

– In 2012, the PAs began development work to expand the upstream program to include HVAC measures also in 2013. The development team

re searched existing programs around the country, including having in

- depth discussions with administrators in California who have a long standing successful upstream HVAC
program. The team then decided to proceed with a concept that would take Residential Mass Save’s existing Cool Choice program completely upstream, so that C&I customers seeking packaged HVAC or heat pump units could find higher efficiency units available at their distributor without having to pay a premium for that efficiency. A full scal e C&I program RFP was issued in November 2012 (with the option to add a residential program at a later date), and bid proposals were received from three prospective suppliers. (Contract award and program launch occurred in the first half of 2013.)

● Market Characterization and Segmentation

– Northeast Utilities and National Grid led an effort to characterize the market for energy efficiency for the term of the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan, through a study performed by the consulting firm Point 380 in 2012. The Point 380 study results are, and will continue to be, used to inform the PAs “go

- to

market” strategies by identifying the industries, building types

, and end uses representing greater efficiency opportunities and thus warranting relatively greater attenti on and allocation of resources. The results also greatly support sales force planning, while enabling more relevant and effective value propositions to better meet specific customers’ needs. The Point 380 materials were shared with all Program Administra tors, who have each benefited from this effort. Northeast Utilities and National Grid made a joint presentation to the Council summarizing the Point 380 study, which is available at http://www.ma

- eeac.org.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 67 of 14 4

In order to achieve greater participation and sav ings, the Program Administrators have increasingly used market segmentation to inform go

- to

- market strategies. Based on the specific characteristics of defined segments, marketing approaches, delivery systems, value propositions

, and offerings can be cust omized to better meet the needs and interests of individual companies in those segments. For example, the PAs began developing specific offerings and marketing collateral to better serve the needs of grocers.

● Appreciative Inquiry Summit

– In May 2012, the PAs hosted an Appreciative Inquiry Summit, the first of its kind for energy efficiency in Massachusetts, which provided a venue for a diverse array of nearly 300 key stakeholders in attendance. Many C&I customers, contractors , and experts participated in this event and provided insight into their view of the programs and recommendations to improve the delivery of energy efficiency in Massachusetts.

● Development of the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Energy Efficiency Plan

– Throughout much of 2012, the PAs were activ ely involved in developing the 2013

- 2015 T hree

- Y ear P lan

. Two primary focal points of the 2013

- 2015 T hree

- Y ear P lan were reviewed during this process in 2012, including: new strategies to increase breadth of participation, as well as the comprehensivenes s of efficiency projects.

The strategies explored included: expanded service offerings targeted at smaller customers to enable self

- service participation options; community

- based engagement built upon the Main Streets model; expanding the upstream deliver y model to non

lighting technologies; greater use of segmentation approaches to develop customized offerings to encourage greater comprehensiveness among specific subsets of customers

, such as hospitals and municipalities; an accelerated rebate pilot for t he top five electric and gas customers; and exploration of options for inclusion of utility

- owned LED street lighting in programs.

A more detailed program

- level discussion can be found in the following sections.

3. C&I Programs

a. C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

Purpose/Goal: The C&I New Construction and Major Renovation program was designed to optimize the efficiency of equipment, building design

, and systems in new construction

, and renovation of commercial, industrial, institutional

, and government facilities. Focusing on offering a comprehensive set of electric and gas efficiency options specific to the needs unique to each customer, the program also targeted the brief window of opportunity to install premium

- grade replacements when equipment fails or is near the end of its useful life. In doing so, the Program Administrators worked to ensure that the best practices propagated by the program are ultimately built into the evolution of better building requirements.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 68 of 14 4

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program was all time

- dependent gas and electric energy efficiency opportunities in the C&I sector

, including commercial, industrial, institutional, and government customers.

Definition of Program Participant:

● For the core downs tream portion of the program, a participant is defined as one representative account number for each location/campus, by year, by program. A participant is an individual customer who has received a financial incentive for the completed implementation of o ne or more time

- dependent electric energy efficiency measures and/or projects at a single site location during the program year. One customer may undertake multiple projects at that same location during the program year

, but will still be counted as a sin gle participant within the program.

● For the electric Upstream Lighting Initiative portion of the pro gram, a participant is defined as a unique installation address or account number in addition to any participant already counted in the core downstream port ion of the program

. Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● Motors and Drives

● HVAC

● Refrigeration

● Envelope

● Compressed Air

● Hot Water

● Process

Delivery Mechanism: The Program Administrators worked together to market and implement the program as a unitary statewide effort to maximize the acquisition of potential energy savings (gas and elect ric) in the ongoing market for new facilities and replacement equipment in the Commonwealth.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 69 of 14 4

Docket/Exhibit where the Program Is Discussed and Approved : The Cape Light C ompact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011)

, 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending)

, and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

Table II.C.4 provides information on the perfor mance of C&I New Con struction and Major Renovation program

.

As was the case in 2011, in 2012

, the C&I New Construction and Major Renovation p rogram had many more participants than originally planned

. However, in 2012 the program nearly doubled in overal l size

, with almost twice the expenditures, energy savings

, and benefits of the 2011 program year.

Nonetheless, t he 2012 program remain ed under budget because the cost per participant was substantially less than originally anticipated due to the addition o f the Upstream Lighting Initiative to the p rogram in late 2011

. T he Upstream Lighting Initiative has a different footprint for cost s and savings as compared to the traditional downstream portion of the program. While the Upstream Lighting Initiative contributed the majority of additional program participants in 2012, it did so at a substantially lower incentive cost per participant than the core downstream portion of the program. In addition, incentives per participant in the core downstream portion ofCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 70 of 14 4

the program were lowered by the fact that government projects ( to which the Compact offers a higher i ncentive than for non

- government projects ) made up a smaller proportion of participants than planned for in 2012.

Within the core downstream portion of the program, a shift in measure mix toward increased HVAC and refrigeration occurred in 2012, driving some of the savings variances. Both annualized summer and winter demand savings were lower than planned for 2012, in part correspondi ng to reduced progra m spending, as well as the shift in measure mix away from lighting and toward HVAC and refrigeration. Winter demand savings were impacted more than

summer demand savings , at 41 percent below planned, because HVAC measures have much lower winter coincidenc e factors, with the majority of their e nergy savings being tied to

non

- electric benefits.

By contrast, non

- electric benefits were higher, or less negative, than plan ned for this program in 2012. This change is due to the other fuel benefits associated wit h HVAC measures

. Overall, the 2012 program remained cost

- effective with an increased BCR due to lowered TRC costs relative to TRC benefits.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows:

● Impact Evaluation of 2011

- 2012 Prescriptive VSDs: This study produced realization rates for annual kWh for prescriptive Variable Speed Drives (“ VSDs ”) . The study decreased program savings for the Compa ct ’s 2012 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 13.

● Impact Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Lighting Installations: This study evaluated the large C&I prescriptive lighting end use, which includes all lighting systems and controls, Advanced Lighting Design or performance lighting, and refrigerated LED case lights. The study presents realization rates for gross energy savings, on

- peak and seasonal summer and winter demand savings, and coincidence factors at the statewide level using 12 months of metered data. The net effect for the Co mpa ct was to in crease energy savings for this p rogram. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 14.

● Impact Evaluation of 2011 Custom Refrigeration, Motor and Other Installations: This study produces realization rates for annual kWh, su mmer and winter peak kW, and percent on peak for the large C&I custom electric component of refrigeration, motors, and “other” measure types . The net effect for the Compact was to increase energy savings for this p rogram. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 15.

● Process Evaluation of the 2012 Bright Opportunities Program: This study was a process evaluation of the Bright Opportunities Program
, which provides upstream incentives to distributors of energy

- efficient lamps and bulbs. The evaluation studied the design and delivery of the initiative , barriers to the adoption of efficient lighting technologies under this design, and advantages of an upstream design versus a downstream design, andCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 71 of 14 4

provided an estimated net

- to

- gross ratio based on free

- ridership and spillover. The net

to

- gross ratio impacted the 2012 savings and resulted in an overall decrease in savings for the Compa ct . The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 16.

● C&I Customer Profile Project: This st udy characterizes the Massachusetts energy efficiency market by analyzing recent customer usage and program participation data. The study relied on comprehensive billing and tracking data for all C&I customers to estimate the extent to which customers of various sizes and types participated in energy efficiency programs in 2011. The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 17.

● Mid

- Sized Customer Needs Assessment

- Interim Results: This study is investigating the extent to which current program offerings effectively serve the needs of mid

- sized customers by conducting interviews with PAs and implementation contractors and analyz ing available customer billing and tracking data to examine differences in participation rates across customer size groups. The interim results of this study do not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 18.

T he variance s from pr eliminary to evaluated results are also attributable to the Commercial and Industrial Non

- Energy Impact Study filed with the Compact’s 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan, D.P.U. 12

- 107 ( 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan, Appendix P

, Study 12)

, which revised program

non

- energy impact factors resulting in increased lifetime non

- electric benefits.

The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 pr ogram performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results an d make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the ne w MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.

b. C&I Large Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The C&I Large Retrofit program focused on comprehensive gas and electric energy efficiency opportunities associated with mechanical, electrical, and thermal systems in existing commercial, industrial, governmental

, and institutional buildings. Through this program, technical assistance and incentives were provided to encourage retrofitting of equipment that continued to function, but was outdated and inefficient, and could be replaced with a premium efficient product. In addition, this program helped participants identify specific peak load management opportunities and assisted occupants in improving their ongoing operation and maintenance practi ces.
Targeted Customers: The target market for this program was all non

- residential customers

– commercial, industrial, governmental, and institutional.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 72 of 14 4

Definition of Program Participant: A program participant is defined as one representative
account num ber for each location/campus, by year, by program. A participant is an individual
customer who has received a financial incentive for the completed implementation of one or more electric energy efficiency measures and/or projects at the same location during the program year. One customer may undertake multiple projects at th at same location during the program
year , but will still be counted as a single participant within the program.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent pa rticipant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 111.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● Motors and Drives

● HVAC

● Compressed Air and Processes

● Envelope

● Water Heating

● Combined Heat and Power

Delivery Mec hanism: Program Administrator staff, trade allies

, and project administrators performed most sales, marketing, program administration, and implementation functions, while outside contractors were retained for technical review of applications, on

- site ener gy analysis, technical

, and design assistance for comprehensive projects, project commissioning services, and the actual measure installations, including turn

- key services.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: Non e.
Docket/Exhibit where Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- yea r plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011); 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending) and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pendi ng).

Table II.C.5 provides information on the per formance of C&I Large Retrofit program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 73 of 14 4

In 2012, this program had a greater than 50 percent increase in participation over planned levels (almost double the number of participants in 2011) , but spent only half as much per participant as expected, yielding a net reduction in overall spending by 24 percent from plan. In addition, the program achieved significantly lower savings than expected for spending levels. The latter savings variances we re driven by t wo factors.

First, there was a change in customer mix

, as government projects comprised a much larger portion of program spending than expected, utilizing 70 percent of program expenditures rather than the expected 40 percent

. Since incentive levels are h igher for government customers, the incentive dollars spent return ed f ewer savings than those for non

- government customers, in this case yielding just over 40 percent of program savings as compared to non

- government projects, which comprised approximately 30 percent of program spending in 2012 but produced close to 60 percent of program savings.

Second, there was a change in measure mix to higher cost HVAC measures , which impacted savings as compared to plan levels. HVAC measures were expected to comprise less than 40 percent of program spending but instead were 70 percent

. At a significantly higher cost per kWh, these measures yielded less than 20 percent of program energy savings, driving the greater than 50 percent reduction in annualized energy savings as compared to plan

. Lifetime energy savings saw less of a reduction from plan than annual energy savings because of the increase in average measure life associated with a greater number of HVAC measures installed with longerCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 74 of 14 4

measures lives. Demand savings saw an even more marked reduction from plan levels because of the significant HVAC activity. L ower winter demand savings are expected with more HVAC

measures , because energy savings are dominated largely by non

- electric savings in winter he ating. In this program year

, the summer demand savings were also lower because of the handful of large HVAC projects occurring in schools, where the summer peak coincidence is low compared to other facilities.

By contrast, the dominance of large HVAC proj ects in this program year drove the dramatically higher non

- electric benefits than plan, yielding a nearly 2500 percent increase in NEBs in the form on non

- electric heating fuel savings.

Overall, the program saw a larger reduction in TRC b enefits than in T RC c osts, resulting in a reduction in net benefits and to a lesser degree in BCR, t hough the program remained
cost

- effective.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows:

● Impact Evaluation of 2011

- 2012 Pres criptive VSDs : This study produced realization rates for annual kWh for prescriptive VSDs. The study decreased program savings for the Compa ct ’s 2012 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 13.

● Impact Evaluation o f 2010 Prescriptive Lighting Installations: This study evaluated the large C&I prescriptive lighting end use, which includes all lighting systems and controls, Advanced Lighting Design or performance lighting, and refrigerated LED case lights. The study presents realization rates for gross energy savings, on

- peak and seasonal summer and winter demand savings, and coincidence factors at the statewide level using 12 months of metered data. The net effect for the Compa ct was to increase energy savings for t his Program. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 14.

● Impact Evaluation of 2011 Custom Refrigeration, Motor and Other Installations: This study produces realization rates for annual kWh, summer and winter peak kW, and percent on peak for the large C&I custom electric component of refrigeration, motors, and “other” measure types. The net effect for the Compa ct was to in crease energy savings for this p rogram. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 15.

● C&I Cus tomer Profile Project: This study characterizes the Massachusetts energy efficiency market by analyzing recent customer usage and program participation data. The study relied on comprehensive billing and tracking data for all C&I customers to estimate th e extent to which customers of various sizes and types participated in energy efficiency programs in 2011. The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 17.

● Mid

- Sized Cust omer Needs Assessment

- Interim Results: This study is investigating the extent to which current program offerings effectively serve the needs of mid

- sizedCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 75 of 14 4

customers by conducting interviews with PAs and implementation contractors and analyzing available customer billing and tracking data to examine differences in participation rates across customer size groups. The interim results of this study do not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 18.

Addi tionally , the variance s from pre liminary to evaluated results are attributable to the Commercial and Industrial Non

- Energy Impact Study filed with the Compact’s 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan, D.P.U. 12

- 107 ( 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan, Appendix P, Study 12)

, whi ch revised program non

- energy impact factors resulting in increased lifetime non

- electric benefits.

The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Compa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigge r a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.

c. C&I Small Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The primary objective of the C&I Small Retrofit p rogram was to provide
cost

- effective, comprehensive electric and g as retrofit services to business customers on a turnkey basis using the same delivery model throughout the Commonwealth.

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program included direct install retrofit business customers below 300 kW.

Definition of Program Participant: A program participant is defined as one representative number (account number, location ID, or meter, as determined by each PA) for each location/campus, by year, by program. A participant is an individual customer that used less th an 300 kW and has received turnkey retrofit services and incentive dollars through the C&I Small Retrofit p rogram at the same location during the program year. One customer may undertake multiple program projects at that same location during the program y ear, but will still be counted as a single participant within the program.

Beginning in 2013, the Program Administrators will use consistent participant definitions, as set forth in Appendix M to the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan in D.P.U. 12

- 100 through 12

- 11 1.

Targeted End Uses:

● Lighting

● HVACCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 76 of 14 4

● Hot Water

● Motors and Drives

● Refrigeration

● Envelope

Delivery Mechanism: Vendors were selected through a competitive bidding process to implement the program. These vendors marketed the program, performed facility audits , and offered recommendations to customers while completing audit forms and questionnaires. In addition, the same vendors purchased materials, installed measures, loaded data into a database, and prepared progress reports for the Program Administrators on a regular basis.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.

Docket/Exhibit where Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 201 2 plan was approved as part of its 2010

- 2012 Three

- Year Plan (D.P.U. 09

- 119

, January 28, 2010 ) . Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its three

- year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots

. These updates are referred to as the 2010 Mid

- Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10

- 106, January 10, 2011); 2011 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 10

- 147, pending) and 2012 Mid

- Term Modifications (D.P.U. 11

- 116, pending).

All Fuels Comprehensive Retrofit Program (Cape Light Compact

- specific Component of the C&I Small Retrofit Program )

In 2010, the Compact expanded its C&I S mall R etrofit program to include cost

- effective thermal measures designed to save oil, propane

, and other unregulated fuels. These cost

- effective measures mirrored those technologies identified as gas measures including, but not limited to:
pro grammable thermostats, pre

- rinse spray valves, pipe insulation, insulation, air sealing, EMS, hood controls

, and other custom measures, as deemed appropriate. In 2011 and 2012 , the Compact continued with its a ll f uels approach for this program

.
Table II.C .6 provides information on the per formance of C&I Small Retrofit program

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 77 of 14 4

In 2012, C&I Small Retrofit program spending, participation

, and cost per participant were all much closer to plan than for the prior two years of the three

- year plan. While the number of program participants exceeded the plan number, spending per participant was still sufficiently low enough to prevent the full budget from being expended. A key driver of this varian ce in spending per participant was the fact that government projects comprised a much smaller proportion of program participants and program spending than planned. Since the Compact pays a higher incentive for government projects, a significantly lower th an expected proportion of government projects reduce d per participant incentives from planned levels.

A change in measure mix in 2012 to more HVAC and envelope measures than planned (22 percent of program incentives as compared to 6 percent of plan) yielde d lower than expected energy and demand savings

, since these measures have higher acquisition costs per kWh

. Lifetime energy and demand savings saw an even greater reduction from plan because of a decrease in overall measure life for the program year from 13 years to 12 years, resulting from this year’s measure mix. In contrast, non

- electric benefits were again s ignificantly higher than plan , with an increase of over 400 percent

. In 2012, this is due largely to other fuel savings from HVAC, envelope

, and water heating meas ures, as well as unanticipated operation and maintenance savings from CFL lighting

. Overall, the program saw small changes to TRC b enefits and TRC c osts from plan, resulting in a stable

, cost

- effective BCR for 2012.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 78 of 14 4

The EM&V studies incl uded in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to this program are as follows:

● Massachusetts Small Business Direct Install: 2010

- 2012 Impact Evaluations: This report produced lighting fixture and lighting control measure realization rates for annual kWh and s ummer and winter peak kW, as well as on

- peak coincidence factors. The net effect of these evaluations decreased energy and demand savings for these measures. The full report is discussed in Section III, Study 12.

● C&I Customer Profile Project: This study characterizes the Massachusetts energy efficiency market by analyzing recent customer usage and program participation data. The study relied on comprehensive billing and tracking data for all C&I customers to estimate the extent to which custom ers of various sizes and types participated in energy efficiency programs in 2011. The results of this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 17.

● Mid

- Sized Customer Needs Assessment

- Interim Results: This study is investigating the extent to which current program offerings effectively serve the needs of mid

- sized customers by conducting interviews with PAs and implementation contractors and analyzing available customer billing and tra cking data to examine differences in participation rates across customer size groups. The interim results of this study do not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 18.

T he variances from prelimina ry to evaluated results are also attributable to the Commercial and Industrial Non

- Energy Impact Study filed with the Compact’s 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan, D.P.U. 12

- 107 (2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan, Appendix P, Study 12), which revised program

non

- energy imp act factors resulting in increased lifetime non

- electric benefits

. The Compact regularly reviews best available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the Com pa ct incorporated the best available information into its 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year P lan. With respect to the results of EM&V studies that wer e completed for the 2012 Annual Report, the Compact will review those results and make any necessary adjustments to en sure it remains on track to achieve its goals for 2013 through 2015. The Compact will continue to monitor program performance to determine if any evaluation is significant enough to trigger a modification under the new MTM guidelines established in D. P.U. 11

- 120

- A, Phase II (January 31, 2013)

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 79 of 14 4

III. EVALUATION MEASUREME NT AND VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES

A. Summary

The purpose of this section is to provide detailed information on the EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report for each sector.

The Massachusetts Pr ogram Administrators completed 25 evaluation studies for the 2012 Annual Report. The studies that had the most significant influence on the final evaluated data for electric Program Administrators were the:

● C&I Customer Profile Project study

● HES Realizati on Rate Results evaluation

● 2012 Residential Heating, Water Heating and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: Net

- to

- Gross, Market Effects, and Equipment Replacement Timing study

● Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program: Early Impacts of EISA study

● Process Evaluation of the 2012 Bright Opportunities Program

The C&I Customer Profile Project sought to characterize the Massachusetts energy efficiency market by looking at past customer participation, billing data, and customer usage. Overall, the study found th e vast majority of savings in 2011 came from custom projects in the custom end use, which supports a continuation of impact evaluation work to verify these savings. In addition, the study made several other key observations. One, there is an indication of opportunity for more savings in some customer sectors, for example in the healthcare sector

, where the percent of participating customers is low (1.8 percent of electric and 3 percent of gas) while the savings achieved by partici pating customers is higher than average. However, while the study identified areas which appear to represent opportunity, it did not seek to answer why participation was low in the sectors

. Two, participation rates appeared to increase as account size in creased for both gas and electric, reflecting the individualized attention paid to these customers by PA account managers. However, the average savings percent was found to be highest for small gas and electric customers. Finally, the participation rate for gas customers with the same electric PA was found to be 2.6 percent, which was higher than the 1.6 percent participation rate for those with different electric PAs. Additional information on this process evaluation is discussed in more detail in Appen dix C, Study 17.

The HES Realization Rate study is a supplemental evaluation following up on the larger 2011 HES Impact Study, which was completed in 2012. This evaluation was needed to provide specific PA realization rates and account for improvements in some vendor software

. The HES Realization Rate study targeted two measures: insulation and air sealing. As background, the savings for these measures are provided by the vendor, who utilizes proprietary software to calculate savings based on the existi ng conditions compared to the upgraded conditions. The study compared the vendor

- calculated savings with calibrated engineering models developed byCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 80 of 14 4

the evaluation team in order to calculate realization rates. The study results showed overall higher savin gs and higher realization rates when compared with the 2011 impact study. This is due in part to increased adoption of recommended weatherization measures by study participants. This study is discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 3.

The 2012 Resi dential Heating, Water Heating and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: Net

- to

- Gross, Market Effects, and Equipment Replacement Timing Study sought to determine net

- to

- gross ratios and early replacement timing for measures in the Residential Heating and Water He ating and C OOL Smart programs. The results indicated that the NTG ratios are slightly higher than previously estimated for many measures

. Further

, the Net Market Effects analyses and data show evidence that the primary cause of improved NTG ratios is the strong equipment rebate levels that moved the market towards higher tiered efficiency. The study also examined if the program incentives are causing the early replacement of existing equipment prior to failure, thus taking inefficient equipment offline be fore the end of its useful life. While the study showed program

induced early replacement occurring, the levels of such early replacement were not aligned with the non

- energy impacts assigned to various measures. Overall, this resulted in a modest increa se in savings from early replacement, but a sharp decrease in NEIs associated with several measures. This study is discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 2. The NEI application is discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 25.

The electric PAs conducted a process evaluation of the 2012 Bright Opportunities Program, which is a C&I Upstream L ighting Initiative. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Bright Opportunities Program is a well

- designed and well

- run program. The study sho wed generally high program satisfaction levels from end users and participating trade allies, lack of barriers to program participation, generally high program net

- to

- gross ratios, and also lack of significant complaints from program implementers. Interim gross impact evaluation results suggest that gross savings are being forecasted accurately. Additional information on this process evaluation and the updated NTG values are discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 16.

The Massachusetts ENERGY STAR ® Lighting Program: Early Impacts of EISA Study sought to synthesize the results from the four lighting evaluation tasks reported separately (consumer survey, onsite saturation, shelf

- stocking survey, and supplier interviews) as well as to highlight the eff ects of the first full year of implementation of the increased lighting efficiency standards mandated by the EISA on the Massachusetts residential lighting market. Through consumer and supplier surveys, the study found that consumers and suppliers report an increased availability of CFLs and LEDs on store shelves, and a decreased availability of filament incandescent bulbs. The various results did not provide full clarity on how EISA ha s changed the availability of A

- line halogen incandescent bulbs, but t he study speculates that most likely the availability increased in 2012. Another interesting finding of the study was regarding 100

- watt incandescent bulbs. Even though their manufacture and import was banned in January 2012, a dwindling but still sizabl e number of these bulbs remained on store shelves throughout 2012, well after their EISA phase out. Finally, the 60 W att incandescent bulbs fill 22 percent of all sockets in Massachusetts homes, making it the most popular bulb in homes. Therefore, the fu ll impact of EISA on the lighting market

— including on consumer lighting purchases and stockpilingCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 81 of 14 4

behavior

— will not be understood until after the January 2014 phase

- out of this bulb. This study is discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 8.

Table II I.A summarizes the EM&V studies that have not been inclu ded in previous Annual Reports. Please note: s tudies 19, 20

, and 21 apply to gas energy efficiency programs only and

are , therefore

, not included in the table below.

Table III.A Evaluation Studies in Annual Report

Studies Location of Complete Study in Report Docket and Exhibit Approving Planned Evaluation Studies Implemented as Approved?

(Y / N)

MA RNC Program Incremental Cost Report App. C, Study 1 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 2012 Residential Heating, Water Heating and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: Net-to-Gross, Market Effects, and Equipment Replacement Timing App. C, Study 2 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111

HES Realization Rate Results Memo App. C, Study 3 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111

Massachusetts Consumer Survey Results Winter-2012 App. C, Study 4 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111
Residential Lighting Shelf Survey and Pricing Analysis App. C, Study 5 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Lighting Retailer, Supplier Perspectives on the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Lighting Program App. C, Study 6 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111
Results of the Massachusetts Onsite Lighting Inventory App. C, Study 7 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program: Early Impacts of EISA App. C, Study 8 Study not submitted for approval

2012 Home Energy Services Pre-Weatherization Initiative Evaluation App. C, Study 9 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111

Residential Lighting Controls Initiative Evaluation App. C, Study 10 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111

Status of Ongoing Low Income Lighting and Heating Metering Study App. C, Study 11 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 All Studies are implemented as planned Residential Program Studies

Residential Pilot Studies

Low-Income Program Studies All Studies are implemented as planned

All Studies are implemented as plannedCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 82 of 14 4

B. Residential Program Studies

1. MA RNC Program Incremental Cost Report

Type of Study: Technology Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/11/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This report provides estimates of the incremental costs per square foot involved in building high efficiency homes that meet the criteria of the 2013 Residential New Construction & Major Renovation p rogram. Incremental costs above the costs of typical hom es being built outside the program are estimated for single family (SF), low

- rise multi

- family buildings of three or fewer stories (MF 1

- 3), and mid

- to high

rise multi

- family buildings of four stories or more (MF 4+) for each of the incentive options offe red by the program.

The evaluation provides the following incremental cost per square foot for homes built through the program. Table III.A Evaluation Studies in Annual Report (continued)

Studies Location of Complete Study in Report Docket and Exhibit Approving Planned Evaluation Studies Implemented as Approved?

(Y / N)

Massachusetts Small Business Direct Install: 2010-2012 Impact Evaluations App. C, Study 12 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111
Impact Evaluation of 2011-2012 Prescriptive VSDs App. C, Study 13 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Impact Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Lighting Installations App. C, Study 14 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Impact Evaluation of 2011 Custom Refrigeration, Motor and Other Installations App. C, Study 15 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Process Evaluation of the 2012 Bright Opportunities Program App. C, Study 16 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111
Customer Profile Project App. C, Study 17 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111

Mid-Sized Customer Needs Assessment - Interim Results App. C, Study 18 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111

Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Integrated Report App. C, Study 22 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 2012 Massachusetts Statewide Marketing Campaign Evaluation Report App. C, Study 23 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-1112013 Massachusetts Statewide Marketing Campaign: PreCampaign Snapshot App. C, Study 24 Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan, D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Massachusetts Residential Non-Energy Impacts (NEIs): Deemed NEI Values Addressing Differences in NEIs for Heating and Cooling Equipment that is Early Replacement Compared to Replace on Failure App. C, Study 25 Study not submitted for approval Special & Cross Sector Studies All Studies are implemented as planned

All Studies are implemented as planned Commercial & Industrial Program StudiesCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 83 of 14 4

MA RNC Single Family Incremental Costs Prescriptive Performance
I II Tier I Tier II Tier III Single Family Detached $1.54 $6.39 $1.19 $4.57 $9.33

MA RNC Multi

- Family 1

- 3 story Incremental Costs Prescriptive Performance
I II Tier I Tier II Single Family Attached $1.38 $5.61 $1.03 $1.27
Multi

- Family 1

- 3 No Master Meter $0.10 $1.50 $0.65 $1.18
Multi

- Family 1

- 3 Master Meter Gas $0.08 $1.48 $0.79 $1.35
Multi

- Family 1

- 3 Story Overall $0.60 $3.10 $0.86 $1.29

MA RNC Multi

- Family 4+ story Incremental Costs Residential In

- Unit Prescriptive Whole Bldg Simple Prescriptive Whole Bldg Interactive Prescriptive Multi

- Family 4+ story $0.14 $1.21 $1.65

MA RNC Incremental Costs by Sector Single Family Multi

- Family 1

- 3 story Multi

- Family 4+ story Overall Incremental cost/SF $2.31 $0.95 $1.00

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: No recommendations were offered.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: No recommendations were offered.

Savings Impa ct: The study had no impact on savings.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: Historical residential new construction program participant data was used to inform differential pricing estimates and weighting.

Application of Results: Retroactively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: No recommendations were offered.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 1.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 84 of 14 4

2. 2012 Residential Heating, Water Heating, and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: Net

- to

Gross, Market Effe cts, and Equipment Replacement Timing

Type of Study: Market Assessment, Market Characterization

Evaluation Conducted by: Navigant, ODC, and Cadmus

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/19/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The objectives of this evaluation were to:

1. Determine free

- ridership (FR), spillover (SO), and net

- to

- gross (NTG) values by program
measure,
2. Estimate the net market effects (NME) for each measure, and

3. Estimate the timing of equipment replacement (ER) across early replacement, re place on failure (ROF), and “in

- between” categories. There is also a fourth category (“new”) which is either a first

- time installation of the end use or new construction.

The high

- level findings are as follows:

FR, SO, and NTG estimates for C OOL Smart and Residential Heating and Water Heating (HEHE) equipment measures are shown in Table III.1

. The results indicated that the NTG ratios are slightly higher than previously estimated for many measures. Further, the NME analyses and data provide qualitative e vidence supporting this finding, and that the primary cause of improved NTG results is a better alignment of equipment efficiency tiers and associated rebate levels

– and appropriate changes over time

– to move the market.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 85 of 14 4

Table III. 1 : Average FR, SO, and NTG Estimates

Measure FR SO NTG Boilers, AFUE 90

- 95.9% 0.32 0.08 0.76 Boilers, AFUE ≥96% 0.31 0.77 Boilers, Overall 0.31 0.77 Furnaces, AFUE ≥95% 0.41 0.22 0.81 Central Air Conditioners/Heat Pumps, SEER 14.5

- 14.9 0.35 0.28 0.93 Central Air Conditioners, SEER ≥16 0.42 0.86 Central Air Conditioners, Overall 0.40 0.88 Ductless Mini

- Splits 0.45 0.07 0.62 Storage Water Heaters, Energy Factor ≥0.67 0.13 0.13 1.00 Tankless Water Heaters, Energy Factor ≤0.94 0.37 0.26 0.89 Tankless Water Heaters, Energy Factor ≥0.95 0.28 0.98 Tankless Water Heaters, Overall 0.32 0.93 Integrated Space Heaters/Water Heaters with a Condensing Boiler 0.34 0.08 0.74

This study also addressed the Quality Installation Verification components of the C OOL Smart Program. Table III.2 provides a summary of the QIV FR, SO, and NTG values as follows:

Table III.2 : Quality Installation Verification NTG

Measure Average FR Average SO NTG Manual J Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 0.38 0.16 0.78 Manual J Heating NA 0.15 NA Airflow Testing/Duct Sealing 0.15 0.07 0.92 Refrigerant Testing 0.22 0.24 1.02 Overall QIV 0.25 0.16 0.91

The measures responsible for the majority of savings due to equipment installations in the HEHE and C OOL Smart programs are central HVAC systems: natural gas boilers, natural gas furnaces, central air conditioning, and heat pumps. As shown in Table III.3 , participants replacing equipment early (4 or more years of remaining life) represent more than 30 perc ent of boiler and 23 percent of furnace installations, but just 8 percent of central air conditioner and heat pump installations. Early replacement shares among integrated boiler/hot water units, storage water heaters, and tankless water heaters range fro m 20 to 33 percent

. There is virtually no early replacement among ductless mini

- split installations. More than 95 percent of these are either first

- time cooling installations or are replacing window air conditioners. There are also a significant number of HEHE participants who are neither early nor replace

- on

- failure (ROF).Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 86 of 14 4

These in

- between installation estimates range from 15 to 25 percent across all of the program’s major equipment measures.

Table III.3 . Equipment Replacement Timing in HEHE and C OOL Smart Programs

Equipment Replacement Timing Shares
Measure Early New ROF In

- Between
Boiler 30.6% 0.0% 44.9% 24.5%
Furnace 23.1% 0.0% 61.5% 15.4% Central Air Conditioner / Heat Pump 8.0% 50.4% 29.2% 12.4% Ductless Mini

- Split 2.5% 95.1% 0.0% 2.5% Integrated Boiler / Water Heater 20.0% 0.0% 55.7% 24.3% Storage Water Heater 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% Tankless Water Heater 28.0% 0.0% 54.8% 17.2%

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (C OOL Smart) (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from the PAs to these recommendations is summarized below.

Recommendation 1: The evaluators want to acknowledge the lack of consensus on NTG algorithms, and recommend that the PAs and EEAC develop clear protocols across all residential and non

- residential program categories to look at NTG issues more holistically.

Explain Whether o r Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations. Th e PAs are considering undergoing an initiative in the Cross Cutting Sector to encourage methodological consensus.

Application of Results: Retroactively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The evaluators estimated measure

specific FR, SO

, and NTG via what is commonly referred to as the Self

- Report Approach (SRA). The SRA method was also used to estimate the NME and ER estimates. The evaluators relied on surveys with heating, cooling

, and water heating distributors and contractors, as wel l as surveys with program participants.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 2.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 87 of 14 4

3. Home Energy Services Realization Rate Calibration

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Date Evaluati on Completed: 6/28/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The objective of the evaluation was to develop realization rates (the ratio of ex ante and ex post savings) that each Program Administrator could use to adjust insulation and air sealing savings, as estimated by the most recent home auditing software employed by each HES implementer, to more closely reflect evaluated savings.

The evaluation yielded the following realization rates by PA (where appropriate and when sufficient data we re available) for each of the four assessed heating fuel types.

Natural Gas

PA n Model Precision (at 90% confidence) Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Rate

Berkshire Gas 182 ±17% 161 137 0.85 Columbia Gas 294 ±10% 209 131 0.63 National Grid 2,889 ±4% 188 140 0.74 New England Gas 18 ±83% 107 119 1.11 NSTAR 1,344 ±5% 165 139 0.84 Unitil 22 ±21% 256 175 0.68 Commonwealth

- wide 4,749 ±3% 183 139 0.76Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 88 of 14 4

Electric

PA n Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Rate Cape Light Compact 101 2,693 1,360 0.51
National Grid 383 2,423 1,459 0.60
NSTAR 124 2,712 1,468 0.54
Commonwealth

- wide 608 2,527 1,445 0.57

Heating Oil

PA n Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Rate Cape Light Compact 748 16.4 16.4 1.00
National Grid 5,365 18.9 16.7 0.88
NSTAR 4,192 19.8 16.8 0.85
Unitil 128 38.6 13.9 0.36
WMECo 329 34.7 19.0 0.55 Commonwealth

- wide 10,762 19.8 16.8 0.85

Propane

PA n Ex Ante Ex Post Realization Rate Cape Light Compact 70 14.3 12.2 0.86
National Grid 216 14.3 12.6 0.88
NSTAR 91 14.2 13.5 0.95
Unitil 5 63.2 12.7 0.20
WMECo 10 33.4 14.6 0.44 Commonwealth

- wide 391 15.4 12.8 0.83

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential Mass Save /HES (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: No recommendations were offered.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: No recommendations were offered.

Savings Impact: The PAs will use the results of this evaluation to retroactively adjust vendor provided ex ante savings estimates for insulation and a ir sealing measures.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 89 of 14 4

Formulas Used in Impact and Process Analysis: The evaluation assessed ex post savings for both measures using two approaches: a billing analysis and an engineering analysis. A brief description of each follows:

● Billing Analysis. T he evaluators developed a fixed

- effects conditional savings regression model, using paired pre

- and post

- participation months to estimate savings for insulation and air sealing installed in homes heated by natural gas. The analysis utilized participation records from the High Efficiency Heating and Water Heating, C OOL Smart, and Opower programs to ensure it did not misattribute the efficiency measures installed or behavioral changes resulting from those programs to the two HES measures.

● Engineering Analysi s. For homes heated by electricity, heating oil, or propane, the evaluators estimated savings using PA

- and fuel

- specific U.S. Department of Energy (DOE

- 2) based simulation models, calibrated using each PA’s average observed pre

program energy consumption. The simulation models were updated using detailed measure data and home characteristics recorded by HES implementers

, as well as a variety of weather files selected to best represent each PAs service territory.

Application of Results: Retroactively

.
How the Study came to the Recommended Conclusions: No recommendations were offered.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 3.

4. Massachusetts Consumer Survey Results Winter

- 2012

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: 5/30/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This consumer survey was performed in December 2012 and January 2013 with the objective of tracking key lighting market indicators and understanding likely and actual consumer responses to the increased lighting efficiency standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).

Key findings include the following:

Conclusion 1: Customer satisfaction with CFLs remain s steady, with roughly one

- half of respondents being “very satisfied” with the bulbs, and three out of four being “very or somewhat” satisfied. A persistent concern with CFLs in Winter 2012 relates to their mercury content and disposal issues.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 90 of 14 4

Conclusion 2: The study results show that those households using many CFLs (experts) demonstrated a high level of lighting “savvy” compared to those households using few or none of the bulbs (novices).

Conclusion 3: Consumers seem to like the idea of LED bulbs but remain concerned about the high price point. Consumers seem particularly optimistic about the LED’s lack of mercury and better dimming performance compared to CFLs.

Conclusion 4: No bulb stands out as the likely “standard” replacement to the incandescen t being phased out by EISA, but consumers tended to prefer a “higher wattage” incandescent for replacement of 75 Watt incandescents over other bulb types.

Conclusion 5: Consumers remain relatively unaware of A

- line CFLs.

Conclusion 6: About one

- fifth of consumers say they would consider stockpiling bulbs, but only 9 percent admit to stockpiling 100 Watt incandescents in 2012.

Conclusion 7: Consumers are becoming more familiar with the term “lumens” and understand that it means light output or brightness, but they still buy bulbs based on wattage or wattage equivalence.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.

Recommendation 1: The evaluators suggest continued tracking of CFL satisfaction throughout future consume r surveys in order to see if satisfaction remains stable in the post

- EISA period, when CFLs will face serious competition from less efficient screw

- in halogen bulbs and very efficient and long

- lasting screw

- in LED bulbs.

Recommendation 2: Despite evidence that some consumers are having difficulties finding 100 Watt incandescent bulbs on store shelves, one

- half of shoppers for these bulbs were able to buy them. Therefore, if they are not already doing so, when developing energy and demand savings assumptio ns post

- EISA, the PAs should consider assuming that the former “baseline” incandescent bulbs will remain available for at least one year and not adjust their delta Watts to account for lower energy use of halogens or other bulb types until after that year.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations. The PAs will continue to track the lighting market to evaluate the impact of EISA.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 91 of 14 4

Savings Impact: There are no savings impacts.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: There are no savings impacts.

Application of Results: Prospectively

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The study relied on a telephone survey of randomly selected customers of each Program Administrator in Massachusetts. The evaluators surveyed a total of 600 customers. The study used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the data, yielding descriptive statistics to summarize survey
responses.
A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 4.

5. Residential Lighting Shelf Survey and Pricing Analysis

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/8/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This evaluation involved the performance of a light bulb shelf

- stocking survey and a hedonic pricing regression analys is. The results of the shelf

- stocking survey demonstrated that participating stores carry a greater proportion of energy

efficient CFLs and LEDs over incandescent or halogen bulbs. Moreover, the proportion of shelf space devoted to energy

- efficient bulbs has increased in partner stores since 2010. Program incentives serve to reduce the price of specialty and standard CFLs by about $1.00 to $2.00, but there is evidence that the program partners are not passing along the full incentive to consumers. The r eport suggests supplementary approaches to estimating the impact of the program on in

store prices that could be implemented early in the next evaluation cycle.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: This study did not offer any recommendations.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: This study did not offer any recommendations.

Savings Impact: Th ere are no savings impacts.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: There are no savings impacts

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 92 of 14 4

Application of Results: Prospectively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: No recommendations were offered.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 5.

6. Retailer, Supplier Perspectives on the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR ® Lighting Program

Type of Study: Technology Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/12/2013

Evaluation Objective and Hi gh

- Level Findings : The objective of this study was to perform in

- depth interviews with lighting manufacturers and high

- level buyers and to conduct surveys with store managers in order to understand their perceptions of the current impacts of EISA on the l ighting market

, as well as to explore the perspectives on the growing LED market and program impacts on the lighting market.

Major conclusions of this extensive research effort included the following, but additional important findings can be found in the f ull report:

● Impacts of EISA of Bulb Stocking and Sales : Participating suppliers and store managers generally believed that their stocking and sales of CFLs and LEDs had increased since EISA

, while those of incandescent bulbs had decreased. Most also thou ght that the stocking and sales of halogen bulbs had remained about the same.

● Stockpiling of Incandescent Bulbs : The suppliers did not all agree on whether stockpiling was a concern. Only 107 of the 240 store managers thought EISA had changed consumers’ bulb purchasing habits and, of these 107, just 22 percent noted stockpiling behavior among these habits. Suppliers who had noted stockpiling argued that both consumers and retailers exhibited the behavior and that it applied more to 60 Watt bulbs than to 75 Watt or 100 Watt.

● Concerns about Halogen Market Share : Suppliers believed that the removal of program supports for CFLs and LEDs would increase the likelihood that consumers would choose halogen bulbs instead of CFLs and LEDs to replace incandescent bu lbs. They even feared that some consumers may backslide from CFLs and LEDs to halogens, as halogens are being promoted as “energy

- efficient.”

● Sales of LED bulbs : Over one

- half of store managers said they sold LEDs bulbs (although some may have sold non

- E NERGY STAR ® models), with A

- line, spot/reflectors, and nightlights being the most commonly sold styles. About one

- half ofCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 93 of 14 4

the managers characterized LED sales as either good or excellent. General purpose bulbs tended to be the best sellers.

● Barriers to LED sales : Both stores that currently carry and those that have decided not to carry LEDs cite the high price of the bulbs as the greatest barriers to increased sales. However, they also remained optimistic about future LED sales based on the expectation that prices would continue to fall and the technology would continue to improve.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The study did not offer any recommendations.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: The study did not offer any recommendations.

Savings Impact: There are no savings impacts.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: There are no savi ngs impacts.

Application of Results: Prospectively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Although there are no recommendation conclusions, the study relied on ten in

- depth interviews with lighting manufacturers and high

- level retail buyers

, as well as telephone surveys with 240 participating store managers

. Interviewees and survey respondents were asked questions about the lighting market, their experience with the program, changing lighting technology, and their estimation of the impacts of EISA.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 6.

7. Lighting Onsite Inventory and Saturation Study

Type of Study: Technology Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/7/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The objective of this study was to perform lighting inventories and estimate socket saturations in Massachusetts homes. The study also examined lighting purchase behavior and searched for evidence of incandescent bulb s tockpiling.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 94 of 14 4

The main conclusions of the study are as follows:

● Most households used at least one CFL in 2013, even if some of them were dissatisfied with the products or not even aware they were using CFLs.

● The percentage of sockets filled with CFLs in 2013 was 28 percent , which was statistically similar to the 26 percent observed in 2009. The stagnation in CFL saturation can in part be explained by households replacing burned out CFLs with newly purchased CFLs.

● Saturation of all energy

- efficient light bulb s, including CFLs, LEDs, and fluorescent tubes, increased to 39 percent in 2013.

● LED saturation remained low, at 2 percent of the total, but doubled from Spring 2012 to Spring 2013. Most LEDs were the under

- the

- cabinet type, not A

- shaped bulbs.

● About 61 p ercent of sockets remaining in homes could theoretically be filled with an
energy

- efficient light bulb; about 57 percent of the remaining potential rests with standard bulbs, while the other 43 percent rests with specialty applications (i.e., dimmable or t hree

- way control or does not have the A

- shape).

● Households stored about two CFLs on average in 2013.

● The average onsite household bought about three CFLs in 2012

— two of them were standard CFLs and one was a specialty CFL.

● The evaluators found evidence of stockpiling of incandescent bulbs; households stored an average of four incandescent bulbs, particularly 60 Watt bulbs. However, none of the onsite participants tied this behavior to EISA but instead explained that they just like to have extra bulbs on ha nd.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential ENERGY STAR ® Lighting (Electric)

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Both)

● Low

- Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

● Multi

- Family (Both)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.

Recommendati on 1: Continue tracking the Massachusetts lighting market through regular consumer surveys, onsite saturation studies, shelf stocking surveys, and supplier interviews.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 95 of 14 4

Recommendation 2: The PAs should perform a net

- to

- gross study

, as one has not been performed since 2010. This study will help to clarify whether current program

- supported sales are helping to prevent backsliding to incandescents or incandescent halogen bulbs or whether they represent a high amount of free

- ridership.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design a nd operations.

The PAs will continue to track the lighting market to evaluate the impact of EISA. The PAs will also continue to work within the EMC to determine the correct timing to conduct a NTG study on the evolving lighting market.

Savings Impact: Th e report estimated the number of bulbs in indoor fixtures for all bulb types to be 1.49.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: There are no savings impacts, but PAs will update the assumed number of bulbs for indoor fixtures to be 1.49.

Application of Result s: Retroactively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The study involved performing onsite visits to 150 homes in Massachusetts. Trained technicians took detailed notes about all lighting sockets and light bulbs found in the home, includi ng bulbs found in storage. Households also provided information on when and where they purchased bulbs, why they stored bulbs, and the intended use of bulbs found in storage. The evaluators analyzed the data in Excel spreadsheets and in the Statistical P ackage for Social Sciences (SPSS) to arrive at the study conclusions.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 7.

8. Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program: Early Impacts of EISA

Type of Study: Technology Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/12/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The objective of this study was to identify what the results from the four lighting evaluation tasks reported separately (consumer survey, onsite saturation, shelf

- stocking survey, and supplier interviews) tell us about the effects of the first full

- year of implementation of the increased lighting efficiency standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act on the Massachusetts residen tial lighting market. The key conclusions of the study include the following:Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 96 of 14 4

● Awareness of EISA: Fewer than one

- half of consumers were aware of the increased lighting efficiency standards mandated by EISA; about two

- third of program participating
store m anagers were aware of EISA.

● Bulb Availability: Consumers and suppliers report

— and the shelf

- stocking survey confirms

— an increased availability of CFLs and LEDs on store shelves. At the same time, the availability of filament incandescent bulbs has decrea sed. The various results did not provide clarity on how EISA has changed the availability of A

- line halogen incandescent bulbs, but it is most likely that it has also increased. Even though their manufacture and import was banned in January 2012, a dwindling but still sizable number of 100 Watt incandescent bulbs remained on store shelves throughout 2012.

● Bulb Purchase Behavior: The onsite saturation study conducted in early 201 3 did not show significant changes in the types of bulbs observed in Massachusetts household when compared to 2012. In general, the consumer survey and the supplier interviews point to increased purchases of CFLs and LEDs, decreased purchases of incandesc ents, and stable purchases of halogen bulbs.

● Stockpiling of Incandescents: The evaluators did not find evidence of widespread stockpiling of incandescent bulbs, but there were indications that some households

— and retailers

— had engaged in the behavior. Th e limited stockpiling that is occurring tends to be focused on 60 Watt incandescent bulbs and not on the already phased

- out 75 Watt and 100 Watt incandescents.

● Big Unknown

– 60 Watt Incandescent Phase

- out: 60 Watt incandescent bulbs fill 22 percent of all sockets in Massachusetts homes, making this the most popular bulb in use in homes. Hence
, we will not be able fully to understand the effect of EISA on the lighting market

— including on consumer lighting purchases and stockpiling behavior

— until after the January 2014 phase

- out of this bulb.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential ENERGY STAR ® Lighting (Electric)

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric)

● Residential Mass Save /HES (Electric)

● Residential Multi

- F amily Retrofit (Electric)

● Low

- Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

● Low

- Income 1

- 4 Family (Electric)

● Low

- Income Multi

- F amily (Electric)Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 97 of 14 4

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evalua tors conducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.

These recommendations are in addition to the ones submitted in individual task reports.

Recommendation 1: The PAs should track the lighting markets in select comparison areas with varying levels and models of residential lighting programs.

Recommendation 2: The PAs should continue rebates for standard CFLs and LEDs at least through 2015 (one year after 40 and 60 Watt incandescent phase

- out) in order to keep more energy

- efficient bulbs on shelves and prevent backsliding of the market to halogen incandescents.

Recommendation 3: The PAs should continue efforts to educate consumers about new lighting terminology such as lumens and li ght temperature, how to select the best bulb, and the variety of highly energy

- efficient light bulbs available to meet residential lighting needs.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

However, the PAs have committed to increase education efforts to improve consumer education,

as stated in their approved three

- year plan

. Savings Impact: There are no savings impacts

. Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: There are no savings impacts

. Application of Results: Prospectively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The eval uators performed telephone surveys, in

- home onsite lighting inventories, in

- store shelf

- stocking studies, and in

depth interviews and surveys with suppliers to arrive at these conclusions. More detail on each of these methods can be found in their individ ual report templates.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 8.

9. 2012 Home Energy Services Pre

- Weatherization Initiative Evaluation

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: The Cadmus Group, Inc.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 98 of 14 4

Date Evaluati on Completed: 4/19/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The objective of the evaluation was to assess the impact of initiative additional incentives on customer’s decision to overcome pre

weatherization barriers (which then made them eligib le to install certain recommended HES measures). The initiative targeted three common, low

- cost pre

- weatherization barriers: evidence of knob and tube wiring, general combustion safety, and improper dryer venting. The evaluation also assessed the delive ry of the initiative itself. Key conclusions included:

Conclusion 1: The initiative data did not show a significant change in the measure adoption rate for National Grid and NSTAR customers who faced the knob and tube wiring barrier. Although these findings suggest that the initiative may not have influenced the measure adoption rate, it is important to remember that the provided data only represent a subset of HES customers, and the evaluators’ analysis was limited to two PAs and only one barrier.

Conclusion 2: While the turnkey option offers customers easy access to approved contractors, the PAs and lead vendors that offered the turnkey option were uncertain of the delivery option’s long

- term viability. These PAs and lead vendors ci ted difficulties identifying and enrolling contractors given the limited financial opportunities for these
contractors. In other words, the level of work for contractors generated by the initiative (to inspect knob and tube wiring and clear other pre

- weat herization barriers) was not substantial enough to interest and enlist a sufficient number of approved turnkey
contractors. PAs and lead vendors also cited the administrative burden, such as managing and updating the list of qualified contractors willing to participate in the program, as a challenge to turnkey viability. Further, according to Phase 2 participant survey respondents, only a small number of participants used this delivery option.

Conclusion 3: Non

- participants indicated confusion about what the initiative actually covered for knob and tube wiring. During the survey, even after being told the incentive was only to check the wiring, non

- participants still wanted a higher incentive ; they were not able to differentiate between the cost of the i nspection and the cost of potentially replacing the knob and tube wiring (if live).

Conclusion 4: PA stakeholders and customers that employed a 30

- day deadline for initiative enrollment indicated that additional time would have helped. Specifically,

surv ey respondents that were given the 30

- day deadline indicated that the timeframe presented a challenge for addressing the initiative barriers (12 percent , n=13). However, an analysis of acceptance rates revealed that customers who were given a 30

- day deadl ine had higher acceptance rates than those offered the 90

- day deadline.

Conclusion 5: Interviews with PAs and lead vendors indicate that elements of the initiative’s design and delivery varied across PAs. Examples of variation included marketing material s, participant forms, incentive amounts, and the timing of when participants received the rebate for clearing a barrier.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 99 of 14 4

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential Mass Save /HES (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study.

Recommendation 1: The evaluators suggest that the PAs should work closely with their lead vendors to determine the long

- term viability and effectiveness of the turnkey option.

Recommendation 2: The evaluators suggest that the PAs identify ways to better communicate what the cost of checking knob and tube actually covers and how it differs from the cost to actuall y replace the knob and tube wiring.

Recommendation 3: The evaluators suggest that the PAs consider a compromise deadline of 45 or 60 days that keeps some of the benefits of the immediacy of the deadline, but makes it more realistic for customers to meet t he deadline.

Recommendation 4: While some variation may be necessary, the evaluators suggest that the PAs should discuss these variations, determine best practices, and standardize design and delivery as much as possible across the state.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: In an effort to standardize design and delivery, the PAs have adopted a 60 day deadline for acceptance of the incentive. All other recommendations are being considered for adoption at this ti me. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any of the other recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

Savings Impact: There are no savings impacts.

Formulas Used in Impact and Process Analysis: There are no savings i mpacts.
Application of Results: Prospectively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The Pre

- Weatherization Initiative evaluation included PA program manager interviews, program vendor staff interviews, 118 participant and nonparticipant cu stomer surveys, and a review of pilot and historical program data. Based on information obtained through these data collection methods, the evaluators used their professional judgment and experience evaluating energy efficiency programs to offer recommend ations aimed at improving program processes where appropriate.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 9.

10. Residential Lighting Controls Initiative EvaluationCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 100 of 14 4

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: The Cadmu s Group, Inc.

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/5/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This evaluation was performed between August 2012 and May 2013. The objectives of the evaluation were to analyze the energy

- saving potential of replacing tra ditional dimming switches with advanced dimming controls and to investigate the compatibility of those controls with efficient bulb technologies. Key conclusions included:

Conclusion 1: The compatibility of dimming controls and LEDs was an issue. Participants, implementation staff, and program managers all noted difficulties finding working combinations of dimmers and bulbs.

Conclusion 2: Survey and metering data revealed that some participants operated their lights more after installation of the new dimmers and bulbs; however, savings still resulted since savings were largely driven by the lamp replacement.

Conclusion 3: In order for an impact evaluation of lighting use with dimmer replacements to be successful, it is important to have detailed tracking of implementation activities, including an equipment inventory with product specifications; a time

- stamped contact log of all customer interactions; and a dated tracking matrix showing what equipment was replaced or adjusted at each appointment.

P rograms to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● N/A (Study results not applied to any program)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: Due to the inconclusive findings, the evaluation did not include formal recommendations.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: There are no recommendations for the PA to adopt.

Savings Impact:

Savings Category Total Verified Gross Impacts Average Impact per Site
Demand Impacts 2.11 kW 0.26 kW
Energy Savings 1,987 kWh/yr 248 kWh/yrCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 101 of 14 4

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: A combined approach of field data collection and laboratory testing was used to estimate energy and demand savings.

● On

- site inventory: Pre

- and post

- installation information was collected for the fixtures and controls in each participant’s room or area of interest.

● Pre

- and post

- metering: Meters were deployed at participant sites prior to the installation of dimmer controls and bulbs. These loggers recorded illuminance levels from the lamps controlled by the dimmers for six to eight weeks before and after measure installation.

● Lab testing of dimmer controls: Laboratory testing was used to analyze the relationship between power and illu minance (lumens per square foot) and the dimmer switch settings.

● Analysis: The illuminance field data, the laboratory power data, and other supporting information were synthesized to analyze the energy impacts of the initiative. Operating hours for each group of bulbs attached to a lighting control were calculated, both at a
gross, on

- off level, as well as at each discrete dimmable level. Gross energy savings were calculated by aggregating metered hours of use at each dimmable level with the laboratory

- t ested energy used at that level. The reported demand impacts are the difference between the pre

- and post

- install maximum wattage values. Coincident peak demand impacts were not estimated or reported.

Application of Results: Results from the initiative will not be applied because results were inconclusive and because the initiative was not associated with an existing program.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The study included 16 participants who agreed to have their existing dimming controls and bulbs exchanged for new controls and LED bulbs through the initiative. Meters were installed on the affected controls and bulbs for six weeks before and after the installation of new measures. Data collected from these meters were mapped to laboratory testing data that triangulated illuminance, power, and dimmer position for each dimmer/bulb combination. Results from the mapping were used to calculate energy and demand savings.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 10.

C. Low

- Income Program Studies

11. Low Income Hours of Use and Heating Study

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: The Cadmus Group, Inc.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 102 of 14 4

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/28/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The object ive of the study is to assess lighting hours of use (HOU) and the prevalence of secondary heating among low income
customers. The study is currently underway and will be completed by September 6, 2013.

While the study is ongoing, the evaluators can offer the following preliminary findings at this time:

● The preliminary low

- income

- specific HOU of 2.66 is slightly less than the current program assumption of 2.8 hours/day.

● Low

- income seniors use their lights less (2.12 hours per day) than low

- income non

senior s (2.88).

● Homes with secondary heating sources appear to supplement their primary heating when heating their home. As a result, future evaluations should consider the impact of program measures on both primary and secondary heating.

The following caveats are important to consider given the study’s status:

● The study is ongoing and all preliminary findings are subject to change. The evaluators do not anticipate significant changes to the key results presented in this memo, but acknowledge these results may shift slightly following a complete review process.

● The preliminary findings may also change based on agency’s bulb installation practices. Discussions to date indicate that some agencies may install efficient lighting in any available sockets, while oth ers may target specific high

- use room or fixture types. The agency’s collective installation practices have ramifications on the appropriateness of the preliminary HOU of 2.66, which represents average usage across all sockets in low income homes.

Program s to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Low

- Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

● Low

- Income 1

- 4 Family (Electric & Gas)

● Low

- Income Multi

- Family (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: No recommendations were offered, but the status memo does state that future low income impact evaluations should include secondary heating fuels when estimating total program savings.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: The PAs wi ll include secondary heating fuels where appropriate in future low income impact evaluations.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 103 of 14 4

Savings Impact: No savings impacts are offered at this time.

Formulas Used in Impact and Process Analysis: The preliminary study findings are based on analysis of 261 site visits at randomly sampled low

- income customer homes across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

At each home, trained technicians completed a whole

- home lighting inventory and installed up to 10 lighting loggers per home. The technicians also installed a meter that assesses thermostat usage (for both manual and programmable thermostats) and meters that monitored heating equipment. In total, more than 2,000 lighting loggers and 800 meters were installed on heating equipment and collected usage information from November 29, 2012 through May 2, 2013.

The raw data collected through this robust metering process were reviewed, weighted, and annualized to estimate annual usage.

Application of Results: Prospectively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: No formal recommendations were offered.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 11.

D. Commercial and Industrial Program Studies

12. Massachusetts Small Business Direct Install: 2010

- 2012 Impact Evaluat ions

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: The Cadmus Group, Inc. and Navigant

Date Evaluation Completed: 1/29/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The Cadmus Group and Navigant Consulting prepared this summary evaluation report. This summary evaluation report compares the results of two previously filed impact evaluations with a billing analysis conducted in 2012 for the C&I Small Retrofit progra m, and recommends the appropriate program impact factors for future years. The objectives from each evaluation were:

Non

- Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts Small Business Direct Install Program: Multi

- Season Study

. This study was conduct ed during 2010

- 2011 and filed with the 2011 annual report. The impact evaluation was conducted to provide independent estimates of annual energy savings and peak demand impacts for the retrofit installation of high

- efficiency lighting fixtures through the C&I Small Retrofit programs. The impact evaluation focused on savings due to the equipment change only and does not include savings due to the installation of lighting controls.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 104 of 14 4

The study showed a statewide combined energy realization rate (included HVAC interaction) of 102 percent , combined summer coincidence factor of 72 percent , and combined winter coincidence factor of 44 percent for non

- controlled lighting fixture retrofit projects.

Small Business Direct Install Program : Pre/Post Lighting Controls S tudy

. This study was conducted during 2011

- 2012 and filed with the 2013

- 2015 Three

- Year Plan

. The impact evaluation was conducted to provide independent estimates of annual energy savings and peak demand impacts for the retrofit installation of lighting control installations through the C&I Small Retrofit programs. The impact evaluation focused on savings due to the installation of lighting controls only and does not include savings due to the retrofit of associate lighting fixtures.

The study showed a s tatewide combined energy realization rate (included HVAC interaction) of 42 percent , combined summer coincidence factor of 17 percent , and combined winter coincidence factor of 11 percent for retrofit lighting occupancy sensor installations.

Billing Analys is

. This study’s goal was to assess the overall energy impact of all C&I Small Retrofit program projects, including non

- lighting projects, implemented in 2010 and 2011.

The study found a statewide program energy realization rate of 66 percent

. However, t hrough internal consultation and further analysis, the evaluators concluded that the result was influenced by exogenous factors for which the study could not control, and that the true realization rate was higher than 66 percent

. The summary report recomme nded that the program use the evaluation results based on the metering study results: statewide combined energy realization rate for lighting fixtures of 102 percent and statewide combined energy realization rate for lighting controls of 42. For non

lighting measures, it was recommended to maintain existing evaluation results.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommenda tions were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from Program Administrators to these recommendations is summarized below.

Note : The recommendations from the Multi

- Season study were included in the evaluation summary for that report, filed with the 2011 annual report. This evaluation summary includes only the recommendations from the Pre/Post Lighting Controls Study and the Billing Analysis.

Recommendation 1: Based on the Pre

- and Post

- Installation Lighting Occupancy Sensor study: The wide

- ranging patterns of pre

- installation HOU, including some lighting systems that operated less frequently before the controls were installed, were a surprise to the PAs and the evaluators, and were only detected with pre

- installation meterin g. For future evaluations of control

- based efficiency measures, the PAs shouldCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 105 of 14 4

continue to perform pre

- and post

- installation metering studies in order to capture the true impacts.

Recommendation 2: Based on the Billing Analysis: If the PAs are to conti nue using billing analysis as a method for estimating savings achieved by the SBDI Program, we strongly recommend that more detailed information be collected from program participants, particularly building occupancy and vacancy. If obtaining such data is not feasible, the evaluators recommend that the PAs consider using billing analyses only in cases where it is highly unlikely that any exogenous factors correlate with the implementation of energy conservation measures. In practice, billing analyses woul d likely only be appropriate in cases where participants are highly homogenous and have consistent patterns of consumption (e.g., all participant buildings are government offices).

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Stu dy: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

Future evaluations of the types described above may incorpora te these recommendations, based on the types of customers being studied, uncertainty around existing equipment and operations, and the additional cost and time necessary to collect more detailed information.

Savings Impact: The evaluation results for lighting fixture installations are similar to previous evaluations, which have consistently verified energy and demand realization rates close to 100 percent

. The summer and winter peak coincidence factors were also similar to previous
years.

The evaluati on results for lighting control installations are much lower than previously estimated, primarily due to findings regarding the pre

- retrofit operating hours. However, these results had poor precision due to the variation in the site

- level realization rate s.
Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: Program adjusted gross impacts are calculated by applying the total combined energy and demand realization rates to the program gross energy and demand tracking estimates:

Adjusted gross energy impacts are calculated b y applying the kWh Realization Rate (kWh RR ) and the HVAC electric interaction factor (HVAC ELEC ) to the tracking gross energy savings.

Summer and winter peak demand impacts are calculated by applying the connected demand realization rate (kW RR ), peak coinci dence factor (CF SP for summer, CF WP for winter) and HVAC demand interaction factor (HVAC SP for summer, HVAC WP for winter) to the tracking connected kW savings

. Application of Results: Retroactively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The billing analysis was conducted for all projects implemented in 2010 and 2011, using participant tracking and usage dataCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 106 of 14 4

provided by each PA and performing data screening and analysis methods to estimate the program realization rate for the statewide pr ogram, each measure category, and each PA.

During the analysis, the evaluators identified irregularities in the participant billing data and identified potential sources of bias in the results due to omitted variables. The team surmised that the most like ly drivers of the unexpectedly low realization rates were (1) changes in economic activity, (2) changes in facility occupancy rates, and/or (3) changes in the program participant and/or project characteristics. The team determined that appropriate data to control for these effects were not available and would be difficult and expensive to research.

The team conducted additional research to explain the results and concluded that there was sufficient rationale to reject the results of the billing analysis. These findings included:

1. Evidence of increases in commercial vacancies in Massachusetts over the past four years, including the program years of interest for the evaluation,

2. Observed correlations between building vacancies and participation in commercial retrofit efficiency programs, based on contemporaneous research performed in California by the Cadmus Group, and

3. Demonstration that the absence of participant

- specific details on vacancies (and thus not being able to control for it within the model) result s in biased parameter estimates in this study.

Based on these findings and additional discussions with the Program Administrators and EEAC Consultants, the evaluators recommended rejecting the billing analysis results and maintaining the results of the met ering studies.

A discussion of these findings and the final recommendation is documented in the memorandum “2012 Billing Analysis Findings and Recommendations,” dated October 24, 2012.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 12.

13. Prescriptive VSD Impact Evaluation

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: DNV KEMA

Date Evaluation Completed: 5/9/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This report presents the results of the Impact Evaluation of Prescr iptive Variable Speed Drives conducted by DNV KEMA and DMI between 2011 and 2012. The objective of this impact evaluation is to begin to quantify how well prescriptive VSD installations are performing and to estimate the energy and demand savings resultin g from a sample of 26 VSDs installed in Massachusetts between 2011 and 2012 usingCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 107 of 14 4

both pre

- and post

- installation metering. Data collected as part of this evaluation is intended to be used to help inform the savings factors used in future updated TRMs.

Ke y findings include the following:

● Annual kWh realization rate was 94 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 23 percent at the 80 percent confidence interval.

● Failure to install controls or configure manual VSD speeds is the most common reason for a poor realization ratio.

● Automatic controls are required by the prescriptive VSD applications but are infrequently installed.

● VSD installations were observed to replace existing and failed VSDs and received incentives.

● A small number of motor types are miscategorized. For example, a swimming pool circulation pump was categorized as a hot water circulating pump.

● Manually set fixed VSD speeds are common. This results in constant post

- retrofit power demand and very high summer demand reduction realization ratios.

● In some cases
, comparable energy savings could have been achieved through proper balancing and without a VSD installation. This approach would be less costly and achieve faster payback periods.

● The TRM assumes that hot water pumps will operate du ring summer months and chilled water pumps operate during winter months. In most cases, these seasonal motor types were shut down and did not operate during the off seasons.

● Summer kW reductions were significantly higher than predicted by the TRM due to t he post

- retrofit motor operating with manual controls at constant input kW.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.

Recommendati on 1: Many VSDs are installed but never utilized. The motors were observed to operate at 60 Hz after the installation. Post

- inspections should be performed to ensure that automatic controls are installed as required by the prescriptive applications.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 108 of 14 4

Rec ommendation 2: VSD installation dates were found to vary significantly from installation of control sequences. In the majority of installations, the VSD was installed several weeks or months before any type of control sequence was implemented. During th is period

, VSDs would typically operate at 60 Hz. The standard protocol for this evaluation was to await confirmation of the controls installation rather than encourage the installation by calling for updates. In some cases

, DMI installed kW meters for t he pre

retrofit condition, but VSDs were never installed. It is recommended that a six

- month follow

- up is performed before the full incentive is paid so that proper operation can be confirmed.

Recommendation 3: Multiple instances were observed in which t he VSD retrofit was replacing an existing drive. In all of these cases, the facility operator reported that the existing drives were failing and had operational issues. It appeared that these failing VSDs were approximately 15 years old or more. The pre scriptive VSD application states that incentives are not available to VSDs replacing existing drives. Evaluated savings for two of these installations were found to be small or even zero based on metering data. It is recommended that a pre

- inspection is done to identify whether or not an existing VSD is being replaced.

Recommendation 4: In at least one

, case energy savings resulted primarily due to proper balancing rather than VSD control of the motor. Prior to the VSD retrofit, a chilled water pump was providing an excess of water to end users and the motor was observed to operate at over 100 percent load. The VSD installation was used to essentially balance the chilled water flow. This resulted in significant energy savings, the majority of which cou ld have been achieved simply through balancing and without installation of a VSD. It is recommended that a pre

- inspection be done to identify cases in which a VSD might not be the most economical solution.

Recommendation 5: Even though the energy realiza tion rate of 94 percent was good for a program like this, the individual metered VSD energy realization rates varied from

- 2 percent to 407 percent . The

- 2 percent case was the only one that was negative, but 15 drives had a realization rate less than 100 percent . The remaining ten drives had a realization rate greater than 100 percent , and in most cases, they were significantly greater. It is recommended that this realization rate be applied to the TRM energy savings estimates as an immediate step.

Reco mmendation 6: The PAs and EEAC should also look to improve upon the motor level savings assumptions following the completion of the current Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships VSD Load Shape study expected to be completed in late 2013

. This study includes post

- installation metering on hundreds of drives, which would help to refine the TRM savings assumptions for certain motor, and possibly building types.

Recommendation 7: The TRM claims summer kW reductions for hot water pumps and winter kW reduc tions for chilled water pumps. In most cases, hot water pumps were observed to be shut down for the summer months and chilled water pumps shut down for winter months. It is not expected that this would apply to all of these motor types, butCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 109 of 14 4

based on the sample observed in this evaluation, it appears that the TRM should be adjusted downwards. Currently, it appears that the TRM assumes 100 percent of these motors will operate during their off

- seasons. It is recommended that the TRM be reviewed, and approp riate adjustments be made to ensure that demand savings are realistic for certain measure types. Consider near

- zero summer kW reduction for hot water pumps and near

- zero winter kW reduction for chilled water pumps

.
Recommendation 8: Summer On

- Peak kW red uctions in the TRM are generally very close to zero for motor types not related to heating. This seems to be a reasonable assumption for motors with automatic controls as it would be expected that an appropriately

- sized motor would operate near full load on a design day; however, the evaluation observed significantly more motors with manual controls than expected, with the motors operating below full

- load input kW. Since the TRM predicts near

- zero summer kW reductions, this results in very high realizatio n ratios. It is recommended the PA’s examine the TRM summer On

- Peak kW reduction values for accuracy.

Recommendation 9: It is not recommended that the realization rates for demand savings from this study are applied to the TRM due to the poor precisions. However, we think that the observations noted above, plus the results of the aforementioned NEEP study, can be used together to improve upon the savings estimates in the TRM.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

Savings Impact: While the overall realization ratio is close to 100 percent , there is a significant variation at the motor level, and many motors are either close to 0 percent or much higher than 100 percent . Overall, the onsite savings were lower than the tracking estimates with a realization rate of 94 percent

.
Form ulas Used in Impact Analysis: A custom 8,760 hour spreadsheet model was used for each motor metered. Savings were typically developed using time

- of

- use trends, while very few were developed using outdoor air temperature trends depending on the operation of the motor and VSD.

Application of Results: Retrospectively

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: This study attempted to obtain pre

and post

- installation metering on retrofit VSD installations. The recommended sample size of 44 drives w as not achieved due to several issues involved in trying to obtain pre

- installation metering. The final sample size was 26 drives. Evaluators conducted pre

- and post

- metering on each of the 26 drives using true power meters. Savings were developed by co mparing the metered pre

- installation energy use and the metered post

- installation energy use, and annualized in an 8,760 hour spreadsheet model.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 13

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 110 of 14 4

14. Impact Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Lighting Installations

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: DNV KEMA

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/21/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This document summarizes the work performed by DNV KEMA between 2011 and 2013 to quantify the actual energy and demand savings of 56 prescriptive lighting projects installed through the PAs ’ C&I New Construction and Major Renovation and C&I Large Retrofit programs in 2010. Note that this document presents the final results following 12 months of metering for the four prescriptive lighting categories of interest, systems, controls, Advanced Lighting Design

, and refrigerated LED case lighting.

The final stud y results, produced following 12 months of monitoring, will be used to determine the final realization rates for prescriptive lighting energy efficiency projects installed in the C&I New Construction and Major Renovation and C&I Large Retrofit programs in 2012. This report presents realization rates for gross energy savings and savings factors at the statewide level using 12 months of metered data collected from each site. These savings factors should be applied to future Technical Reference Manual (TRM) updates. Key findings include the following:

● Lighting systems energy kWh realization rate including HVAC interactive effects was 112.3 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 7.9 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval.

● Lighting controls energy kWh realization rate including HVAC interactive effects was 72.0 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 23.2 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval.

● Advanced Lighting Design energy kWh realization rate including HVAC interactive effects was 124.6 perce nt with a relative precision of +/

- 7.6 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval.

● Refrigerated LED case lighting systems energy kWh realization rate including HVAC interactive effects was 94.3 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 6.3 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval.

● A comparison of 3

- month metering interim results vs. 12

- month metering results showed that energy savings were generally overestimated in the 3

- month analysis. The comparison analysis also found that the most representative 3

- month metering period occurred between September and November.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 111 of 14 4

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Resp onse: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.

General Lighting:

Recommendation 1: For future lighting impact evaluations, three

- month data collection should be sufficient to estimate annual energy savings. It is recommended that the PAs consider monitoring for a minimum of three months. Also consider including a winter or summer month in that period if possible.

Lighting Systems:

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that the lighting systems component of the TRM be updated to reflect these new results.

Recommendation 3: It is recommended that the PAs continue to use site specific data when estimating lighting hours of use

. Lighting Controls:

Recommendation 4: Depending on the outcome of the current lighting controls market study, a pre/ post

- metering lighting controls study may be needed in the future.

Recommendation 5: To help implem entation and TA vendors and produce more reliable estimates of hours reduced, it is recommended that the PAs consider requiring
pre

- installation metering to establish an estimate of baseline hours.

Recommendation 6: Until a new pre/post

- lighting controls impact evaluation is done, it is recommended that the lighting controls component of the TRM be updated to reflect these new results.

Advanced Lighting Design :

Recommendation 7: It is recommended that for all Advanced Lighting Design projects, the PAs tr y to collect the final lighting as

- built, which would be used to adjust the proposed connected kW savings.

Recommendation 8: It is recommended that the PAs and EEAC consider updating the TRM using these realization rates and savings factors.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 112 of 14 4

Refrigerated LED Case Lighting:

Recommendation 9: This report recommends that the TRM be updated to utilize a refrigeration system efficiency of 1.9 kW/Ton. This value is based on a larger proportion of lower temperature freezer cases than cooler cases found in these applications.

Recommendation 10: It is recommended that in all future freezer/cooler case LED lighting applications, lighting controls be considered.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

Savings Impact: Results from this study will be applied to the gross energy and demand savings to produce net energy and demand savings adjusted for actual conditions found in the field

, such as technology, documentation, quantity, operation, interactive HVAC effects

, and coincidence with system the peak.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis:

Su mmer Coincidence Factor = Summer Coincidence * Summer kW HVAC Interactive Effect Factor

Gross Adjusted Summer kW = Gross kW * Connected kW Realization Rate * Summer Coincidence Factor

Winter Coincidence Factor = Winter Coincidence * Winter kW HVAC Interact ive Effect Factor

Gross Adjusted Winter kW = Gross kW * Connected kW Realization Rate * Winter Coincidence Factor

kWh Realization Rate = Connected kWh Realization Rate * Hours

- of

- Use Realization Rate * kWh HVAC Interactive Effect Factor

Gross Adjusted kWh = Gross kWh * kWh Realization Rate

Application of Results: Retrospectively

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Data collection included 12 months of metering using mostly time

- of

- use lighting loggers. The sample was designed to achieve 90 /10 percent precision for energy savings for each measure. The sample sizes were 34 lighting systems, 26 lighting controls, and 10 advanced lighting design and 10 refrigerated LED lighting sites.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, St udy 14.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 113 of 14 4

15. Impact Evaluation of 2011 Custom Refrigeration, Motor and Other Installations

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: DNV KEMA

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/18/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This document summarizes the work performed by DNV KEMA, DMI

, and SBW Consulting during 2012 and 2013 to quantify the actual energy and demand savings due to the installation of 48 custom refrigeration, motor

, and other (RMO) measures installed through the PAs ’ C&I New Construction and Major Renovation and C&I Large Retrofit programs in 2011.

The objective of this impact evaluation is to provide verification or re

- estimation of electric energy and demand savings estimates for 48 custom RMO projects installed in 2011 through site

- specific inspection, monitoring, and analysis. The results of this study will be used to determine the final realization rates to be applied to custom RMO energy efficiency measures installed in the C&I New Construction and Major Renovat ion and C&I Large Retrofit programs in 2012. This evaluation report presents realization rates for gross energy savings for all PAs. It also provides realization rates for on

- peak summer and winter demand savings for all PAs except for Western Massachuse tts Electric (WMECo). For WMECo, realization rates for summer and winter seasonal peak savings are provided. For National Grid, realization rates for percent on

peak energy savings are also provided. Realization rates for each of these parameters are al so provided at the statewide level.

Key findings include the following:

Custom Refrigeration:

Statewide energy kWh realization rate of 110.5 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 12.2 percent at 90 percent confidence.

National Grid energy kWh realization rate of 118.8 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 17.7 percent at 90 percent confidence.

NSTAR energy kWh realization rate of 112.7 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 5.7 percent at 90 percent confidence.

Cape Light Compact energy kWh realization rate of 75.0 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 73.2 percent at 90 percent confidence.

WMECo energy kWh realization rate of 65.8 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 18.3 percent at 90 percent confidence.

Custom Motor:Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 114 of 14 4

Statewide energy kWh realiza tion rate of 91.4 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 3.7 percent at 90 percent confidence.

National Grid energy kWh realization rate of 88.5 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 4.8 percent at 90 percent confidence.

NSTAR energy kWh realization rate of 134.2 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 0.0 percent at 90 percent confidence.

WMECo energy kWh realization rate of 77.7 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 0.0 percent at 90 percent confidence.

Custom Other:

Statewide energy kWh realizati on rate of 61.4 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 1.9 percent at 90 percent confidence.

National Grid energy kWh realization rate of 31.0 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 4.3 percent at 90 percent confidence.

WMECo energy kWh realization rate of 270.7 percent with a relative precision of +/

- 0.0 percent at 90 percent confidence.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.

Statewide:

Recommendation 1: Make sure customers and TA vendors understand they need to be prepared to provide assistance if their project is selected for evaluation.

Recommendation 2: Ensure sufficient time is allowed for logging data for projects with seasonal va riability.

Recommendation 3: All PAs should require more complete pre

- retrofit or baseline documentation.

Recommendation 4: PAs should work together to require consistent methodologies and documentation for similar projects across different PAs.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 115 of 14 4

Recommen dation 5: Consider specifying documentation requirements for compressed air leak repairs.

Recommendation 6: Consider more of a whole system approach for grouping measures for evaluation.

Recommendation 7: Require TA vendors to provide metering for retro fit projects.

Recommendation 8: Consider specifying TA verification of savings via commissioning, and in some cases, pre/ post

- metering for specific measures.

Cape Light Compact:

Recommendation 9: Perform closer review of large savings measures.

Recommend ation 10: Include interactive refrigeration savings.

National Grid:

Recommendation 11: Require adequate savings documentation.

Recommendation 12: Verify proposed load assumptions as part of the final inspection of new construction projects.

Recommendati on 13: Verify proposed item count assumptions as part of the final inspection.

Recommendation 14: Verify plant operating hours using whole building interval data.

Recommendation 15: Ensure consistent use of data throughout the calculations.

NSTAR:

Recom mendation 16: Provide sufficient documentation for understanding the determination of measure savings.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

Savings Impact: Custom refrigeration savings were generally greater than tracking assumptions with a statewide realization rate of 110.5 percent . Custom motor savings were somewhat lower than tracking estimates with a statewide realization rate of 91.4 percent . Custom other had a low realization rate of 61.4 percent due to some underperforming sampled sites.

Formulas Used in Impact Analys is: Evaluated savings were developed using custom analysis methods which were similar to the methods to develop tracking estimates.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 116 of 14 4

Application of Results: Retrospectively

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Data collection included true power metering, amperage metering and time

- of

- use metering. In some cases, the evaluation relied on existing customer metering when necessary. The sample was designed to achieve 90/20 percent precision for energy savings for each measure and each PA. Th e sample sizes were 28 refrigeration sites, 13 motor sites, and 7 other sites.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 15

.

16. Process Evaluation of the 2012 Bright Opportunities Program

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: DNV KEMA

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/14/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : The evaluation objectives included:

● Determining whether this program, which is brand

- new, is appropriately designed;

● Determining whether the progr am is being delivered in an efficient/effective manner;

● Providing estimates of net

- to

- gross ratios for the program net of free

- ridership; and

● Providing preliminary estimates of participant spillover for the program.

The high

- level findings included:

● The pr eponderance of the evidence indicates that the Bright Opportunities Program is a well

- designed and well

- run program. This evidence includes:

o Generally high program satisfaction levels from end users and participating trade allies;

o Lack of barriers to prog ram participation (beyond unawareness of the program);

o Generally high program net

- to

- gross ratios; and

o Lack of significant complaints from program implementers.

● The recommended net

- to

- gross ratios for the lighting products discounted by the program

were 82 percent for LED bulbs and 74 percent for linear fluorescent lamps. The evaluation calculated the participant spillover to be not statistically different from zero.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 117 of 14 4

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovat ion (Electric)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized belo w.

Recommendation 1: Do more marketing of the program, especially to end users.

Recommendation 2: Encourage participating trade allies to do more to educate their customers about the source and size of the buy

- down discounts.

Recommendation 3: Do more consumer education about the use of LED bulbs with dimmer switches.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or re jected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

Savings Impact: The recommended net

- to

- gross ratios for the lighting products discounted by the program were 82 percent for LED bulbs and 74 percent for linear fluorescent l amps. The evaluation calculated the participant spillover to be not statistically different from zero.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis:

Net Summer kW Savings = Gross Adjusted Summer kW * Net

- to

- Gross ratio

Net Winter kW Savings = Gross Adjusted Winter kW * Net

- to

- Gross ratio

Net kWh Savings = Gross Adjusted kWh * Net

- to

- Gross ratio

Application of Results: Retroactively

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Data collection activities included:

● Conducting interviews with staff from the progra m and from Ecova, the main implementation contractor;

● Completing telephone surveys with 200 program participants; and

● Conducting in

- depth interviews with 25 participating lighting distributors, 8 nonparticipating lighting distributors, and 25 participating lighting contractors.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 16.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 118 of 14 4

17. C&I Customer Profile Project

Type of Study: Market Characterization

Evaluation Conducted by: DNV KEMA

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/20/2013

Evaluation Objectiv e and High

- Level Findings : The primary goals of the C&I Customer Profile project were to:

● Characterize the Massachusetts energy efficiency market by analyzing recent customer usage and program participation data.

● Collect comprehensive billing and tracking data for all C&I customers to develop a single database to provide a consistent source of program tracking and billing data to support ongoing evaluation efforts.

● Estimate the extent to which customers of various sizes and types participated in energy efficiency programs during 2011.

● Document the processes used to consolidate and normalize PA data, and recommend enhancements to tracking systems to improve accuracy of results in future studies.

Highlights of the results of the analyses of participation b y sector include:

● Custom vs. Prescriptive: The vast majority of savings in 2011 came from custom projects (64 percent of electric and 81 percent of gas). This would support a continuation of impact evaluation work of customer projects to ensure that meth ods used to calculate savings are effective.

● End Uses: On the electric side, the end use categories with the highest 2011 savings were lighting, combined heat and power

, and HVAC. While impact evaluations are underway for lighting and combined heat and p ower , it has been several years since the last HVAC study. For gas projects, most 2011 savings came from HVAC.

● Business Type: The reliability of the estimated participation and savings rates by business type is limited by the fact that only 59 percent of billing accounts could be assigned to a business type. However, it appears that while only 1.8 percent of electric accounts classified as healthcare participated, their average savings was 23 percent

. Similarly for gas, of the 3 percent of accounts c lassified as healthcare and education, the average savings was high. This may indicate the potential for significantly more savings in these sectors.

● Account Size: Participation rates increase as account size increases for both gas and electric, reflecti ng the individualized attention paid to these entities by PA accountCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 119 of 14 4

managers. However, the average savings percent is highest for small gas and electric
accounts.

● Same PAs: The participation rate for gas customers with the same electric PA is 2.6 percen t , which is higher than the 1.6 percent participation rate for those with different electric PAs. This may be an indication of the challenges faced in coordinating marketing efforts between PAs.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Co nstruction and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following recommendations were made by the evaluators conducting th is study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.

Recommendation 1: Standardization of tracking database information about end uses and building types would increase the accuracy of any informatio n derived from the records received.

Recommendation 2: In order to evaluate overall customer participation, it is necessary to build the capability to link accounts across fuels.

Recommendation 3: Leverage the baseline information collected here for othe r market characterization projects and efforts to estimate savings opportunities in each sector.

Recommendation 4: Incorporate checks to ensure that account numbers entered into tracking systems are accurate, and correspond to those in billing systems.

Re commendation 5: If there is a need for more reliable information by business type, explore services and software to use names and addresses to lookup business type rather than relying on PA designations.

Recommendation 6: Build on this one

- year snapshot with additional data going forward to accumulate program participation history.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally

a dopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

Savings Impact: Not applicable. This is a market characterization study.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: Not applicable. This is a market characterization s tudy.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 120 of 14 4

Application of Results: Prospectively

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The project involved the collection, organization

, and analysis of 2011 energy efficiency project tracking data and billed energy usage for all Massachusetts C ommercial and Industrial gas and electric customers. The statewide database developed from this project has already provided information upon which other C&I impact and process evaluation work has been based. Once the data were collected and consolidated , it was analyzed to produce summaries that characterize the current energy efficiency market in Massachusetts.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 17.

18. Mid

- Sized Customer Needs Assessment

- Interim Results

Type of Study: Market Characterization

Evaluation Conducted by: DNV KEMA

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/28/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This study provides results to date for the Massachusetts Mid

- Sized Customer Needs Assessment for 2011 C&I custo mers. The study aims to investigate the extent to which current program offerings effectively serve the needs of mid

sized customers. In addition, if it is found that mid

- sized customers or pockets of customers are underserved, the study will explore whe ther variations to existing program offerings or additional programs would be needed to optimally serve these customers. DNV KEMA completed research activities that addressed the following three objectives:

● Determine how Massachusetts PAs currently addres s mid

- sized customers;

● Identify and describe the population of mid

- sized customers across PAs (on

- going);

● Estimate program participation rates for the largest, smallest, and mid

- sized customers.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Con struction and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The following preliminary recommendations were made by the evaluators co nducting this study. The initial response from the Program Administrator to these recommendations is summarized below.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 121 of 14 4

Recommendation 1: Improve processes for linking multiple accounts to customers

– The PA’s ability to accurately and consistently classi fy customers depends upon their ability to track multiple account customers within and across PAs. The PAs employ a range of tools to help them link customers; however, these tools did not provide sufficient support to enable the research team to link acc ount representatives to the accounts they manage by account number. Moreover, the evaluators found large discrepancies between the segments that the PAs felt they were managing and those the evaluators were able to match with account representatives.

Reco mmendation 2: Standardize classification and marketing approaches to multi

account customers

– The research found that multiple account customers were treated differently across PAs, and also within a PA, across customers. The lack of standardized
approa ches for treating multiple account customers limits the ability to isolate segments of customers based on size and complicates the PA’s ability to effectively market to those
customers.

Recommendation 3: Link electric and gas customers

– Because much of t he identification and marketing to Direct Install customers is handled through the electric PAs, the gas

- only PAs lose some autonomy regarding how their customers are marketed. Consequently, some large gas customers are not identified until after they rec eive Direct Install prescriptive solutions from installation contractors. Improved coordination of tracking systems across PAs would reduce the risk of this occurring. DNV KEMA found that the PA’s ability to link accounts across firms is constrained by l egal privacy issues that must be addressed before this will be possible.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: All recommendations are being considered for adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommendations that require changes to program design and operations.

This memorandum provides preliminary results of this mid

- sized customer needs assessment. The findings were limited to those relating to the in

- depth interviews with PA staff and implementation contractors, and limited analysis of the C&I Customer Profile Project database. Continued research efforts include a detailed data mining exercise to investigate the relationship between in

- depth interview responses and the custo mer billing and program tracking records

, as well as implementation of a survey of participants and non

- participants to test various hypotheses developed based on the PA interviews and data analysis conducted to date. Results of these analyses will be rep orted in the final report

, which is expected to be completed in the second half of 2013.

Savings Impact: Not applicable. This is a market characterization study.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: Not applicable. This is a market characterization study.

Application of Results: ProspectivelyCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 122 of 14 4

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Interviews with each PA and five implementation contractors provided a set of criteria used to segment customers by size. In addition to reviewing the interview fi ndings, DNV KEMA used the available customer billing and tracking data to examine differences in participation rates across the three size groups.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 18

.

19. Impact Evaluation of 2011 Prescriptive Gas Measures

This study applies to gas energy efficiency programs only and therefore is not included in the Electric PAs' Energy Efficiency Annual Reports

.

20. Standard Boiler Research Plan and Interview Results Memo

This study applies to gas energy efficiency programs only and therefore is not included in the Electric PAs' Energy Efficiency Annual Reports

.

21. Impact Evaluation of 2011 Custom Gas Installations

This study applies to gas energy efficiency programs only and therefore is not inc luded in the Electric PAs' Energy Efficiency Annual Reports

.

E. Special and Cross Sector Studies

22. Massachusetts Cross

- Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Integrated Report

Type of Study: Impact and Process Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: Opinion Dy namics with Navigant Consulting and Evergreen Economics

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/20/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This report includes impact findings of behavior/feedback programs and pilots administered by National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachusetts Electric Company (WMECo)

, and the Cape Light Compact during the 2012
program year. It also includes process findings for the Cape Light Compact ’s Smart Home Energy Monitoring Pilot from 2009 to 2012.

The evaluation includes the foll owing findings:Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 123 of 14 4

● The 2012 impacts for the National Grid and NSTAR behavior/feedback programs range from 41 kWh to 258 kWh per household for the electric cohorts and from 0.28 MMBtus to 1.90 MMBtus for the gas cohorts.

● O p ower electric programs have demonstra ted an average adjusted net savings gain of 27 percent from program year (PY) 1 to PY2, and 16 percent from PY2 to PY3. Gas programs have demonstrated an average adjusted net savings gain of 20 percent from PY1 to PY2, and 23 percent from PY2 to PY3.

● Sinc e 2009, the National Grid and NSTAR behavior/feedback programs using Opower have channeled 24,122 additional participants into other residential programs and resulted in a savings of 5,298 MWh and 28,581 MMBtus. The additional savings are a result of the Opower program driving increased participation in other residential
programs.

● For National Grid and NSTAR behavior/feedback programs, the report provided savings estimate ratios to adjust implementer estimate of savings based on comparison of treatment and control group usage for each month of participation. The savings estimates range between 90

- 111 percent

.

● The WMECo program achieved a total overall savings of 2,263 MWh in 2012 attributable to “passive” participants that receive energy saving reports (mailers), and “activated” participants that interact with an online web platform.

● The WMECo program has had a substantial positive impact on participation in other
energy e fficiency programs. For instance, online activation of the web portal has increased participation in the Residential Mass Save program by 431 customers in 2012.

● The Compact’s SHEMP Pilot using the Tendril in

- home displays had significant savings differenc es between the older Legacy cohort and the more recent Energize cohort. Legacy customers’ savings range from 7.8 percent to 8.8 percent average savings per household. Comparatively, Energize savings estimates are significantly lower, ranging from 1.49 pe rcent to 1.99 percent average savings per household.

● The Compact’s SHEMP Pilot had differences between Legacy and Energize cohorts’

cross

- program participation levels. Legacy customers demonstrated a sharp increase in

cross

- program participation during the Legacy participation period. Energize customers’ monthly cross

- program participation dropped during the treatment period.

Programs to which the Results of the Study A pply:

● Behavior/Feedback ( Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: There were no recommendations as part of this report.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 124 of 14 4

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: Not applicable

.
S avings Impact: For the National Grid and NSTAR behavior/feedback programs, the net savings increase or decrease slightly compared to the 2012 TRM for various cohorts. Please see Table 2 on page 10 in the report for additional information.

Similarly for W MECo, net savings increase or decrease compared to planned values, with passive participants exhibiting increased savings while activated participants exhibiting decreased savings. Please see Table 14 in the report for additional information

. The Compact’ s SHEMP pilot results do not impact savings.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis:

Impact analysis for Behavior/Feedback programs using Opower HER, and for passive participants in the WMECo program:

(Equation 1)

where:

= A verage daily consumption (kWh) for household i at time t

= Household

- specific intercept = Coefficient for the change in consumption between pre

- and post

- periods = Coefficient for the change in consumption for the treatment group in the post

- period compared to the pre

- period, and to the comparison group. This is the basis for the net savings estimate.

Please refer to section 3.1.2 of the report for additional information.

Developing Savings Estimate Ratio for Behavior/Feedback programs using Opower HER:

(Equation 3)

where:

n is the average number of participants in a given cohort u is a given utility c is a given cohort i is a given time period f is a give n fuel typeCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 125 of 14 4

Please refer to section 3.1.2 of the report for additional information.

Impact Analysis for WMECo’s Activated Participants:

The matching method was employed to calculate savings for WMECo’s activated participants. The matching method follows t he approach summarized in Imbens and Wool rid ge (2009) and applied in Abadie and Imbens (2011). In this model, the effect of the activation in month t is the difference between the energy use of participant k and its estimated counterfactual (baseline) con sumption.

Impact Analysis for the Compact’s SHEMP Pilot

-- Model 1:

where:

is the average daily electricity use by household k during month t;

all Greek characters denote coefficients to be estimated, and in particular is a monthly fixed effect.

is an indicator variable taking a value of 1 if customer k is a SHEMP participant, and 0 otherwise;

is the average daily electricity use by household k during the most recent month before household k enrolled in SHEMP that is also the same calendar month as month t. For instance, if household k enrolled in August 2011, the value of for June 2012 is June 2011.

is an indicator variable for energy efficiency program j, taking a value of 1if customer k is in the program in period t and 0 otherwise. In the ana lysis we consider four EE programs (that is, J=4), denoted by the following variables in regression results reported in Appendix C (of the Evaluation Report): LISF= Low Income Single Family program;

MFR= Multi

- Family Retrofit program;

RHE= Residential Home Energy program; RP= Residential Products program.

is the error term

In this model indicates average daily savings generated by the program for participants over the course of the initiative. 0 1 2 1 J j j kt t kt kt kt kt j kWh Treatment PREkWh EE αα α β ε

= =+ + + + 

## ∑

kt kWh

0 t α

kt Treatment

kt PREkWh

kt PREkWh

j kt EE

kt ε

1 αCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 126 of 14 4

Please refer to section 3.3.4 of the report for additio nal information.

Impact Analysis for the Compact’s SHEMP Pilot

-- Model 2:

where :
= the average daily electricity use by household k during month t;

= the estimated counterfactual energy use by household k during month t ; = the energy use by household k ’s match during month t ;

= the values for household k in month t of the independent variables X affecting energy

use;
= the values of X in month t for household k’s match.

= the factors used to adjust household k ’s energy use to reflect differences between household k and its match in the value of X

. Please refer to section 3.3.4 of the report for additional information.

Application of Results:

● The National Grid and NSTAR Behavior/Feedback results will be applied in the 2012 Annual Report.

● The National Grid and NSTAR Behavior/Feedback savings estimate ratio will be applied in 2013 and going forward.

● The WMECo Behavior/Feedback results will be applied in the 2012 Annual Report.

● The Compact’s SHEMP is a pilot progra m that will not directly affect savings for any program during this annual report year.

How the Study Came to the Conclusions: For the National Grid and NSTAR Behavior/Feedback programs and WMECo passive participants, the evaluation developed its savings estimate based on a billing analysis of the entire program population and its randomly assigned control groups using a linear fixed effects regression. A channeling analysis was then performed to determine what portion of HER savings, as measured through the billing analysis, were captured in other programs. For more information, please see section 3.1 of the study.

For the WMECo Western Mass Saves (WMS) activated participants, the matching method was employed to calculate savings. More details can be found in Section 3.2.2 of the study. 

 

## ( ) ˆ C
kt kt kt

C M M kt kt kt kt Savings kWh kWh

kWh kWh β = −

=+− X X

kt kWh

 C
kt kWh

M kt kWh

kt X

M

kt X

ˆ βCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 127 of 14 4

For the Compact’s SHEMP pilot process evaluation, the evaluation findings are based on a literature review, survey research from pre

- and post

- treatments surveys , and an additional survey to a comparison group. For the Compact impact analysis, the evaluation uses a billing analysis of the opt

- in treatment group to a matched comparison group. For more information, please see section 3.3 of the study.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 22

.

23

. 2012 Massachusetts Statewide Marketing Campaign Evaluation Report

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Evaluation Conducted by: Opinion Dynamics Corporation

Date Evaluation Completed: 1/11/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This report presents results from the post

2012 statewide umbrella marketing survey effort conducted by Opinion Dynamics. The primary goal of this research is to enable the PAs to track changes in Mass Save awareness over time

, as well as to measure the e ffectiveness of the campaign. As such, this report presents the results from residential and C&I quantitative surveys conducted immediately following the 2012 campaign, which ran from April 2 to August 19, 2012. A comparison of results from the pre

and post

- campaign surveys indicates that there have been some changes in Mass Save awareness or familiarity as a result of 2012 campaign activities. However, there are differing results within the residential and commercial populations.

Overall, the team foun d divergent results within the residential and C&I populations, with C&I customers showing greater changes in awareness and other metrics over time. For example, there has been a significant increase in Mass Save awareness among C&I customers compared to awareness prior to the 2012 campaign launch. The August 2012 survey shows that awareness among C&I customers has risen from 33 percent pre

- campaign to 40 percent post

- campaign. However, awareness of and familiarity with Mass Save has not changed signific antly among residential PA customers since the pre

- campaign survey. In addition, there has been little change in residential familiarity compared to the 2010 baseline study conducted by the campaign implementer.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (Electric & Gas)

● Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● Residential Mass Save /HES (Electric & Gas)Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 128 of 14 4

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances (Electric)

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● Behavior/Feedback Program (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendati ons and Program Administrator Response: There were no recommendations from this report

, as it was designed to track changes in awareness from the campaign and to measure the campaigns effectiveness.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommend ations from the Study: Not applicable.

Savings Impact: No savings impact.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: Not applicable.

Application of Results: Prospectively.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: A telephone survey was conducted wit h a random sample of 402 residential customers between August 20 and September 9, 2012, immediately following the conclusion of the 2012 marketing campaign. The sample of customers was based on files that the PAs provided to the evaluators, which merged P A Customer Information System (CIS) data with program tracking databases to develop a master file of all PA residential customers. The evaluators used the merged customer database to create a sample frame containing all unique residential accounts with va lid contact information. From this frame, a random sample was created and survey quotas set for each PA combination, in proportion to their representation in the overall population to ensure that the sample was representative of the overall customer base.

Weights were developed and applied to the residential telephone survey data to match the composition of customers within the Massachusetts population based on home ownership.

The evaluators also conducted a telephone survey among PA business customers to assess changes in awareness, familiarity, and associations with Mass Save. The team surveyed a simple random sample of 295 C&I customers in August and September 2012. The fie lding of the survey was timed to take place immediately following the 2012 marketing campaign. The team based the sample of C&I customers on customer files provided by the PAs. Given the lack of readily available population

- level data on Massachusetts bu sinesses, the evaluators conducted an unweighted analysis of the commercial survey data.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 129 of 14 4

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 23.

24. 2013 Massachusetts Statewide Marketing Campaign Pre

- Campaign Results

Type of Study: Market Ass essment
Evaluation Conducted by: Opinion Dynamics Corporation

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/5/2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : This report presents results from the pre

2013 statewide umbrella marketing survey effort conducted by Opinion Dynamics. The goal of the research is to document current levels of awareness of Mass Save against which to measure changes over time.

The pre

- c ampaign survey indicates that unaided awareness of Mass Save among residential customers remains moderate (36 percent ) and has not changed since the post 2012 campaign
survey. Further, consistent with prior surveys, the percentage of residential customers who consider themselves somewhat or very familiar with Mass Save remains relatively low (19 percent ). Just under half of residential (46 percent ) customers aware of Mass Save identify utilities or energy efficiency service providers as sponsors.

Among C& I customers, unaided awareness of Mass Save is moderate

, with 47 percent reporting that they have seen or heard the term before. This represents an increase since the last statewide marketing survey when awareness was 40 percent

. Additionally, just over half of commercial customers (55 percent ) aware of Mass Save identify utilities or energy efficiency service providers as sponsors.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● Residenti al Cooling & Heating Equipment (Electric & Gas)

● Residential Multi

- Family Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● Residential Mass Save /HES (Electric & Gas)

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances (Electric)

● C&I New Construction a nd Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric & Gas)Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 130 of 14 4

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● Behavior/Feedback Program (Electric & Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: There were no recommendations from this report , as it was designed to establish baseline campaign awareness.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: Not applicable.

Savings Impact: No savings impact.

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis: Not applicable.

Application of Results: Prospectively

. How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Evaluators conducted a telephone survey with a random sample of 504 residential PA customers. The team drew the sample from multiple data files provided by the PAs

. The team integrated customer data to create a sample frame containing all unique residential accounts with valid contact information. From this frame, the team drew a random sample and set survey quotas for each PA combination in proportion to their re presentation in the overall population to ensure that the sample was representative of the overall customer base.

Similar to the 2012 surveys, the team developed and applied weights to the residential telephone survey data to match the composition of custo mers within the Massachusetts population based on homeownership.

The team also surveyed a random sample of 456 PA C&I customers in March of 2013. The team drew the sample of C&I customers from customer data provided by the PAs.

Given the lack of readily a vailable population

- level data on Massachusetts businesses, the evaluators did not weight the results of the commercial survey. However, the team also considered whether weighting the survey results to those from the first survey with this group

was neces sary. The team determined that it was appropriate to leave the data unweighted due to the fact that the team spoke with similar firms across each of the survey waves, and the fact that there is no consistent or significant relationship between any of the firmographics and Mass Save awareness across the waves.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 24.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 131 of 14 4

25. Massachusetts Residential Non

- Energy Impacts (NEIs): Deemed NEI Values Addressing Differences in NEIs for Heating, Cooling, an d Water Heating Equipment that is Early Replacement Compared to Replace on Failure

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: July 15, 2013

Evaluation Objective and High

- Level Findings : Non

- Energy Im pacts associated with heating, cooling, and water heating equipment may differ according to whether the program

- sponsored equipment is an early replacement measure, a measure that is replacing failed equipment, or replacing equipment that was scheduled to be replaced.

This memorandum provides adjusted deemed NEI values that address the differences in NEIs for residential heating, cooling, and water heating equipment that is early replacement compared to replace on failure. These deemed NEIs update the NEIs provided in the residential NEI report submitted to the PAs on August 15, 2011

. 12

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment ( Electric)

● Residential Heating and Water Heating (Gas)

Evaluation Recommendations and Program Administrator Response: The study did not offer any recommendations.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: The study did not offer any recommendations.

Savings Impact:

12 NMR Group, Inc. (2011). Massachusetts Special and Cross

- Sector St udies Area, Residential and Low

- Income Non

- Energy Im pacts (NEI) Evaluation. Prepared for the Electric and Gas Program Administrators of Massachusetts. ( htt p://www.ma

eeac.org/Docs/8.1_EMV%20Page/2011/2011%20Residential%20Studies/Mass%20Crosscutting%20NEIs %20Final%20Report%20081511.pdf )Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 132 of 14 4

Measur e Category Measure NEI Duration Full NEI Value ($/Year) EE Portion of NEI ROF NEI Value ($/Year) Percent ROF Overall NEI Value ($/Year)

Cooling System Central Air Conditioner/ Heat Pump Noise Reduction Annual $2.83 67% $1.90

35.4% $2.50

Home Durability Annual $1.54 33% $0.51 $1.17

Property Value Increase One Time $62.65 50% $31.33 $51.56

Heating and Cooling System Ductless Mini

- Split Noise Reduction Annual $1.42 67% $0.95

1.3% $1.41

Home Durability Annual $1.98 33% $0.65 $1.96

Property Value Increase One Time $80.69 50% $40.35 $80.19

Heating System Boilers between 90 and 96% AFUE Home Durability Annual $17.42 33% $5.75

86.5% $7.33

Property Value Increase One Time $678.52 50% $339.26 $385.23

Boilers greater than or equal to 96% AFUE Home Durability Annual $17.42 33% $5.75

86.8% $7.30

Property Value Increase One Time $678.52 50% $339.26 $384.21

Furnaces greater than or equal to 95% AFUE Home Durability Annual $17.42 33% $5.75

88.4% $7.10

Property Value Increase One Time $678.52 50% $339.26 $378.61

Heating and Hot Water System Integrated Boiler / Water Heater Home Durability Annual $0.72 33% $0.24

67.9% $0.39

Property Value Increase One Time $29.17 50% $14.59 $19.27Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 133 of 14 4

Measur e Category Measure NEI Duration Full NEI Value ($/Year) EE Portion of NEI ROF NEI Value ($/Year) Percent ROF Overall NEI Value ($/Year)

Hot Water System Storage Water Heater Home Durability Annual $2.13 33% $0.70

58.4% $1.30

Property Value Increase One Time $82.56 50% $41.28 $58.47

Tankless Water Heater Home Durability Annual $2.13 33% $0.70

63.4% $1.23

Property Value Increase One Time $82.56 50% $41.28 $56.39

Cooling System Central Air Conditioner / Heat Pump Thermal Comfort Annual $3.92

100% $3.92

÷ 2 $1.96

Health Benefits $0.13 $0.13 $0.07

Heating and Cooling System Ductless Mini

- Split Thermal Comfort Annual $5.05

100% $5.05

÷ 2 $2.53

Health Benefits $0.16 $0.16 $0.08

Heating System Boilers between 90 and 96% AFUE Thermal Comfort Annual $48.63

100% $48.63

÷ 2 $24.32

Health Benefits $1.56 $1.56 $0.78

Boilers greater than

or equal to 96% AFUE Thermal Comfort Annual $48.63

100% $48.63

÷ 2 $24.32

Health Benefits $1.56 $1.56 $0.78

Furnaces greater than or equal to 95% AFUE Thermal Comfort Annual $48.63

100% $48.63

÷ 2 $24.32

Health Benefits $1.56 $1.56 $0.78

Heating and Hot Water System Integrated Boiler / Water Heater Thermal Comfort Annual $1.83

100% $1.83

÷ 2 $0.92

Health Benefits $0.06 $0.06 $0.03

Formulas Used in Impact Analysis:

Overall NEI Value

= [ ( EE Portion of NEI ∗ Full NEI Value ) ∗ ROF % ] + [ Full NEI Value

∗ ( 1

− ROF % ) ]

Application of Results: RetroactivelyCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 134 of 14 4

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: First, NMR developed a method based on industry knowledg e and published literature in order to attribute a portion of the NEIs associated with heating, cooling, and water heating systems to the measure’s “newness” and a portion to the measure for being energy

- efficient.

Second, using the attribution factors, NM R estimated the value of the portion of NEIs for heating, cooling, and water heating measures associated with the energy efficiency of the measure for systems that are replaced on failure. Then, using data from the current HEHE and C OOL Smart evaluation, 13 the percentage of program participants that replaced failed systems was determined and the adjusted NEI values were attributed to these participants.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 25.

F. Future Studies

Table III.B summarizes the studies expected to be included in next year’s Annual Report. There are a number of other studies which have been identified and are in the process of being scoped ; however

, it is not known at this time whether they will be completed in time for the n ext Annual Report.

13 Cadmus. 2013. 2012 Residential Heating, Water Heating, and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: Net

- to

- Gross, Market Effects, a nd Equipment Replacement Timing (Draft Final Report). June 2013. Prepared for The Electric and Gas Program Administrators of Massachusetts.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 135 of 14 4

Table III.B Evaluation Studies in Next Annual Report

Studies Docket and Exhibit Approving Planned Evaluation Studies Expected to be Implemented as

Approved?

(Y / N)
Residential Studies

Residential New Construction Net Savings Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes
Multifamily Process Evaluation Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Home Energy Services Home Performance Contractor and Lead Vendor Analysis Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes

Regional Hours of Use Lighting Logger Study Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes
LED Market Effects Baseline Study (Residential and C&I) Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes
Understand Current Stagnation of Lighting
Saturation Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes

Lighting Market Assessment Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Incremental Cost Assessment for Lighting and Products Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes

Top 10 Products Impact Assessment Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Low-Income Studies

Low Income Hours of Use Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes
Low Income Multi-family Impact Scoping Study Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. YesCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 136 of 14 4

Table III.B Evaluation Studies in Next Annual Report (continued)

Studies Docket and Exhibit Approving Planned Evaluation Studies Expected to be Implemented as

Approved?

(Y / N)
Commercial & Industrial Studies Mid-Sized Customer Needs Assessment - Final Report Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes

CHP Impact Evaluation Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes

Existing Buildings Market Characterization Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes

Whole System Approach Study Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes

Codes & Standards Research using Existing New
Construction Data Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes

Lighting Controls Scoping Study Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes
LED Market Effects Baseline Study (Residential and C&I) Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes
Market Assessment of Roof Top Units Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Learning from Successful Projects Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Documentation of Program Administrator Differences Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes

C&I Customer Profile - 2012 Data Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Characterization of Supply Side Population Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Commercial Real Estate Market Characterization Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Process Evaluation of Direct Install Delivery Method Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes
Impact Evaluation of Custom HVAC Installations Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Impact Evaluation of Prescriptive Non-Lighting Installations Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes

Special & Cross-Cutting Studies 2013 Massachusetts Statewide Marketing Campaign Post-Campaign Results Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes
Efficient Neighborhoods Plus Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes
Serrafix CMI (Northampton/Pittsfield) Study was approved in January 2013 with the 2013-2015 Three Year Plan. D.P.U. 12-100 through D.P.U. 12-111 Yes
Brand Assessment Analysis of Gas Networks and CoolSmart Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes

New Construction Non Energy Impact Study Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Analysis of Non Energy Impacts for C&I Marketing Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Top Down Net to Gross Scoping Study Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. Yes Codes and Standards Scoping Study Study is planned but not yet submitted for approval. YesCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 137 of 14 4

IV. STATUTORY BUDGET REQ UIREMENTS

A. Introduction

The Green Communities Act requires that energy efficiency programs minimize administrative costs, utilize competitive procurement processes, and spend a certain amount on low

- income programs. G.L. c. 25 §§ 19(a)

- (c).

For each sector, Tables IV.A through IV.C summarize and compare planned and actual program planning and administration (“PP&A”) costs, outsourced activities, and budget allocation, respectively.

B. Minimization of Administrative Costs

General Laws c. 25, § 19(a) requires the Department, when authorizing energy efficiency programs, to ensure that such programs minimize administrative costs to the fullest extent practicable. Administrative costs, also commonly referr ed to as PP&A costs, have traditionally been defined as all in

- house and outsourced costs associated with planning activities and program administration. These include costs associated with developing program plans and day

to

- day program administration, i ncluding labor, overhead costs, and any regulatory costs associated with energy efficiency activities.

The most significant factor in the PA approach to minimizing administrative costs is the statewide collaborative process, which is used by the Program Ad ministrators to coordinate planning, the adoption of consistent programs and processes, program design, EM&V studies, statewide marketing, regulatory proceedings, and the development and sharing of all best practices. Sharing of these costs, which would o therwise be borne by each Program Administrator individually, results in economies of scale that reduce the cost for each Program Administrator. For example, joint relea ses of Requests for Proposals RFPs lead to minimization of administrative costs in tha t the cost for preparation and release of the RFP are shared by the PAs. The Program Administrators also minimize administrative costs by coordinating energy efficiency program delivery, where appropriate, with other customer service activities such as

cu stomer acquisition, key account management

, and trade ally relationships.

Another factor in the Compact’s efforts to control administrative costs is its grassroots service to the community through its volunteer , appointed Town or County Governing Board Mem bers. These Board Members bring their expertise to community civic and business outreach events, provide guidance to staff on policies and new innovative initiatives, and support the multiple Town Energy Committees to inform and encourage participation in energy efficiency
program s

— all through volunteer service at no cost to ratepayers.

Notwithstanding any appropriate coordination with other customer service departments, it is necessary and appropriate for all Program Administrators to maintain a skilled a nd dedicated administrative staff in order to ensure successful delivery of programs ; compliance with the Green Communities Act ; timely responses to the directives of the Council, Department, andCape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 138 of 14 4

DOER; and documentation and achievement of substantial savin gs. The Program Administrators seek to balance the need to minimize administrative costs to the extent prudent with the need to maximize program quality and oversight. EEAC c ouncilors have emphasized the need to devote sufficient administrative resources to successfully implement the aggressive programs called for in the three

- year plans.

While the economies of scale and other steps taken by the PAs to minimize costs are effective, and administrative costs incurred by the PAs are transparent and are prese nted in each Program Administrator’s narrative and supporting tables, exact quantification of the minimization of administrative costs is not possible in a meaningful way. This is because the continuous scaling up and evolution of the plans make it imposs ible to establish a solid baseline for a comparison. When the variables are constantly (and necessarily) shifting, there is no opportunity to make a meaningful quantitative comparison or to estimate a counterfactual. Further, a direct quantitative
compar ison would not be useful

, because it would only provide a comparison of two points in time

. T he mandate of the Green Communities Act, however, is to seek administrative efficiencies, which is a continuous process that evolves along with energy efficiency planning and programming, whereas costs and administrative efficiency opportunities are always changing. The Program Administrators seek to minimize costs at all available opportunities, and not just from one point in time to another.

Table IV.A provides a summary of the percent change in actual Program Planning and Administration Costs relative to plan at the program, sector, and portfolio level s

.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 139 of 14 4

The Cape Light Compact did not experience any variances greater than ten percent between planned and actual PP&A spending at the sector level.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 140 of 14 4

C. Competitive Procurement

Table IV.B provides a summary of the percent change in actual cost allocations to in

- house and

o utsourced activities (including c ompetitivel y procured and non

- c ompetitively p rocured

a ctivities) re lative to plan at the sector and portfolio level s

.

The r esidential sector experienced significant variance s between planned to actual for i n

- h ouse

a ctivities and t otal o utsourced a ctivities

. The low

- in come sector experienced significant variances betwee n planned to actual for all outsource categories.

There was a shift from outsourced a ctivities to i n

- house a ctivities across all sectors. In general, many of the shifts in costs are a product of the three

- year plan approach employed by the Cape Light Compact to develop its 2012 planned values. The Cape Light Compact started 2012 with negative in

- house cost values for a number of programs within a number of budget categories, implying that the in

- house budget s for these programs were overspent prior to 2012. However, because t he Cape Light Compact attempts to outsource as many activities as possible, most of the in

- house costs are fairly consistent year

- to

- year , and have experienced steady growth over time

. The negative planned values skew the percent variances, indicating the shift from outsourced act ivities to in

- house activities

, when in fact the Cape Light Compact was planning for its typical annual in

- house costs

.
O utsourced EM&V costs were significantly lower than planned for all sectors

. As the Cape Light Compact did not know the exact cost of EM&V when it filed its plan, it assumed that 4 percent of its total budget would be spent on EM&V activities. However, the Cape Light Compact did not need to leverage all of the money set aside for EM&V d ue to the fact that most studies were conducted and cost

- shared on a statewide basis among PAs

, and as a resul t were less costly for each PA.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 141 of 14 4

Outsourced S TAT costs were also lower than planned due to the planning method described above. Additionally, certain STAT costs we re allocated based on program incentives, which explains the shift of in

- house costs from the C&I sector to the residential sector.

I n

- house PP&A and m arketing costs were significantly higher than planned

, as internal resources were le veraged more than planned. The Cape Light Compact did not know the exact in

- house PP&A and m arketing costs that would be needed when it filed its plan, and the assumptions made did not reflect the actual require ments.

In terms of the shift from non

- compet itive to competitive procurement, l ow

- i ncome experienced an increase in competitive procurement due to the fact that more outsourced costs were leveraged by implementation vendors that were competitively procured.

D. Low

- Income Spending

Table IV.C provides a summary of the percent change in actual costs at the sector and port folio levels relative to plan.

The statutory requirement regarding the l ow

- i ncome budget is as follows:

“Electric and gas energy efficiency program funds shall be allocated to customer c lasses, including the low

- income residential subclass, in proportion to their contributions to those funds; provided, however, that at least 10 per cent of the amount expended for electric energy efficiency programs and at least 20 per cent of the amount e xpended for gas energy efficiency programs shall be spent on comprehensive low

- income residential demand side management and education
programs

. ” 14

The l ow

- i ncome budget represents greater than 10 percent of the amount expended for electric energy efficiency programs by the Cape Light Compact. Therefore, the Cape Light Compact met the l ow

- i ncome budget statutory requirement this year

.

14 Massachusetts Session Laws. Chapter 169. An Act Relative to Green Communities. Approved by the Governor July 2, 2008. Available at: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2008/Chapter169 . Section 19. (c).Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 142 of 14 4

V. PERFORMANCE INCENTIV ES

The purpose of this section is to address the p erformance incentives that each PA proposes to collect. As a public entity and municipal aggregator, the Cape Light Compact does not collect performance incentives. As such, this section is not applicable to the Cape Light Compact.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 143 of 14 4

VI. AUDITS

The purpose o f this section is to address audits conducted during the past five program years.
In accordance with the Administrative Services Agreement between Barnstable County and the Cape Light Compact, the Cape Light Compact ’s funds are managed by Barnstable County

. Under this service, the Cape Light Compact ’s e nergy e fficiency funds are included as part of the Barnstable County audit.

In 2013, the Compact engaged Sullivan, Rogers & Company to perform financial statement audits of the Compact for calendar years 200 9 through 2012 and thereafter

. Initial results from the financial statement audits revealed an error in the Compact’s expenses from previous years. The expenses provided in the Cape Light Compact’s 2011 Annual Report erroneously included an additional $82 ,335 as part of the Block Grant expenditures. The $82,335 expense was thought to have been incurred during the 2011 program year. It was therefore recovered through the 2011 carryover component of the Cape Ligh t Compact’s 2012 EERF, which went into effec t July 1, 2012. This error was discovered during preparation of the Cape Light Compact’s 2013

- 2015 EERF filing, approved by the Department on April 1, 2013. The Compact corrected for this error in its 2013

- 2015 EERF filing by reducing the expenditures in cluded in the 2012 carryover, which incorporates the 2011 carryover, by $82,335.Cape Light Compact 2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13

- xxx Page 144 of 14 4

VII. APPENDICES

The purpose of this section is to provide det ailed supporting documentation.

A. Glossary of Defined Terms

– Includes Types of Costs in Each Budget Category and a Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations.

B. C ost

- Effectiveness Supporting Tables and Documentation

– Includes the D.P.U. 08

- 50 Tables, the Screening Tool, and Technical Reference Manual.

C. Program and Pilot Program EM&V Studies

– Includes evaluation studies for the residential, low

- income, and C&I sector programs and pilot programs.

D. Performance Incentives Supporting Documentation

– Includes documentation that supports the Compact ’s determination of actual performance incentives earned though the performance metrics.

E. O ther Supporting Documentation

– Includes additional supporting documentation with regard to competitive procurement activities in 2012.

F. L ost Base Revenue Information

– Includes a reference to the information on savings on which LBR is based.