Cape Light Compact

Annual Report on 

Energy Efficiency Activities

in 2012

Submitted to the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities 

and the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

August 1, 2013
This 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. Residential 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 Sector 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.................................................................... 61
1. 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 Program 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. Minimization of Administrative Costs......................................................................... 137

C. Competitive Procurement ............................................................................................ 140

D. Low-Income Spending................................................................................................. 141

V. Performance 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. .................................................................................................... 144
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 1 of 144

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 other 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 this 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 table 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 all 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 82 percent of planned benefits, 

which 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 89 percent and 86 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 Gas Company, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 2 of 144

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 Mid-Term Modification (“MTM”), its 

2012 MTM budget was determined using preliminary 2011 projected carryover (D.P.U. 11-116, 

Exh. B, at 1). This is because the Cape Light 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

During program year 2012, the Program Administrators 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 Public 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 directive of the Green Communities Act 

to seek all cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities. The 2012 goals were intentionally 

designed to be very challenging stretch goals, and achievements in savings and benefits reached 

unprecedented levels in Massachusetts for residential, low-income, and commercial and 

industrial (“C&I”) programs. The PAs successfully implemented their 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 144

The accomplishments of 2012 were achieved despite a slower-than-expected recovery in the 

economy, low natural 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 commitments 

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 implement 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 integration, coordination,

and cooperation – all of which are hallmarks of the 2010-2012 Three-Year Plans. 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 Management 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 delineates 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 reviewed and expanded 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 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, including customers, civic leaders, contractors, key trade allies, energy efficiency 

experts, and others, to provide the PAs with insights to guide efforts designed to continue to 

create a culture of sustainability in the Commonwealth. Additionally, some PAs hosted an 

Energy Efficiency Conference 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 integrate gas and electric energy efficiency 

services and expand statewide marketing efforts, which, through the use of the Mass Save brand, 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 4 of 144

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 activities and achievements noted above, the Program Administrators 

devoted considerable time and effort in 2012 to developing their 2013-2015 Three-Year Energy 

Efficiency Plans (“2013-2015 Three-Year Plans”). During the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan 

development process, 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 learned from 

2010 through 2012.

Given the unprecedented nature of these efforts, and the ambitious 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 Plans, 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 Report

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 Compact’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 significant2 variances between the Compact’s planned and evaluated costs, 

savings, and benefits for the program year, and discuss reasons for such variances.

● Discuss how program performance during the program year informs the Compact’s 

proposed modifications to program implementation, if any, during upcoming years.

● Describe the EM&V activities undertaken by the Compact that have not been included in 

previous Annual Reports, and explain 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 aggregator, 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 144

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 Compact.

● 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

The 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 were derived by taking the difference between the Cape Light 

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 Light Compact's 2012 MTM 

(D.P.U. 11-116).

In 2012, the Cape Light Compact invested 53 percent more funds toward energy efficiency 

programs and services in our communities than in the 2011 program year. Since the passage of 

the Green Communities Act and implementation of all available cost-effective efficiency 

opportunities, the Compact expenditures have increased from approximately $5 million annually 

to over $25 million. This more than quintupling of investments in energy efficiency represents 

the Towns’ and Counties’ continued commitment to serving our customers.

The Cape Light Compact highlights just a few of the many accomplishments in this third year of 

its 2010-2012 Three-Year Plan:
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 6 of 144

● We celebrated the 2012 Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (“NEEP”) Business 

Leaders Award for Energy Efficiency for our customer, the Sea Crest Beach Hotel,4a 

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 insulation 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 received, along with other regional PAs, the 2012 ENERGY STAR® Award for 

Sustained Excellence for the Residential Products Initiative, and 2012 ENERGY STAR® 

for Homes Leadership in Housing Award.

● We completed a significant number of high-profile, large customer projects and 

commitments that more than doubled our large C&I program 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 

waste 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, the 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 with louvers on exterior windows.

 

4 For more information, see http://www.neep.org/neep-supporters/business-leadership/case-studies/sea-crestbeach-hotel.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 7 of 144

● We signed a multi-year energy efficiency memorandum of understanding with one of the 

world’s largest private, non-profit ocean research institutions.

Tables5 I.A and I.B provide summary information on program performance at the portfolio and 

customer sector levels, respectively.

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

● All metrics between planned and preliminary values, except annualized energy and 

winter demand savings; and

● Most metrics between planned and evaluated values, with the exception of total program

costs, winter demand savings, and Total Resource Cost (“TRC”) costs.

With regard to the variances between planned and evaluated results, the Compact’s 2012 planned 

values were developed as part of the Compact’s 2012 MTM submitted in October of 2011,

therefore the plan values do not reflect the results of evaluations contained in the Compact’s 

2011 Annual Report filed in August 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 144

variances between preliminary and evaluated results are therefore attributable to evaluations 

contained in both the Compact’s 2011 and 2012 Annual Reports.

Each sector contributed to these variances as follows:

● Residential (for lifetime energy, lifetime demand, summer demand, lifetime non-electric 

benefits (“NEB”), TRC benefits, net benefits, 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 lifetime demand, winter demand, lifetime NEB, TRC benefits, and net 

benefits): 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, lifetime energy, annual energy, lifetime demand, summer 

demand, winter demand, 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 144

As shown in Table 1.B above, significant variances exist at the sector level between planned and 

evaluated values for residential TRC benefits, net benefits, and BCR; and low-income TRC 

benefits and net benefits. There are no significant variances at the C&I sector level.

● Within the residential sector, the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation, 

Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment, Residential Multi-Family Retrofit, 

Residential Mass Save, Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting, and Residential 

ENERGY STAR® Appliances 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 low-income 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 144

II. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

The purpose of this section is to provide detailed information on program performance at the 

sector and program levels for the residential, low-income, 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 144

Within the residential sector, the following programs are contributing to the variance between 

planned and evaluated values:

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (for all metrics except total program 

costs and TRC benefits): 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 total program costs, lifetime demand, 

summer demand, winter demand, TRC costs, net benefits, 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 lifetime energy, lifetime demand, summer demand, 

winter demand, lifetime NEB, TRC benefits, net benefits, 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 lifetime energy, annual energy, lifetime demand, summer 

demand, winter demand, lifetime NEB, TRC benefits, net benefits, 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 144

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting (for TRC costs 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 total program costs, winter demand, 

lifetime NEB, TRC costs, net benefits, and BCR): Please reference section II.A.3.f 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 13 of 144
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 14 of 144
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 15 of 144
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 16 of 144

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, the 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 Renovation6 – 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 increasingly 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 for 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 – MultiFamily (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 energy code. Atthe 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 144

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 & Heating 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 pump water heaters (“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-saving 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 multi-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 multifamily 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 facilities 

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 year 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 provide 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 144

In 2012, the HEAT Loan program continued to offer loans ($500 to $25,000), and the 

offerings 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 

addition, the PAs implemented various initiatives throughout the year, including preweatherization 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 partners 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 

expectations. 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 above 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-efficient 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 set 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 19 of 144

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 Management 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 marketbased network of trained contractors who offered energy efficiency and rating 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 

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.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 144

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. Despite 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 Light 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 generally install hard-wired fixtures, the number 

of compact fluorescents lamps (“CFLs”) was less than expected. Thus, lifetime energy savings 

were in line with expectations, while annualized energy savings were lower than expected, which 

caused the average energy measure life to increase. Annualized summer and winter demand 

savings decreased, while lifetime demand savings increased slightly, which caused the average 

demand measure life to increase.

The decrease in annualized energy savings, annualized summer 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 initially 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 144

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. Heating 

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 2011 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 decreased, 

the net benefits and BCR were greater than planned, and the program was 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 

incremental costs per square foot involved in building high efficiency homes that meet 

the criteria of the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation program. 

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 incentive option 

offered by the program. The study had no impact on savings. The study is discussed 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 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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).

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 

share 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 purchase 

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 existing 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 22 of 144

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 Participant: 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 possible, 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 support 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 trainings 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 percent 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 training 

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 

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.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 144

The significant 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 expected 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, significantly more heating 

and motor measures and fewer cooling and water heating measures 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, unanticipated increase in participation due to the quantity of piggyback motor 

measures installed with gas heating systems. This increase in participation can likely be 

attributed to the successes of both the gas heating equipment and HEAT Loan programs. A 

larger 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 cooling equipment. Heating 

equipment typically provides greater energy savings per unit than cooling equipment. 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 24 of 144

The lifetime and summer demand savings were also impacted by the change in measure mix. 

Fewer cooling and water heating measures were installed as compared to plan, both of which 

strongly contributed 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 benefits associated with the program decreased while the TRC costs increased, 

the net benefits and BCR were lower than planned, and the program was 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-toGross, Market Effects, and Equipment Replacement Timing: The study updated Net-toGross (“NTG”) ratios for certain prescriptive equipment available in the Residential 

Heating & Water Heating and Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment programs. It 

also analyzed net market effects (“NME”) and looked into the timing 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 accelerated 

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. These 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 Efficiency Annual Reports in D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73, and 

D.P.U. 11-126. The results of this study 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. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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 25 of 144

c. Residential Multi-Family Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The purpose 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 unit 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 directly 

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 

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).
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 26 of 144

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 traditionally defined Residential 

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

majority of the Cape Light Compact’s residential multi-family 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 implementing

weatherization measures. In many cases, they 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 anticipated. 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 144

Annualized and lifetime energy savings were higher than anticipated, with lifetime energy 

savings experiencing a greater increase; therefore, the average energy measure life was greater 

than anticipated. Annualized and lifetime demand savings were lower than anticipated, with 

lifetime demand savings experiencing a greater decrease; therefore, the average demand measure 

life was 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 weatherization 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 Compact 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 change 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.

TRC benefits decreased primarily due to the decrease in lifetime 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 program remained

cost-effective.

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

The significant variances 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-Family 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 available information to adjust strategies in order to achieve 

energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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 144

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 Customers: 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-unit 

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 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

● 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 aggressive savings

● Customer satisfaction

● Quality control standards
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 29 of 144

● Scheduling requirements

● Technical assistance

● Maintaining and reporting health and safety information 

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

services 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 weatherization 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 receive 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 the 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 statewide 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 maintain 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 

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.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 144

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 the 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 compared 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 sealing (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 was partly due to the increase in the number of assessments because the Compact widely 

marketed the programs. The 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 allowed 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 144

The lifetime and annualized summer demand savings were lower than expected, while the 

annualized winter demand savings were 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 increased 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.

Lifetime NEBs 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 were lower than planned due to fewer weatherization jobs than expected. Because 

the total benefits associated with the program decreased while the total resource costs increased, 

the net benefits and BCR were 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 decreased 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 additional incentives on a customer’s decision to overcome preweatherization barriers (overcoming these barriers makes them eligible to install certain 

recommended HES measures). The results of this study did not impact the 2012 

evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 9.

The variances from preliminary 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 Report, 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 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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 144

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, participants 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: Lighting

Delivery Mechanism: This program utilizes upstream incentives 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 144

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 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.A.8 provides information on the performance of the Residential ENERGY STAR® 

Lighting program.

This program was within goal for all metrics except TRC costs 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 was cost-effective.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 34 of 144

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 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”). The results of this 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 pricing 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 this study did not impact the 2012 evaluated results. The study is 

discussed in more 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 manufacturers 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 more detail in Section III, Study 6.

● Lighting Onsite Inventory and Saturation Study: 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 stockpiling. Saturation for all energy-efficient light bulbs, including 

CFLs, LEDs, and 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 mandated 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 adjust strategies in order to achieve 

energy efficiency goals. With respect to the 2012 program performance information, the 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 35 of 144

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 component 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 products 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 

pick-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: 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 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 36 of 144

(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 televisions and installed 

fewer room air conditioners and non-television process-related measures (e.g., computer 

monitors and smart strips) 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

process-related measures, which impacted the costs and savings for this program. The Cape 

Light Compact continued to install more refrigerators and televisions in 2012 than initially 

planned.

As stated previously, the Compact’s 2012 budget is a combination of 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 was over budget for 2012.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 37 of 144

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 level for this 

program, however, was consistent with the 2010 and 2011 participation levels.

The apparent increase in program costs and decrease in participants resulted 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 not as many measures were installed as planned. 

Refrigerators were 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 Compact 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 were higher than planned because of the increase in refrigerator rebates, 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 were lower than projected, although the 

program remained cost-effective.

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

variances 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 load shapes and coincidence 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 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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).

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 such 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 144

a. Residential Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The Residential Deep Energy 

Retrofit Pilot 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 challenges associated with deep 

retrofits.

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 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 renovations 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 Participant: 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 into this “deeper” energy-savings initiative, knowing that costs and 

project complexities can be barriers to deep energy retrofit participation. The Compact finished 

its last deep energy retrofit project in 2012.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 39 of 144

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.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 were 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. In 

2012, there was one completed project.

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

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 40 of 144

b. Residential New Construction – Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: This 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.

Targeted 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 subsequently 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 an 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” energy-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 144

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.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 were 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-expected projects and coordinating with 

renovation schedules. The Compact continues to look at ways to address this market.

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

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 42 of 144

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 incentive 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 Administrators 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 

Construction & Major Renovation program.

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 Uses:

● 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 Program 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 Modifications (D.P.U. 11-116, pending).
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 43 of 144

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 include 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 

multi-family (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.

There are no EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that 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 design 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 to 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 44 of 144

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 Construction & Major Renovation program 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 housing 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 controls.

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.

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 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 144

The Cape Light Compact’s evaluated total program costs were 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 savings 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 program.

Targeted Customers: This pilot targeted residential customers with stand-alone electric water 

heaters.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 46 of 144

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique household served 

by the pilot program.

Targeted End Uses: Hot Water

Delivery Mechanism: The HPWHs were installed by a plumbing contractor in 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. The evaluation found 

minimal issues with these new units, which performed with remarkable energy and cost savings 

as compared to electric resistance 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 Modifications (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 144

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

2012, the Compact added heat pump water heaters as a measure in the Residential Cooling & 

Heating Equipment program.

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

f. Power Monitor Pilot (Cape Light Compact-Specific)

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: In 2009, the Cape Light Compact 

conducted Phase I of this 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 enables 

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 system 

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 a 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 48 of 144

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 kWh of 

saved electricity per day.

In the fall of 2010, the Cape Light Compact supplemented its review of the pilot program with 

qualitative in-depth interviews of ten participants. The interviews were conducted by an 

independent third party and primarily discussed participants’ thoughts and 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 to 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 2011 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 

determining whether to transition the pilot into a program. The evaluation of Phase II evaluates

the savings associated with the pilot, as well as the persistence of the energy savings identified in 

Phase I.

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis Rather than as a Full 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 pilot targeted year-round residential customers, as 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 

which pilot hardware was installed.

Targeted End Uses: The pilot 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, Tendril, Inc.,

delivered 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 phases has been completed.

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 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 49 of 144

(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 program costs were 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 participants 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 Integrated Report: This 

report includes impact findings of behavior/feedback 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 (“SHEMP”) from 2009 to 2012. The 

study also established savings estimate ratios to adjust implementer estimates in order to 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 50 of 144

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 E5 for more detail). Highlights for 2012 include:

● 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”) and 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 5th 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 Compact’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 144

renewable energy, and related topics to younger students and community members. As 

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 state 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 

initiatives: 7

● Low-Income Residential New Construction

● Low-Income Retrofit8

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 program/initiative levels, respectively.

 

7 The Compact did not offer any pilot programs in the low-income sector during 2012. However, 

low-income new construction customers were eligible for the Residential New Construction –

Multi-Family (4-8 story) Statewide Pilot. 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 144

Within the low-income sector, the following programs are contributing to the variance between 

planned and evaluated values:

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (for total program costs, lifetime energy, 

annual energy, lifetime demand, summer demand, winter demand, lifetime NEB, TRC 

benefits, TRC costs, net benefits, 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 lifetime demand, lifetime NEB, TRC benefits, and net 

benefits): 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 144
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 54 of 144

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

2. Low-Income Sector Performance Highlights 

During 2012, the Program Administrators built upon existing low-income programs and 

expanded initiatives to increase participation across the low-income programs. Selected

highlights are presented below.

Low-Income Residential New Construction

The Low-Income Residential New Construction program 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 Weatherization Assistance Program, which is administered by the Department of
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 55 of 144

Housing and Community Development, for their low-income energy efficiency 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 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 

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 in 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 coordinated regionally through the JMC.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 56 of 144

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 

Construction program.

Building timelines and demands in the new construction program are difficult to predict in a 

given year. For example, no low-income new construction units were completed in 2011. 

However, as noted in the 2011 Annual Report, with production 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 144

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.

Lifetime 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 the 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 were also higher than expected due 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 was robustly cost-effective.

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

follows:

● Status of Ongoing Low Income Lighting and Heating Metering Study: This study 

assesses lighting hours of use (“HOU”) and the prevalence of secondary heating in lowincome households in Massachusetts. The two overarching objectives 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 incorporate secondary 

heating usage into future evaluations). These 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 variances 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 coincident 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 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 58 of 144

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-Income 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 

consistent 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 and/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 developers, 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 account 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

● Envelope
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 59 of 144

Delivery Mechanism: PAs used a lead vendor and/or worked closely with their respective 

Community Action Program (“CAP”) agencies on all aspects of the program design and 

implementation. All PAs worked in conjunction with the Low-Income Energy Affordability 

Network. The Multi-Family Advisory Committee was tasked with prioritizing low-income 

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 that 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 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.5 provides information on the performance of Low-Income Retrofit program.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 60 of 144

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 

annualized 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 weatherization 

units, which typically provide substantive non-electric benefits (both resource and 

non-resource).

9

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

measures. Because TRC benefits decreased more than TRC costs decreased, the net benefits also 

decreased, although the program remained cost-effective.

The EM&V studies included in the 2012 Annual Report that apply to 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 daily 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). These 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 variances 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 Low Income Single Family 

impact evaluation (2011 Annual Report, Appendix C, Study 17), which quantified the gross per 

unit savings generated by each low-income measure; the 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 certain 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 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. 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 144

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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).

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 planned and actual 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 

large C&I customers on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard make forecasts of expenditures, 

savings, and benefits for this sector particularly challenging.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 62 of 144

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 total program costs, summer demand, 

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 lifetime energy, annual energy, lifetime demand, summer 

demand, 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 144
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 64 of 144

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 144

Second, in 2012, the MTAC reviewed 18 commercial natural 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.)

● Refinements 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 

garner 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, 

substantially 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 

lamps 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 product 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 lighting industry in late 

 

10 Of the other 15 technologies considered 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 Fraunhofer 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 operating 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 144

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 experienced 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 facilities 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 the 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 

researched 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 scale 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-tomarket” strategies by identifying the industries, building types, and end uses representing 

greater efficiency opportunities and thus warranting relatively greater attention 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 Administrators, 

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 144

In order to achieve greater participation and savings, 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 customized 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 actively involved in developing the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. 

Two primary focal points of the 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan were reviewed during this 

process in 2012, including: new strategies to increase breadth of participation, as well as 

the comprehensiveness 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 delivery model to nonlighting 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 the 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 144

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 downstream 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 one 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 single participant within the program.

● For the electric Upstream Lighting Initiative portion of the program, a participant is 

defined as a unique installation address or account number in addition to any participant 

already counted in the core downstream portion 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 electric) 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 144

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.C.4 provides information on the performance of C&I New Construction and Major 

Renovation program.

As was the case in 2011, in 2012, the C&I New Construction and Major Renovation program 

had many more participants than originally planned. However, in 2012 the program nearly 

doubled in overall size, with almost twice the expenditures, energy savings, and benefits of the 

2011 program year.

Nonetheless, the 2012 program remained under budget because the cost per participant was 

substantially less than originally anticipated due to the addition of the Upstream Lighting 

Initiative to the program in late 2011. The Upstream Lighting Initiative has a different footprint 

for costs 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 of 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 70 of 144

the program were lowered by the fact that government projects (to which the Compact offers a 

higher incentive 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 

corresponding to reduced program 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 coincidence factors, with the majority of their energy savings being tied to 

non-electric benefits.

By contrast, non-electric benefits were higher, or less negative, than planned for this program in 

2012. This change is due to the other fuel benefits associated with 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 Compact’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 Compact was to increase energy 

savings for this 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 Compact was to increase energy 

savings for this program. 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, and 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 71 of 144

provided an estimated net-to-gross ratio based on free-ridership and spillover. The netto-gross ratio impacted the 2012 savings and resulted in an overall decrease in savings for 

the Compact. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 16.

● 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 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 

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.

The variances from preliminary 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 program performance information, the 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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).

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 practices.

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 144

Definition of Program Participant: A program 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 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 that 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 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 

● Compressed Air and Processes

● Envelope

● Water Heating

● Combined Heat and Power

Delivery Mechanism: 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 energy 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: None.

Docket/Exhibit where 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.C.5 provides information on the performance of C&I Large Retrofit program.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 73 of 144

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 were driven by two 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 higher for government customers, the 

incentive dollars spent returned fewer 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 longer 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 74 of 144

measures lives. Demand savings saw an even more marked reduction from plan levels because 

of the significant HVAC activity. Lower winter demand savings are expected with more HVAC 

measures, because energy savings are dominated largely by non-electric savings in winter 

heating. 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 projects 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 benefits than in TRC costs, resulting in a 

reduction in net benefits and to a lesser degree in BCR, though 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 Prescriptive VSDs: This study produced realization 

rates for annual kWh for prescriptive VSDs. The study decreased program savings for 

the Compact’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 Compact was to increase energy 

savings for this 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 Compact was to increase energy 

savings for this program. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 15.

● 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 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 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 75 of 144

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.

Additionally, the variances from preliminary 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), 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 program performance information, the 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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).

c. C&I Small Retrofit

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

cost-effective, comprehensive electric and gas 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 

than 300 kW and has received turnkey retrofit services and incentive dollars through the C&I 

Small Retrofit program at the same location during the program year. One customer may 

undertake multiple program projects at that 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 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
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 76 of 144

● 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 

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).

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 Small Retrofit 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: 

programmable 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 all fuels approach for this program.

Table II.C.6 provides information on the performance of C&I Small Retrofit program.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 77 of 144

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 variance 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 than expected proportion of 

government projects reduced 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) yielded 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 significantly 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 measures, as well as unanticipated operation and 

maintenance savings from CFL lighting.

Overall, the program saw small changes to TRC benefits and TRC costs 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 144

The EM&V studies included 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 summer 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 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 

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.

The variances from preliminary 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 program performance information, the 

Compact incorporated the best available information into its 2013-2015 Three-Year Plan. With 

respect to the results of EM&V studies that were 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 79 of 144

III. EVALUATION MEASUREMENT 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 Program 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 Realization 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 the 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 participating 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 increased 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 Appendix 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 existing conditions compared to the upgraded conditions. The 

study compared the vendor-calculated savings with calibrated engineering models developed by 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 80 of 144

the evaluation team in order to calculate realization rates. The study results showed overall 

higher savings 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 Residential 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 Heating 

and COOL 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 before the end of its useful life. While the study showed programinduced 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 increase 

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 Lighting Initiative. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that 

the Bright Opportunities Program is a well-designed and well-run program. The study showed 

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 effects 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 has changed the availability of 

A-line halogen incandescent bulbs, but the 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 sizable number of these bulbs remained on store shelves throughout 2012, well after their 

EISA phase out. Finally, the 60 Watt incandescent bulbs fill 22 percent of all sockets in 

Massachusetts homes, making it the most popular bulb in homes. Therefore, the full impact of 

EISA on the lighting market—including on consumer lighting purchases and stockpiling 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 81 of 144

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 III.A summarizes the EM&V studies that have not been included in previous Annual 

Reports. Please note: studies 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 

planned
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 82 of 144

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 program. Incremental 

costs above the costs of typical homes 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 highrise multi-family buildings of four stories or more (MF 4+) for each of the incentive options 

offered 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. 12-111

2013 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 Studies
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 83 of 144

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 Impact: 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 144

2. 2012 Residential Heating, Water Heating, and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: Net-toGross, Market Effects, 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, replace 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 COOL 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 evidence 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 144

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 COOL 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 COOL 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 percent 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 from 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 144

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 COOL 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 (COOL 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 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 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 measurespecific 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 well 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 144

3. Home Energy Services Realization Rate Calibration

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Date Evaluation 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 were 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 0.76
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 88 of 144

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 air sealing measures. 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 89 of 144

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. The 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, COOL 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 Analysis. 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 preprogram 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 remains 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 144

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 

incandescent 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 consumer 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 assumptions 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 144

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 analysis. The results of the 

shelf-stocking survey demonstrated that participating stores carry a greater proportion of energyefficient 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 report suggests supplementary approaches to estimating the impact of the program on instore 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: There 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 144

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 High-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 lighting 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 full 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 

thought 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 bulbs. 

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-ENERGY STAR® models), with A-line, 

spot/reflectors, and nightlights being the most commonly sold styles. About one-half of 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 93 of 144

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 savings 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 stockpiling.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 94 of 144

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 bulbs, 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 percent 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 three-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 hand. 

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.

Recommendation 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 144

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 and 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: The 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 Results: 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, including 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 Package 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 residential 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 144

● 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 managers 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 decreased. 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 2013 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 incandescents, 

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. The 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-Family Retrofit (Electric)

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

● Low-Income 1-4 Family (Electric)

● Low-Income Multi-Family (Electric)
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 97 of 144

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.

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 light 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 evaluators performed 

telephone surveys, in-home onsite lighting inventories, in-store shelf-stocking studies, and indepth interviews and surveys with suppliers to arrive at these conclusions. More detail on each 

of these methods can be found in their individual 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 144

Date Evaluation 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 preweatherization barriers (which then made them eligible 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 delivery 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 cited 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-weatherization 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 inspection 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, 

survey 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 deadline 

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 materials, 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 144

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 actually 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 the 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 time. 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 impacts. 

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 customer 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 

recommendations 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 Evaluation
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 100 of 144

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Evaluation Conducted by: The Cadmus 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 traditional 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.

Programs 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/yr
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 101 of 144

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 illuminance (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-tested 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 144

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/28/2013

Evaluation Objective and High-Level Findings: The objective 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 nonseniors (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 others 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.

Programs 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 will 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 144

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 Evaluations

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 program, 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 conducted 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 144

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 Study. 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 statewide 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 Analysis. 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, through 

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 recommended 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 nonlighting 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 

recommendations 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 

metering. For future evaluations of control-based efficiency measures, the PAs should 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 105 of 144

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 continue 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 would 

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 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.

Future evaluations of the types described above may incorporate 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 evaluation 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 rates.

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 by applying the kWh Realization Rate (kWhRR) 

and the HVAC electric interaction factor (HVACELEC) to the tracking gross energy savings.

Summer and winter peak demand impacts are calculated by applying the connected demand 

realization rate (kWRR), peak coincidence factor (CFSP for summer, CFWP for winter) and HVAC 

demand interaction factor (HVACSP for summer, HVACWP 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 data 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 106 of 144

provided by each PA and performing data screening and analysis methods to estimate the 

program realization rate for the statewide program, 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 likely 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) results 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 metering 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 Prescriptive 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 

resulting from a sample of 26 VSDs installed in Massachusetts between 2011 and 2012 using 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 107 of 144

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.

Key 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 during 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 the 

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.

Recommendation 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 144

Recommendation 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 

this 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 the preretrofit 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 the 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 prescriptive 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 could 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 realization 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.

Recommendation 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 reductions 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, but 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 109 of 144

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 appropriate 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 reductions 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 realization 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.

Formulas 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 preand post-installation metering on retrofit VSD installations. The recommended sample size of 44 

drives was 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 comparing 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 144

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 study 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 percent 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 144

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.

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 implementation 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 try 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 144

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:

Summer 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 Interactive 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, Study 14.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 113 of 144

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 Renovation 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 Massachusetts Electric (WMECo). For WMECo, realization rates for summer and 

winter seasonal peak savings are provided. For National Grid, realization rates for percent onpeak energy savings are also provided. Realization rates for each of these parameters are also 

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 144

Statewide energy kWh realization 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 realization 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 variability.

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 144

Recommendation 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 retrofit 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.

Recommendation 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.

Recommendation 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:

Recommendation 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 Analysis: 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 144

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. The 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 program 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 preponderance 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 program 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 144

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (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: 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 rejected 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 lamps. 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 program 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 144

17. C&I Customer Profile Project

Type of Study: Market Characterization

Evaluation Conducted by: DNV KEMA

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/20/2013

Evaluation Objective 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 by 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 methods 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 power, 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 classified 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, reflecting the individualized attention paid to these entities by PA account 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 119 of 144

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 percent, 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 Construction 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 this 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 information 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 other 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.

Recommendation 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 

adopted 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 study.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 120 of 144

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 Commercial 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 customers. The study aims 

to investigate the extent to which current program offerings effectively serve the needs of midsized customers. In addition, if it is found that mid-sized customers or pockets of customers are 

underserved, the study will explore whether 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 address 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 Construction 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 conducting 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 144

Recommendation 1: Improve processes for linking multiple accounts to customers –

The PA’s ability to accurately and consistently classify 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 account 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.

Recommendation 2: Standardize classification and marketing approaches to multiaccount customers – The research found that multiple account customers were treated 

differently across PAs, and also within a PA, across customers. The lack of standardized 

approaches 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 the 

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 receive 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 legal 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 customer 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 reported 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: Prospectively
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 122 of 144

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 findings, 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 included 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 Dynamics 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 following findings:
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 123 of 144

● 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.

● Opower electric programs have demonstrated 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.

● Since 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 efficiency 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 

differences 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 percent 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 Apply:

● 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 144

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study: Not 

applicable.

Savings 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 WMECo, 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:

= Average 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 given fuel type
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 125 of 144

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 the approach summarized in Imbens and 

Woolridge (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) consumption.

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 analysis 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

α0t

Treatmentkt

PREkWhkt

PREkWhkt

j EEkt

kt ε

α1
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 126 of 144

Please refer to section 3.3.4 of the report for additional 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 program 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

kWhkt

M

kt kWh

Xkt

M Xkt

ˆ

β
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 127 of 144

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 post2012 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 effectiveness 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 preand 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 found 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 significantly 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 144

● 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 Recommendations 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 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: A telephone survey was conducted 

with 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 PA 

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 valid 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 fielding 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 businesses, 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 144

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 Assessment

Evaluation Conducted by: Opinion Dynamics Corporation

Date Evaluation Completed: 6/5/2013

Evaluation Objective and High-Level Findings: This report presents results from the pre2013 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-campaign 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)

● Residential 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 and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric & Gas)
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 130 of 144

● 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 representation 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 customers 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 available 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 necessary. 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 144

25. 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

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation 

Evaluation Conducted by: NMR Group

Date Evaluation Completed: July 15, 2013

Evaluation Objective and High-Level Findings: Non-Energy Impacts 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 Studies Area, Residential and 

Low-Income Non-Energy Impacts (NEI) Evaluation. Prepared for the Electric and Gas Program 

Administrators of Massachusetts. (http://www.maeeac.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 144

Measure 

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 $19.27 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 133 of 144

Measure 

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: Retroactively
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 134 of 144

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: First, NMR developed a method 

based on industry knowledge 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, NMR 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 

COOL 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 next Annual 

Report.

 

13 Cadmus. 2013. 2012 Residential Heating, Water Heating, and Cooling Equipment Evaluation: 

Net-to-Gross, Market Effects, and 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 144

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. Yes
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 136 of 144

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. Yes
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 137 of 144

IV. STATUTORY BUDGET REQUIREMENTS

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 referred 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 dayto-day program administration, including 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 Administrators 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 otherwise be borne by each Program 

Administrator individually, results in economies of scale that reduce the cost for each Program 

Administrator. For example, joint releases of Requests for Proposals RFPs lead to minimization 

of administrative costs in that 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 

customer 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 Members. 

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 

programs—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 and 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, and 
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 138 of 144

DOER; and documentation and achievement of substantial savings. 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 councilors 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 presented 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 impossible 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 

comparison would not be useful, because it would only provide a comparison of two points in 

time. The 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 levels.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 139 of 144

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 144

C. Competitive Procurement

Table IV.B provides a summary of the percent change in actual cost allocations to in-house and 

outsourced activities (including competitively procured and non-competitively procured 

activities) relative to plan at the sector and portfolio levels.

The residential sector experienced significant variances between planned to actual for in-house 

activities and total outsourced activities. The low-income sector experienced significant 

variances between planned to actual for all outsource categories.

There was a shift from outsourced activities to in-house activities 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 budgets for these programs were overspent prior to 2012. However, 

because the 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 activities to in-house activities, when in fact the Cape Light Compact was planning 

for its typical annual in-house costs.

Outsourced 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 due to the fact that most 

studies were conducted and cost-shared on a statewide basis among PAs, and as a result were 

less costly for each PA.
Cape Light Compact

2012 Annual Report, D.P.U. 13-xxx

Page 141 of 144

Outsourced STAT costs were also lower than planned due to the planning method described 

above. Additionally, certain STAT costs were allocated based on program incentives, which 

explains the shift of in-house costs from the C&I sector to the residential sector.

In-house PP&A and marketing costs were significantly higher than planned, as internal resources 

were leveraged more than planned. The Cape Light Compact did not know the exact in-house 

PP&A and marketing costs that would be needed when it filed its plan, and the assumptions 

made did not reflect the actual requirements.

In terms of the shift from non-competitive to competitive procurement, low-income 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 portfolio 

levels relative to plan.

The statutory requirement regarding the low-income budget is as follows:

“Electric and gas energy efficiency program funds shall be allocated to customer classes, 

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 expended for gas energy efficiency programs 

shall be spent on comprehensive low-income residential demand side management and education 

programs.

”14

The low-income 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 low-income 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 144

V. PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES

The purpose of this section is to address the performance 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 144

VI. AUDITS

The purpose of 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 energy efficiency 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 2009 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 Light Compact’s 

2012 EERF, which went into effect 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 included 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 144

VII. APPENDICES

The purpose of this section is to provide detailed supporting documentation.

A. Glossary of Defined Terms – Includes Types of Costs in Each Budget Category 

and a Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations.

B. Cost-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. Other Supporting Documentation – Includes additional supporting documentation 

with regard to competitive procurement activities in 2012.

F. Lost Base Revenue Information – Includes a reference to the information on 

savings on which LBR is based.