Cape Light Compact

Annual Report on 

Energy Efficiency Activities

in 2011

Submitted to the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities 

and the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

August 1, 2012
This page intentionally blank.
Table of Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

A. Purpose of Annual Report ........................................................................ 2

B. Organization of Annual Report .................................................................. 2

C. Summary of Program Portfolio .................................................................. 3

II. Program Performance................................................................................... 6

A. Residential Sector Programs...................................................................... 6

B. Low-Income Sector Programs...................................................................47

C. Commercial & Industrial Sector Programs....................................................58

III. Evaluation Measurement and Verification Activities.............................................74

A. Summary ...........................................................................................75

B. Residential Program Studies.....................................................................77

C. Residential Pilot Studies .........................................................................94

D. Low-Income Program Studies ................................................................ 100

E. Commercial and Industrial Program Studies............................................... 109

F. Special and Cross Sector Studies ............................................................ 120

G. Future Studies.................................................................................... 129

IV. Statutory Budget Requirements.................................................................... 132

A. Introduction ...................................................................................... 132

B. Minimization of Administrative Costs....................................................... 132

C. Competitive Procurement...................................................................... 135

D. Low-Income Spending ......................................................................... 137

V. Performance Incentives.............................................................................. 138

VI. Audits .................................................................................................. 139

VII. Appendices............................................................................................ 140
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 1 of 140

I. INTRODUCTION

In the second full year of the three-year energy efficiency plans, as reviewed and approved by 

the Department of Public Utilities (the “Department”) in D.P.U. 09-116 through 09-127 (the 

“Gas and Electric Orders”), program year 2011 continued to build on the successes of program 

year 2010 and showed remarkable success with respect to goal attainment and achievement of 

real benefits for the environment and the economy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Among the many awards and accomplishments achieved during program year 2011, the 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked Massachusetts number one in the 

nation for its energy efficiency efforts. Collectively, the Program Administrators (“PAs”) were 

able to deliver on their goals during program year 2011, as established in the Gas and Electric 

Orders and as submitted in each PA’s 2011 Mid-Term Modifications filed on October 29, 2010, 

while maintaining the balance between meeting the budget for their programs and complying 

with the directives of the Green Communities Act in ensuring that they make available all costeffective energy efficiency opportunities. 

Overall, the PAs worked diligently with the Department, the Department of Energy Resources 

(“DOER”), the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (“EEAC”), and other interested stakeholders 

to meet what were intentionally designed to be very challenging 2011 program year goals. In 

many cases, achievements in savings and benefits exceeded those goals. Program year 2011 

performance showed that aggressive savings levels were achieved for Residential, Low-Income, 

and Commercial & Industrial (“C&I”) programs. PAs worked well to implement the programs 

in the field while also continuing the unprecedented ramp up of spending and savings levels for 

energy efficiency programs so as to meet goals not just for program year 2011, but for the full 

life of the three-year plans.

The accomplishments of 2011 were achieved despite a struggling economy, a stagnant new 

construction market, historically low natural gas prices and a significant increase in savings 

goals. In the wake of challenges, including record setting weather events, the PAs continued to 

proactively work toward developing new delivery techniques to reach untouched customer sets 

and to convince customers to move forward with commitments to invest in energy efficiency.

In addition to the achievements for each PA’s program implementation efforts, the PAs have 

made significant progress integrating gas and electric energy efficiency services, and remain 

committed to furthering progress in both the residential and non-residential sectors. While 

working to achieve their programmatic goals for 2011, the PAs have worked diligently to 

establish statewide marketing of energy efficiency program offerings through the use of the Mass 

Save® label, which won the Association of Energy Services Professionals (“AESP”) 

Outstanding Achievement in Marketing and Communications Award in 2011. Simultaneously, 

the PAs have engaged in 30 studies across a wide span of program sectors to ensure that the 

evaluation, measurement and verification (“EM&V”) elements of these program offerings 

remain a critical and vital tool to evaluate and transform measures in the future to meet demand 

in an ever changing marketplace. The PAs have worked diligently with financial institutions to 

explore outside financing options to better serve their C&I customers. 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 2 of 140

The PAs have continued to be engaged in the monthly EEAC process in 2011, and have worked 

collaboratively with the EEAC’s consultants to meet stringent reporting and data collection 

deadlines so as to adequately monitor and review where the Plans’ efforts have succeeded, and 

where improvement could be anticipated for the future. In all, while actively involved in 

program implementation efforts, the PAs have also been heavily immersed in the policy and 

planning that will allow for accurate data development, evaluation and measurement of successes 

and areas in need of modification, transparent codes and standards, and the framework necessary 

to ensure the ability to continue to offer successful and sustainable energy efficiency programs in 

the Commonwealth.

Given the unprecedented nature of these efforts and the significantly ambitious goals established 

in these Plans, the PAs contend that the 2011 program year performance has been an unmitigated 

success and has continued to exceed the expectations established by the Plan. The PAs continue 

their endeavors to achieve deeper savings from participating customers, and have worked to 

reach a broader range of customers for the implementation of all cost-effective program 

offerings. 

A. Purpose of Annual Report

The Cape Light Compact is pleased to provide its Energy Efficiency Annual Report (“Annual 

Report”) for 2011. The purpose of the Annual Report is to:

● Provide a comparison of the Cape Light 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 significant variances between the Cape Light 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 Cape Light 

Compact’s proposed modifications to program implementation, if any, during upcoming 

years.

● Describe the EM&V activities undertaken by the Cape Light Compact (both individually 

and jointly with other Program Administrators (“PAs”)) that have not been included in 

previous Annual Reports, and explain how the results of the EM&V studies impact 

program cost-effectiveness.

● Describe the performance incentives that the Program Administrators propose to collect.1

B. Organization of Annual Report

The Cape Light Compact’s 2011 Annual Report is organized as follows:

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

sector levels. 

 

1 Since the Cape Light Compact, as a public entity and municipal aggregator, does not collect any 

performance incentives, this section of the Annual Report is not applicable to the Cape Light Compact.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 3 of 140

● 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 addresses the performance incentives the PA proposes to collect.

● Section VI addresses audits conducted during the past 5 program years.

● Section VII provides detailed supporting documentation.

C. Summary of Program Portfolio

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

portfolio and sector levels. 

In 2011, the Cape Light Compact invested 25% more funds toward energy efficiency programs 

and services in our communities than in the 2010 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 $16 

million – this more than tripling 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 second year 

2011 of its three-year, 2010-2012, energy efficiency plan:

● Achieved a 82% increase in total TRC benefits with only a 29% increase in TRC costs, 

and yielding a 116% increase in net benefits as compared to 2010;

● Continued expansion of Commercial & Industrial Program implementation throughout 

Barnstable County by continuing to identify and manage projects funded by both the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Grant;

● Celebrated the 2011 NEEP Business Leaders Award for Cape Air, the largest regional 

airline in the U.S. Also celebrated Seacrest Resort with a Mass Saver award for its 

extensive effort to increase the business’ efficiency through participation in Cape Light 

Compact C&I Programs; and,

● Received, along with other regional PAs, the 2011 ENERGY STAR® Award for 

Sustained Excellence, 2011 ENERGY STAR® for Homes Leadership in Housing Award, 

and the 2011 Outstanding Achievement in Marketing and Communications Award from 

the Association of Energy Services Professionals.

Tables2I.A and I.B provide summary information on program performance at the portfolio and 

customer sector levels, respectively.

 

2 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

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 4 of 140

The Planned Values in Table I.A and all subsequent tables that contain Planned Values in this Annual Report 

(except as otherwise noted) are based upon the Planned Values as contained in Attachment A to the Memorandum 

of Agreement, submitted to the Department on April 15, 2012 in Cape Light Compact, D.P.U. 10-146.

As shown in Table 1.A above, significant3variances exist at the portfolio level for:

● All metrics between planned and preliminary values, 

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

NEBs and BCR, and

● Lifetime NEBs between preliminary and evaluated values.

Each sector contributed to these variances as follows:

● Residential (for Lifetime Energy, Annualized Energy, Lifetime Demand, Summer 

Demand, Winter Demand, TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, and Net Benefits): Please reference 

section II.A.1 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this sector.

● Low-Income (for Lifetime Energy, Annual Energy, Lifetime Demand, Summer Demand, 

Winter Demand, NEB (Lifetime), TRC Benefits, Net Benefits and BCR): Please 

reference section II.B.1 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for 

this sector.

● C&I (for Total Program Costs, Lifetime Energy, Annual Energy, Lifetime Demand, 

Summer Demand, Winter Demand, NEB (Lifetime), TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, and Net 

 

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

+/-20% or more between the stated values at the program, sector or portfolio level.

Table I.A

Program Portfolio Summary

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 24,899,683 $ 16,908,160 -32%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 427,440 259,140 -39% 262,352 1% -39%

Annualized MWh 39,225 25,465 -35% 25,198 -1% -36%

Demand

Lifetime kW 125,034 48,488 -61% 41,940 -14% -66%

Annualized

Summer kW 8,962 4,140 -54% 3,749 -9% -58%

Winter kW 6,822 4,149 -39% 4,308 4% -37%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 37,146,350 $ 20,366,013 -45% $ 34,042,288 67% -8%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 101,463,125 $ 69,262,085 -32%

TRC Costs $ $ 28,835,527 $ 19,357,560 -33%

Net Benefits $ $ 72,627,598 $ 49,904,525 -31%

BCR 3.5 3.6 2%

% Change

from Planned Value % Changefrom Planned

Performance Category

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value

Planned

Value Units % Change

from

Preliminary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 5 of 140

Benefits): Please reference section II.C.1 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of 

the variances for this sector.

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

evaluated values for Residential TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, and Net Benefits; Low-Income TRC 

Benefits, Net Benefits, and BCR; and C&I TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, and Net Benefits.

● Within the Residential sector, the Residential New Construction & Major Reovation, 

Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment, Multi-Family Retrofit, Mass Save, ENERGY 

STAR® Lighting and ENERGY STAR® Appliance 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, LowIncome 1 to 4 Family Retrofit and Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit programs are 

contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values. Please reference 

Table I.B

Customer Sector Summary

Residential

TRC Benefits $ $ 57,600,761 $ 43,051,507 -25%

TRC Costs $ $ 14,802,121 $ 11,206,807 -24%

Net Benefits $ $ 42,798,641 $ 31,844,700 -26%

BCR 3.9 3.8 -1%

Low-Income

TRC Benefits $ $ 10,098,012 $ 6,529,481 -35%

TRC Costs $ $ 2,854,275 $ 2,489,571 -13%

Net Benefits $ $ 7,243,737 $ 4,039,910 -44%

BCR 3.5 2.6 -26%

Commercial & Industrial

TRC Benefits $ $ 33,764,352 $ 19,681,097 -42%

TRC Costs $ $ 11,179,131 $ 5,661,182 -49%

Net Benefits $ $ 22,585,221 $ 14,019,915 -38%

BCR 3.0 3.5 15%

Total

TRC Benefits $ $ 101,463,125 $ 69,262,085 -32%

TRC Costs $ $ 28,835,527 $ 19,357,560 -33%

Net Benefits $ $ 72,627,598 $ 49,904,525 -31%

BCR 3.5 3.6 2%

Sector Units

Planned

Value

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 6 of 140

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.

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 2011, the Cape Light Compact implemented the following Residential programs and 

Residential pilots:

Residential Programs (Statewide)

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

● Multi-Family Retrofit

● Mass Save

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances

Residential Pilots (Statewide)

● Deep Energy Retrofit

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation - Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

● Residential New Construction - Multi-Family (4-8 story) Statewide Pilot4

● Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

Residential Pilots (Non-Statewide & Cape Light Compact-Specific)

● Heat Pump Water Heating Pilot (Non-Statewide)

● Power Monitor Pilot (Cape Light Compact-Specific)

2. Residential Sector Performance Highlights 

During 2011, the Cape Light Compact built upon existing residential programs and significantly 

expanded initiatives to increase participation in all residential programs. Selected highlights are 

presented below: 

 

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

Multi-Family (4 to 8-story) homes in its service territory to be able to participate in this pilot.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 7 of 140

● Residential New Construction and Major Renovation - In 2011, with over 100 

communities adopting the Stretch Energy Code, this program, also known as the 

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR program, faced a market in which 

energy codes continued to change. Single family development remained slow, and 

opportunities to capture future energy savings were becoming increasingly difficult. To 

address these barriers, the program engaged in code support activities and offered

technical assistance as well as incentives to meet this new code. The program also 

increased market penetration while providing energy savings for residents. During 2011, 

the program provided multiple trainings and participated in several recruitment events 

targeted at builders and allies new to performance-based construction. The program 

continued to participate in three pilots (multi-family new construction, major renovations, 

and lighting design) to aid in identifying the next generation of energy savings 

opportunities. Finally, the Program Administrators in western Massachusetts participated 

in the Western Massachusetts Storm Recovery Program. The storm recovery program 

contacted all of the communities affected by the tornado and distributed thousands of 

flyers to builders, building code offices, homeowners, tornado relief centers, town 

meetings/events and churches. 

● Residential Cooling and Heating Equipment - The program, also known as the COOL 

Smart program, started the year with a strong volume of equipment rebate production for 

high efficiency equipment, and successfully achieved its 2011 equipment rebate goal. 

COOL Smart actively planned and conducted quality installation training sessions, 

including system design, duct diagnostics, brushless fan motors and ENERGY STAR

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (“HVAC”) quality installation online training. 

The annual COOL Talk meeting was held at which program achievements were 

highlighted, HVAC contractor feedback obtained and a program preview of 2012 

presented. Contractor outreach, training and education was enhanced through joint 

electric and gas integration through the establishment of circuit rider outreach for COOL 

Smart through the GasNetworksTM existing vendor, and joint participation of COOL 

Smart and GasNetworks at the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors Annual Trade 

Show and the annual GasNetworks fall conference. A request for proposals (“RFP”) was 

completed and a statewide vendor was selected for COOL Smart rebate processing.

● Multi-Family Retrofit - The Multi-Family Market Integrator continued to be an 

invaluable resource to the PA multi-family working group in 2011. Monthly activity 

reports were developed to track program progress. The Multi-Family Market Integrator

continued to report a trend of successfully enrolled facilities, which was the result of the 

relationships they have built with property owners, authorized representatives and 

property managers. In addition, the statewide Mass Save advertising campaign was noted 

as a source of program inquiry. 

Most PAs were close to or exceeded program goals in 2011, with a strong enrollment and 

high level of pipeline projects into the residential multi-family retrofit program. The PAs 

continue to integrate the C&I program, where applicable, to better address the whole 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 8 of 140

facility and maximize savings opportunities. Energy efficient lighting, instant savings 

measures, and weatherization were in high demand from this market sector. 

● Mass Save – In 2011 the Mass Save/Residential Conservation Services program was fully 

integrated with the gas Weatherization program to provide customers with fuel blind 

energy services through the Home Energy Services (“HES”) program. Mid-year, the 

program transitioned to offering customers one comprehensive Home Energy Assessment 

(“HEA”) and incorporated additional market actors. Two groups of Mass Save 

participating contractors, Home Performance Contractors (“HPCs”) and Independent 

Installation Contractors (“IICs”), now provide services in addition to those offered by the 

lead vendor.

After the integration of additional contractors into the program, a Contractor Best 

Practices Working Group (“BPWG”) was developed to continue PA commitment to 

ongoing communication with participating contractors in the program. The group serves 

as a forum to provide an open line of communication between PAs, lead vendors, HPCs 

and IICs to discuss any matters related to the program with an independent third-party 

facilitator. BPWG achievements in 2011 include:

o Assistance with contractor permit acquisition and a continued focus on 

improving and streamlining the process 

o Subsidized marketing materials offered to both IICs and HPCs

o A contractor portal on the Mass Save website for easy access to contractor 

relevant documents

o Development of a form and process for pricing adjustments

o Customer acquisition assistance for contractors bringing in customers who 

move forward implementing weatherization work

o Various lead vendor process enhancements

o Workforce development including subsidies for various trainings:

 Weatherization boot camps

 Combustion safety training

 Weatherization crew chief training

 Building analyst training

In 2011, the HEAT Loan program continued to offer micro loans ($500-$2,000) and 

the program has increased the amount that a property owner can borrow ($2,000 -

$25,000). HEAT Loan offerings were extended to include many gas customers in 

municipal electric territory. Additionally, PAs saw an increase in both the average loan

amount and the number of customers financing multiple measures. 

● ENERGY STAR Lighting - In 2011, the ENERGY STAR Lighting program provided 

strong results for all the PAs, with all the PAs meeting or exceeding savings goals. LED 

fixtures were well received by customers, allowing the PAs to adjust rebate levels 

incrementally downward with minimum impact on sales. Specialty and “Hard-to-Reach” 

categories also performed well in most areas. The PAs transitioned to the new incentive 

fulfillment contractor in the last half of 2011 for most programs.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 9 of 140

● ENERGY STAR Appliances – The ENERGY STAR Appliances program results varied 

by Program Administrator. ENERGY STAR refrigerators and freezers were once again 

strong performers for this program, with ENERGY STAR televisions also performing 

well. Other measures like computers, LCD monitors, pool pumps and room air 

conditioners lagged behind expectations due to rapid changes in technology and some 

products not meeting program criteria. The sales of Advanced Power Strips (Smart 

Strips) varied by PA, due mostly to retail availability. School fundraisers and “Pop-up”

retail accounted for a large number of sales of this product. The refrigerator/freezer 

recycling program did not perform well for most PAs. The PAs successfully transitioned 

all aspects of this program to the new incentive fulfillment contractor in the last half of 

2011.

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.

Tables II.A.4 through II.A.15 provide detailed information on the performance of each 

residential program and pilot program, respectively.

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

planned and evaluated values:

Table II.A.1

Residential Sector Summary

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 12,386,208 $ 9,998,543 -19%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 173,570 122,820 -29% 116,688 -5% -33%

Annualized MWh 19,364 14,718 -24% 13,742 -7% -29%

Demand

Lifetime kW 62,921 18,218 -71% 13,708 -25% -78%

Annualized

Summer kW 4,182 1,751 -58% 1,506 -14% -64%

Winter kW 3,763 2,767 -26% 2,858 3% -24%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 29,343,909 $ 12,078,006 -59% $ 27,570,036 128% -6%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 57,600,761 $ 43,051,507 -25%

TRC Costs $ $ 14,802,121 $ 11,206,807 -24%

Net Benefits $ $ 42,798,641 $ 31,844,700 -26%

BCR 3.9 3.8 -1%

% Change

from Planned

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 10 of 140

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (for TRC Benefits, Net Benefits and 

BCR): Please reference section II.A.2a for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the 

variances for this program.

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (for TRC Benefits, Net Benefits and BCR): 

Please reference section II.A.2b for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the 

variances for this program.

● Multi-Family Retrofit (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR): Please 

reference section II.A.2c for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for 

this program.

● Mass Save (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs and Net Benefits): Please reference section 

II.A.2d for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR): 

Please reference section II.A.2e for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the 

variances for this program.

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances (for TRC Benefits, Net Benefits and BCR): Please 

reference section II.A.2f for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for 

this program.

Each of the programs listed have impact evaluations reflected in the change from Preliminary to 

Evaluated results, which are described as referenced above.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 11 of 140

Table II.A.2

Residential Sector Summary of End-Uses

Lighting

Energy MWh 86,793 81,488 -6%

Demand kW 8,802 8,269 -6%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 718,652 $ 676,414 -6%

HVAC

Energy MWh 12,894 11,975 -7%

Demand kW 4,615 4,009 -13%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 1,519,104 $ 1,757,431 16%

Motors & Drives

Energy MWh 231 107 -54%

Demand kW 28 30 7%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ (6,868) $ (2,938) -57%

Refrigeration

Energy MWh 8,398 6,937 -17%

Demand kW 997 839 -16%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ - $ 90,556 0%

Hot Water

Energy MWh 389 370 -5%

Demand kW 78 92 18%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 662,941 $ 506,965 -24%

Process

Energy MWh 3,401 3,401 0%

Demand kW 207 402 94%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ - $ - 0%

End Use Behavior

Energy MWh 201 201 0%

Demand kW 56 23 -60%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ - $ - 0%

Envelope

Energy MWh 10,338 12,035 16%

Demand kW 3,395 4 -100%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 9,183,723 $ 24,541,154 167%

Solar Hot Water

Energy MWh 175 175 0%

Demand kW 40 40 0%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 454 $ 454 0%

Total

Energy MWh 122,820 116,688 -5%

Demand kW 18,218 13,708 -25%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 12,078,006 $ 27,570,036 128%

Evaluated 

Results

% Change 

from 

Preliminary

End Uses Units

(Lifetime)

Preliminary 

Year-End 

Results
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 12 of 140

Table II.A.3

Residential Program Summary

Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

TRC Benefits $ $ 928,618 $ 900,567 -3%

TRC Costs $ $ 353,163 $ 298,496 -15%

Net Benefits $ $ 575,455 $ 602,071 5%

BCR 2.6 3.0 15%

Residential Cooling and Heating Equipment

TRC Benefits $ $ 1,852,339 $ 1,227,181 -34%

TRC Costs $ $ 1,000,298 $ 828,767 -17%

Net Benefits $ $ 852,041 $ 398,414 -53%

BCR 1.9 1.5 -20%

Residential Multi-Family Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ $ 2,845,701 $ 822,225 -71%

TRC Costs $ $ 561,476 $ 229,159 -59%

Net Benefits $ $ 2,284,225 $ 593,066 -74%

BCR 5.1 3.59 -29%

Residential MassSave

TRC Benefits $ $ 38,952,913 $ 30,158,402 -23%

TRC Costs $ $ 8,864,976 $ 7,088,516 -20%

Net Benefits $ $ 30,087,937 $ 23,069,886 -23%

BCR 4.4 4.3 -3%

Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting

TRC Benefits $ $ 11,717,686 $ 8,469,498 -28%

TRC Costs $ $ 2,609,910 $ 1,389,972 -47%

Net Benefits $ $ 9,107,776 $ 7,079,526 -22%

BCR 4.5 6.1 36%

Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances

TRC Benefits $ $ 1,303,504 $ 1,473,634 13%

TRC Costs $ $ 458,251 $ 529,423 16%

Net Benefits $ $ 845,253 $ 944,211 12%

BCR 2.8 2.8 -2%

Sector Units

Planned

Value

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 13 of 140

Table II.A.3

Residential Program Summary (cont'd)

Deep Energy Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 80,000 $ 48,648 -39%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Residential New Constr & Maj Reno - SW Pilot

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 278,452 $ 16,892 -94%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Residential New Constr MF (4-8 story) SW Pilot

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ n/a n/a n/a

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Residential New Constr Lighting Design SW Pilot

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 22,222 $ 5,562 -75%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 11,111 $ 10,898 -2%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Power Monitor Pilot

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 161,667 $ 338,722 110%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Sector Units

Planned

Value

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 14 of 140

3. Residential Programs

a. Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential New Construction and 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, Home Energy Rating System (“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 count of the number of unique households served by the 

program.

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 of field activities. The JMC utilized a 

Table II.A.3

Residential Program Summary (cont'd)

Hard-To-Measure Initiatives

TRC Costs $ $ 400,595 $ 421,752 5%

Total

TRC Benefits $ $ 57,600,761 $ 43,051,507 -25%

TRC Costs $ $ 14,802,121 $ 11,206,807 -24%

Net Benefits $ $ 42,798,641 $ 31,844,700 -26%

BCR 3.9 3.8 -1%

Units

Planned

Value

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned

Sector
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 15 of 140

market-based 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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.

This program generated higher than expected costs and participants due to one, relatively large 

multi-family project which contributed a greater number of units than expected. Because of 

the multi-family nature of almost half of the units, there were fewer opportunities for CFLs

because of the trend to install hard-wired fixtures, appliances and more opportunities for 

longer-term measures, such as insulation in a new construction setting. 

Table II.A.4

Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 235,663 $ 298,496 27%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants hhlds 47 69 47%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 5,014 $ 4,326 -14%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 2,850 3,535 24% 3,252 -8% 14%

Annualized MWh 287 271 -6% 233 -14% -19%

Average Measure Life Yrs 10 13 31% 14 7% 41%

Demand

Lifetime kW 566.2 730.3 29% 703.2 -4% 24%

Annualized

Summer kW 38.6 40.8 5% 37.1 -9% -4%

Winter kW 75.1 47.9 -36% 40.9 -15% -46%

Average Measure Life Yrs 15 18 22% 19 6% 29%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 535,505 $ 198,795 -63% $ 459,593 131% -14%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 928,618 $ 900,567 -3%

TRC Costs $ $ 353,163 $ 298,496 -15%

Net Benefits $ $ 575,455 $ 602,071 5%

BCR 2.6 3.0 15%

% Change

from Planned

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 16 of 140

The lifetime energy savings are higher than expected, while the annualized energy savings are 

in line with expectations. The difference can be attributed to the increase in heating and 

cooling measures like insulation. The lifetime and annual summer demand savings see a 

similar trend because of the measure mix. The annualized winter kW is lower due to a 

decrease in lighting from plan, and the longer average measure lives reflect this change in the 

measure mix. 

The lifetime NEBs are primarily affected by the heating and water heating fuels used by the 

units, which was driven by the one multi-family project.

In addition to the evauation studies described below, results of the Non-Energy Impact Study 

filed with the 2012 Mid-Term Modification are incorporated in the 2011 evaluated results and 

reflects a significant increase from the preliminary values.

Because the total benefits associated with the program increased while the total resource costs 

decreased, the net benefits and BCR are greater than planned, and the program is costeffective.

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

● Massachusetts Residential New Construction Home Buyer Survey: This study examined 

what buyers look for in a new home, awareness of ENERGY STAR homes, the role of 

ENERGY STAR certification in new home shopping, perceptions of ENERGY STAR 

homes, and reactions to recent changes in the program. The study also provides updates 

of similar surveys conducted in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. The results of this study did 

not impact the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 1.

● Massachusetts Residential New Construction Focus Groups with Participant Builders:

This study assessed participating builders’ experience with the Program and their 

reactions to changes made in 2011 and changes which may be forthcoming in 2012. The 

results of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in 

more detail in Section III, Study 2.

● Massachusetts Mini Baseline Study of Homes Built at the End of the 2006 IECC Cycle:

This study was conducted in partnership with DOER to assess compliance with basic 

building code prescriptive path requirements at the end of the 2006 International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) code cycle, provide a preliminary assessment of how current 

new single-family residential building characteristics compare to current User Defined 

Reference Home (UDRH) inputs, and conduct audits of energy efficient lighting and 

appliances within the homes. The study also compared building practices, equipment 

efficiencies, and other characteristics in custom versus spec built homes. Results from 

this study reduced the electric savings based on the penetration rates of high efficiency 

lighting and appliances. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 3.

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 17 of 140

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Company saw a net decrease in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

b. Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential Cooling and Heating Equipment (“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 furnaces 

with Electronic Commutated Motors (“ECMs”).

Targeted Customers: The program targeted residential customers in the market to purchase 

new or replacement heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“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 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.

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 RFP. 

Whenever possible, there was coordination with the related gas Program Administrator’s 

initiatives. To this end, the COOL Smart and Gas Networks’ High Efficiency Heating and Hot 

Water 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 and 

Mass Save programs: 

● Participating residential new construction program builders and their HVAC contractors 

were referred to the COOL Smart program for training and Quality Installation 

Verification (“QIV”). Whenever appropriate, these training were jointly provided with 

Gas Networks.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 18 of 140

● Mass Save participants were referred to COOL Smart for HVAC measures using COOL 

Smart literature, which is part of the standard Mass Save 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 process rebates, 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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.

Table II.A.5

Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 890,256 $ 725,658 -18%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants accts 1,056 1,214 15%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 843 $ 598 -29%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 10,208 6,790 -33% 6,666 -2% -35%

Annualized MWh 585 377 -35% 371 -2% -37%

Average Measure Life Yrs 17 18 3% 18 0% 3%

Demand

Lifetime kW 6,615.2 3,967.5 -40% 3,409.4 -14% -48%

Annualized

Summer kW 409.8 220.8 -46% 189.8 -14% -54%

Winter kW 54.8 62.7 14% 107.3 71% 96%

Average Measure Life Yrs 16 18 11% 18 0% 11%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ (161,035) $ (143,924) 11% $ 95,667 166% 159%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 1,852,339 $ 1,227,181 -34%

TRC Costs $ $ 1,000,298 $ 828,767 -17%

Net Benefits $ $ 852,041 $ 398,414 -53%

BCR 1.9 1.5 -20%

% Change

from Planned

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 19 of 140

All of the significant variances in savings and benefits can be attributed to a change in the 

measure mix relative to the plan. 

The lifetime and annualized energy savings were lower than planned. The primary reason for 

this change was that participants had a greater interest in air conditioning equipment (as 

compared to heating equipment and to air-conditioning and heating services) than planned. 

The lifetime, summer and winter demand savings are also impacted by a change in measure 

mix. The lifetime and summer demand savings were lower than planned because QIV 

participation was lower than expected. In an effort to increase contractor participation, the 

Compact encouraged contractors to attend trainings offered by their implementation vendor. 

The winter demand savings were slightly higher than planned and can be attributed to a greater 

interest in mini-split heat pumps, a measure which has summer and winter demand savings.

The increase in Winter demand results in part from higher demand savings for the Brushless 

Fan Motor measure in addition to changes to the summer and winter coincidence factors from 

both the Brushless Fan Motor impact evaluation and the Demand Impact Model, both as 

described in the evaluation studies below.

In addition, results of the Non-Energy Impact Study filed with the 2012 Mid-Term 

Modification are incorporated in the 2011 evaluated results and reflects a significant increase in 

lifetime NEBs from the preliminary values. 

Because the total benefits decreased by a greater percentage than the costs associated with the 

program, the net benefits and BCR are less than planned. However, the program remains costeffective.

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

● Brushless Fan Motors Impact Evaluation: This impact evaluation study was designed to 

quantify the energy savings associated with brushless fan motor (BFM) retrofits in 

residential HVAC applications. This study affected the 2011 Residential Cooling and 

Heating Equipment program by quantifying key metrics such as annual kWh savings and 

coincidence factors. The results of this study varied by PA; based on measure mix, the 

Compact saw a net decrease in evaluated results for 2011. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III, Study 8.

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact saw a net decrease in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 20 of 140

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

c. 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: Residential multi-family facilities with five or more dwelling units were 

targeted by this program.

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a residential dwelling unit 

served under this program.

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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.6. provides information on the performance of the Multi-Family Retrofit program.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 21 of 140

This program resulted in significant variances for all cost, savings, and benefits metrics. 

Despite greater decreases in benefits as compared to costs, the program remains cost-effective.

In general, the Cape Light Compact does not have many traditionally defined Residential 

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

The majority of the Cape Light Compact Residential Multi-Family customers are condominium 

owners.

Annualized energy savings were significantly lower than planned because while electric 

measures like lighting and thermostats can be easily implemented, there are more significant 

barriers for condominium owners to implement 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. Yet because of savings 

attributed to the limited insulation and air sealing jobs, the lifetime savings were less severly 

impacted. 

Lifetime, summer and winter demand savings were all lower than planned because of the 

change in measure mix. As noted above, the program did not see enough weatherization work 

Table II.A.6

Multi-Family Retrofit

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 521,038 $ 229,159 -56%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants units 550 291 -47%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 947 $ 787 -17%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 6,114 5,237 -14% 3,925 -25% -36%

Annualized MWh 783 440 -44% 321 -27% -59%

Average Measure Life Yrs 8 12 52% 12 3% 56%

Demand

Lifetime kW 2,605.0 498.0 -81% 93.1 -81% -96%

Annualized

Summer kW 155.1 36.8 -76% 13.3 -64% -91%

Winter kW 208.8 51.3 -75% 49.9 -3% -76%

Average Measure Life Yrs 17 14 -20% 7 -48% -58%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 1,813,642 $ 86,866 -95% $ 383,574 342% -79%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 2,845,701 $ 822,225 -71%

TRC Costs $ $ 561,476 $ 229,159 -59%

Net Benefits $ $ 2,284,225 $ 593,066 -74%

BCR n/a 5.1 3.59 -29%

% Change

from Planned

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 22 of 140

completed. The Compact began working with its implementation vendor to investigate 

opportunities to gain condominium associations support of implementing such measures and 

continue to look for opportunities such as working with the boards and facility managers. 

Lifetime NEBs were also impacted by the shift in measure mix from weatherization to lighting 

measures.

Since the Cape Light Compact did not spend its entire budget, it did not generate the savings 

and benefits that were planned for this program. TheCape Light Compact filing a 2012 MidTerm Modification (D.P.U. 11-116) for the Multi-Family Retrofit program.

While the inclusion of Non Energy Impacts from the 2010 evaluation reflects a substantial 

increase to lifetime NEBs; the Multi-Family Retrofit program reflects a significant decrease in 

savings from preliminary results to planned because of impact factors from the Multi-Family

Program Impact Analysis described below. The PAs agreed to use impact factors such as free 

ridership, spillover, in-service and persistence rates from this study in the 2011 Annual Report. 

While, the study also derived algorithms to use in calculating measure level savings for this 

program going forward, these algorithms will be used in the 2013 – 2015 three year plan. 

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

● Massachusetts Multifamily Market Characterization and Potential Study: The primary 

objective of this market characterization study was to assess the potential energy 

efficiency savings available in multifamily buildings within Massachusetts. The results 

of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results but is being used to inform 

ongoing planning and program design. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 5.

● Massachusetts Multifamily Program Process Evaluation: This study assessed program 

processes and developed recommendations for program improvement by interviewing

program staff, implementation staff, and customers. The results of this study did not 

impact the 2011 evaluated results but is being used to inform ongoing program design. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 6.

● Massachusetts Multifamily Program Impact Analysis: The objective of this impact 

evaluation was to provide program attribution information and a set of savings 

approaches that could be used by all PAs. These objectives were accomplished by 

interviewing key stakeholders, developing conclusions, and offering recommendations 

for future program improvement. 2011 results were negatively affected by the 18% freeridership number derived from this study. This study is discussed in more detail in 

Section III, Study 7.

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact saw a net decrease in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 23 of 140

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

d. Mass Save

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the 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 condo 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. 

Targeted End-Uses:

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Envelope

● Refrigeration

Delivery Mechanism: The Mass Save and gas Weatherization programs were fully integrated 

in 2011 and were implemented by each PA’s competitively procured lead vendor. The PAs 

incorporated both HPCs (to provide audits and weatherization work) and IICs (to implement 

weatherization work) into the program. 

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 IICs and HPCs. Additional lead vendor responsibilities include:

● Consistent statewide training

● Data reporting

● Achieving aggressive savings

● Customer satisfaction

● Quality Control standards

● Scheduling requirements

● Technical Assistance

● Maintain and report health and safety information 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 24 of 140

Two groups of 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

HEAs and implemented weatherization measures. IICs provided installation of weatherization 

measures for those customers who received a 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 costeffective energy efficiency improvements. Insulation work, whether performed by a HPC or IIC, 

had to have a quality control inspection performed by the PA-vendor or third- party vendor when 

the work was completed. This ensured high quality was maintained, and installations met

Building Performance Institute standards or similar standards set by the PAs. 

After a competitive bidding process, the gas and electric PAs contracted with Competitive 

Resources, Inc., a third-party Quality Control (“QC”) vendor responsible for performing QC 

inspections of program implementation vendors and participating contractors. The QC vendor 

provided valuable information and feedback to the HES members on program successes and 

identified areas of possible improvement.

The HES members are working together toward a “best practices” approach to provide a 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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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 Mass Save program.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 25 of 140

The Mass Save program underwent significant program changes in 2011 that impacted 

production when on-boarding contractors for the new market model. As a result, there were 

less insulation and air sealing jobs completed than originally planned which resulted in a lower 

program cost per participant .

However, annualized energy savings were not significantly impacted because the number of 

assessments facilitated greater than expected lighting measures, which offset some of the 

savings that were anticipated from insulation and air sealing. This difference in the measure 

mix is reflected in the reduction of average measure lives. 

The lifetime and annualized summer demand savings are lower than expected due to the 

measure mix that was mentioned above. The winter demand savings, however, are very close 

to the planned value. The lifetime NEB value is lower than expected due to the lower number 

of insulation and air sealing jobs.

Despite some of the challenges of transition, the program remained cost-effective.

While the inclusion of Non Energy Impacts from the 2010 evaluation reflects a substantial 

increase to lifetime NEBs; the Mass Save program reflects a significant decrease in savings 

mainly to summer and lifetime demand because of free rider and spillover values from the NetTable II.A.7

Mass Save

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 7,408,109 $ 6,038,032 -18%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants accts 3,120 4,684 50%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 2,374 $ 1,289 -46%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 60,423 36,739 -39% 33,479 -9% -45%

Annualized MWh 5,244 4,448 -15% 3,780 -15% -28%

Average Measure Life Yrs 12 8 -28% 9 7% -23%

Demand

Lifetime kW 42,954.8 5,595 -87% 2,059.3 -63% -95%

Annualized

Summer kW 2,224.7 499 -78% 299.8 -40% -87%

Winter kW 786.9 784 0% 827.2 5% 5%

Average Measure Life Yrs 19 11 -42% 7 -39% -64%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 26,452,403 $ 11,430,019 -57% $ 26,034,398 128% -2%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 38,952,913 $ 30,158,402 -23%

TRC Costs $ $ 8,864,976 $ 7,088,516 -20%

Net Benefits $ $ 30,087,937 $ 23,069,886 -23%

BCR 4.4 4.3 -3%

% Change

from Planned

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 26 of 140

to-Gross evaluation described below. While this evaluation provided impact factors for the 

majority of measures in the program, the mix of measure installations in conjunction with 

updates from the demand impact model reflected the change in seasonal demand. 

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

● Home Energy Services Net-to-Gross Evaluation: This impact evaluation determined

measure-specific and program-level net-to-gross (NTG) ratios for the Home Energy 

Services (HES) program. The information was gathered through Customer SelfReporting and Statistical Market Share Modeling/Discrete Choice. The study determined 

a total average NTG ratio of 113%, but depending on measure mix, the net effect will 

vary for each PA. The Compact saw a net decrease in program savings for the 2011 

evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 4.

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact saw a net decrease in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.

● Home Energy Services Packaged Measure Pilot Evaluation: This study was designed to 

evaluate a pilot initiative in the HES program that offered program participants a 

different incentive structure if they implemented a greater number of measures. Study 

conclusions and recommendations were based on interviews, surveys, and historical data. 

This study does not affect 2011 results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 13.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

e. ENERGY STAR® Lighting

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the 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 energyefficient 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.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 27 of 140

Targeted End-Uses: Residential lighting

Delivery Mechanism: This initiative utilizes an online catalog channel and an upstream 

incentives, which dramatically increased sales and lowered costs of product for the customer.

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.

An Internet/mail-order sales channel contractor purchased and stocked products offered through 

the catalog and the 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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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 ENERGY STAR® Lighting 

program.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 28 of 140

This program resulted in significant variances for cost, savings and benefits metrics. As the 

decrease in costs was higher than the decrease in benefits, cost-effectiveness improved.

Annualized and lifetime energy savings were lower than planned. Even though goals were 

exceeded for Indoor Fixtures, LED bulbs and bare spirals, the Hard to Reach (HTR) category 

goals could not be met due to a limited number of retailers. Quite notable was the bare spiral 

measure for which demand was 400% greater than planned. Also, a new rebate processing 

vendor was brought on board, and the program experienced higher than expected 

administrative costs due to the transition as well as a delay in billing. The lifetime and annual 

summer and winter demand savings are also lower than planned due to the lower than 

anticipated levels of retailer participation in the HTR category as well as fewer specialty bulbs 

purchased than planned which had high winter and summer coincidence factors. Lifetime 

NEBs were lower than anticipated due to the fact that quantities were lower than planned.

The preliminary year end results are nearly the same as the evaluated results for energy 

savings and any differences can be attributed to an update to load shapes from the demand

impact model described below. Incorporating results of the demand impact model also resulted 

in a slight decrease to kW savings.

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

Table II.A.8

ENERGY STAR® Lighting

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 2,018,330 $ 1,389,972 -31%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants accts 75,225 53,279 -29%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 27 $ 26 -3%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 84,545 58,818 -30% 59,067 0% -30%

Annualized MWh 11,220 7,724 -31% 7,756 0% -31%

Average Measure Life Yrs 8 8 1% 8 0% 1%

Demand

Lifetime kW 8,729.5 6,214.5 -29% 6,195.9 0% -29%

Annualized

Summer kW 1,162.7 812.9 -30% 812.0 0% -30%

Winter kW 2,368.5 1,656.0 -30% 1,654.1 0% -30%

Average Measure Life Yrs 8 8 2% 8 0% 2%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 703,394 $ 506,249 -28% $ 506,249 0% -28%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 11,717,686 $ 8,469,498 -28%

TRC Costs $ $ 2,609,910 $ 1,389,972 -47%

Net Benefits $ $ 9,107,776 $ 7,079,526 -22%

BCR 4.5 6.1 36%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 29 of 140

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact saw a net decrease in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.

● Massachusetts Consumer Survey Results 2011: This multipart study assessed market 

research conducted for energy-efficient light bulbs, with particular emphasis on 

establishing a baseline at the onset of the changes in lighting standards resulting from the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The study primarily focuses on 

100 Watt bulbs, but addressed customer attitudes towards CFL, customer knowledge of 

EISA standards, customers understanding and usage of current lighting technology, as 

well as potential stockpiling of incandescent bulbs. This is only the first wave of the 

study, and more waves will follow up on other bulb wattages as the EISA standards take 

effect. The process evaluation has no impact on 2011 evaluated results. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 10.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

f. ENERGY STAR® Appliances

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the program was to increase consumer awareness of the 

importance and benefits of purchasing ENERGY STAR-qualified appliances and electronic 

products, and expand the availability, consumer acceptance, and use of high-quality energyefficient technologies.

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

Definition of Program Participant: A count of the number of unique households served by the 

program.

 

Targeted End-Uses: 

● Refrigerators

● Freezers

● Televisions

● Room Air Cleaners

● Personal Desktop Computers

● LCD Computer Monitors

● Advanced Power Strips (“Smart Strips”)
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 30 of 140

● Secondary refrigerators and freezers (recycling)

● Pool pumps

Delivery Mechanism: The program utilizes upstream incentives and mail-in rebates, which 

dramatically increased sales and lowered costs of product 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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.9. provides information on the performance of the ENERGY STAR® Appliances 

program.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 31 of 140

This program experienced a significant variance from planned total program costs due to 

higher than anticipated interest in refrigerator and TV rebates. However, since the program 

benefits and total resoucrce costs increased similarly, the program remains cost-effective.

The program cost per participant was higher due to a shift in measure mix from room air 

conditioners and smart strips to refrigerators, refrigerator and freezer recycling, and TVs. 

Refrigerators have a higher incentive as compared to room air conditioners and smart strips. 

Also, administrative costs were higher than planned as a new rebate processing vendor was 

brought on board. 

Annual and lifetime energy savings were higher than planned due to higher than anticipated 

interest in refrigerators and TVs. The change in the measure mix also contributed to lower 

than planned lifetime and annual summer and winter demand.

There were no significant changes from preliminary to evaluated results although actuals 

incorporated the Refrigerator/Freezer Recycling evaluation filed in the 2010 Annual Report as 

well as the Demand Impact Model, as noted below.

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

Table II.A.9

ENERGY STAR® Appliances

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 358,766 $ 474,752 32%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants hhlds 11,030 4,001 -64%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 33 $ 119 265%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 9,429 11,700 24% 10,299 -12% 9%

Annualized MWh 1,245 1,457 17% 1,282 -12% 3%

Average Measure Life Yrs 8 8 6% 8 0% 6%

Demand

Lifetime kW 1,450.5 1,213.1 -16% 1,247.4 3% -14%

Annualized

Summer kW 191.0 141.6 -26% 154.1 9% -19%

Winter kW 269.3 164.3 -39% 179.2 9% -33%

Average Measure Life Yrs 8 9 13% 8 -6% 7%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ - $ - 0% $ 90,556 0% 0%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 1,303,504 $ 1,473,634 13%

TRC Costs $ $ 458,251 $ 529,423 16%

Net Benefits $ $ 845,253 $ 944,211 12%

BCR 2.8 2.8 -2%

% Change

from Planned

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 32 of 140

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact saw a net increase in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

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 pilots programs is available, it is provided in this report. 

a. Deep Energy Retrofit

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The 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 analyze 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 utilize these pilot results to determine the 

future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or as an 

additional measure offering within an existing program.

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 Pilot Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account 

served under this program.

Targeted End-Uses: 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 33 of 140

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Envelope

● End Use Behavior

Delivery Mechanism: Project design details and assistance to the Deep Energy Retrofit 

contractors performing the work the work was 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 prohibitive 

costs and project complexities are barriers to deep energy retrofit participation. Ultimately, 

achievement of this goal is measured by the pilot’s cost-effectiveness. It was determined that 

this pilot is not cost-effective and therefore is no longer being offered to new customers in 

2012.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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 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.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 34 of 140

The Cape Light Compact’s evaluated total program costs are significantly lower than planned 

due to lower participation than anticipated. Planned budgets for 2010 were not fully spent, and 

while there was interest in the program, uptake was not as high as expected. As a result, in 2011, 

a Mid-Term Modification was filed (D.P.U. 10-147) which requested a significant reduction in 

budget. Challenges of participant planning, financing and general project understanding 

continued and in 2011 there was one completed project.

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

The pilot’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be used to 

determine the future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or 

as an additional measure offering within an existing program in the 2013-2015 three-year plan.

b. Residential New Construction & Major Renovation – Major 

Renovation Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The pilot was implemented to 

capture lost opportunities and encourage energy efficient additions and renovations to existing 

homes.

Table II.A.10

Deep Energy Retrofit

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 80,000 $ 48,648 -39%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants accts n/a 4 n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a $ 12,162 n/a

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

Lifetime kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized

Summer kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Winter kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 80,000 $ 48,648 -39%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 35 of 140

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 analyze 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 utilize these pilot results to determine the 

future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or as an 

additional measure offering within an existing program.

Targeted Customers: This program targeted customers who want to build an addition on their 

existing home.

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: A count of the number of unique households served 

by the program.

Targeted End-Uses:

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Envelope

Delivery Mechanism: The Program Administrators, along with the JMC, included this pilot as 

an offering under the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR program. This pilot 

combines elements of the Residential New Construction program (for the addition) and the Mass 

Save program (for the existing portion) to provide a comprehensive whole-house approach. 

Each home in the program had a HERS analysis performed in order to better understand the 

existing structure. Recommendations were provided to the homeowner for the existing portion 

(under a Mass Save model) and also to increase the energy efficiency of the new addition by the 

market-based rater in the 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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 36 of 140

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

Major Renovation – 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 clearly did not have enough interest and participation in 2011, which 

impacted total costs. Challenges to the pilot program include smaller than expected additions 

and coordinating with renovation schedules. Although the Compact made a decision in mid2011 to allow additions of any size, the production was not greatly increased. The Compact 

continues to look at ways to address this market, but it remains difficult to influence renovations.

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

● Memo: Major Renovations Pilot Evaluation: As follow up to the preliminary report on 

non-participant interviews issued in 2011, this memo briefly summarizes findings from 

interviews with homeowners, architects and builders involved with projects completed by 

the end of 2011. The memo focuses on satisfaction with the Pilot and suggestions for how 

the Pilot could be improved or made more user-friendly. In addition, it summarizes a 

discussion with a HERS rater who worked with 5 of the 11 completed projects. The 

results of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in 

more detail in Section III, Study 11.

Table II.A.11

Residential New Construction & Major Renovation – Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 278,452 $ 16,892 -94%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants hhlds n/a 2 n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a $ 8,446 n/a

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

Lifetime kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized

Summer kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Winter kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 278,452 $ 16,892 -94%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 37 of 140

The pilot’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be used to 

determine the future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or 

as an additional measure offering within an existing program in the 2013-2015 three-year plan.

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 analyze 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 utilize these pilot results to determine the 

future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or as an 

additional measure offering within an existing program.

Targeted Customers: This pilot targeted 4-8 story multi-family new construction projects.

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: Participants are defined as the number of 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 vendor. 

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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 38 of 140

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.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, Cape Light Compact does not 

have enough Multi-Family (4- to 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 2011 to report.

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

● Massachusetts Residential New Construction Four to Eight Story Multifamily Pilot 

Interview Findings: This study assessed the strengths and areas in need of improvement 

of the three year pilot that was introduced to serve smaller, four to eight story buildings 

that do not qualify for ENERGY STAR certification but are too small for commercial 

programs. The report focused on the lessons learned from the pilot about addressing the 

energy efficiency potential of the mid-rise Multi-Family new construction market. The 

Table II.A.12

Residential New Construction - Multi-Family (4-8 story) Statewide Pilot

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ n/a n/a n/a

Performance Incentive $ n/a n/a n/a

Participants units n/a n/a n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a n/a n/a

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

Lifetime kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized

Summer kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Winter kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ n/a n/a n/a

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 39 of 140

results of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in 

more detail in Section III, Study 12.

d. Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The Program Administrators 

worked with lighting designers and build/design teams to identify creative ways 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 analyze 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 utilize these pilot results to determine the 

future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or as an 

additional measure offering within an existing program. 

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 and or major 

renovations.

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account 

served under this program.

Targeted End-Uses: Lighting and controls

Delivery Mechanism: The Program Administrators, along with the JMC, included elements of 

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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 40 of 140

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 are significantly lower than planned 

due to lower participation than anticipated. 

Although the Compact completed one project, many of the completed new construction projects 

have been affordable housing. Because of the nature of affordable housing, there is not generally 

overlighting or the need for a lighting designer in many cases. Therefore, the opportunities were 

limited in 2011. 

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

The pilot’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be used to 

determine the future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or 

as an additional measure offering within an existing program in the 2013-2015 three-year plan.

Table II.A.13

Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 22,222 $ 5,562 -75%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants accts n/a 1 n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a $ 5,562 n/a

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

Lifetime kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized

Summer kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Winter kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 22,222 $ 5,562 -75%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 41 of 140

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 to determine if the initiative is cost-effective.

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

heaters.

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: A count of the number of unique households 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 described in Section III.A.14c. 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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 42 of 140

The Cape Light Compact’s plan tracked with actuals as two participants were planned5and two 

units were installed in 2011 in customers’ homes. Due to the fact that the evaluated cost per 

participant was similar to planned costs, total program costs are not significantly different than 

planned.

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

● Heat Pump Water Heaters Evaluation of Field Installed Performance: This technical 

evaluation of Heat Pump Water Heaters (HPWH) was designed to quantify the in-situ 

performance of three types of HPWHs. The study evaluated 14 different units over the 

course of a year and the results will be applied to future analysis of HPHWs. The results 

of this study do not affect program results for 2011. This study is discussed in more detail 

in Section III, Study 14.

The pilot’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be used to 

determine the future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or 

as an additional measure offering within an existing program in the 2013-2015 three-year plan.

 

5

Cape Light Compact D.P.U. 09-119. Response to AG Third Set of Information Requests. November 30, 

2009. AG 3-6.

Table II.A.14

Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 11,111 $ 10,898 -2%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants hhlds n/a - n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a $ - n/a

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

Lifetime kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized

Summer kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Winter kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 11,111 $ 10,898 -2%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 43 of 140

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 inhome 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 CO2 emissions 

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

chargers when not in use). Participants were also part of a social networking system with other 

pilot members. 

In March of 2010, an independent third party evaluation was completed of Phase I that was 

included in the Cape Light Compact’s 2009 Annual Report. The results of the evaluation 

indicated a 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, 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 discussed primarily participant’s 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. 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 will further evaluate 

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. Once the evaluation of the pilot is 

completed, the pilot may be offered as a program in the future. Draft evaluation results are due at 

the end of August 2012 and will help to inform the next plan 2013-2015.

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.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 44 of 140

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: A count of the number of unique households 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 

phase has been completed. The evaluation of the Pilot’s second phase is in process.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.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.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 45 of 140

The Cape Light Compact’s evaluated total program costs are significantly higher than expected 

because of carryover costs from 2010 for implementation and evaluation. Over the three year 

timeframe, the Compact is within planned costs.

Savings and benefits data for Phase II is not provided as the level and persistence of savings is 

currently being evaluated. The Cape Light Compact began its implementation of Phase II 

starting in the spring of 2011 and will review preliminary results this summer. Based on the 

findings from the evaluation, the Cape Light Compact will decide whether or not to include 

Power Monitor as a part of its program offerings in its 2013 – 2015 Three-Year Energy 

Efficiency Plan.

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

The pilot’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be used to 

determine the future of the pilot and whether it will be adopted either as a stand alone program or 

as an additional measure offering within an existing program in the 2013-2015 three-year plan.

Table II.A.15

Power Monitor Pilot

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 161,667 $ 338,722 110%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants hhlds n/a n/a n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a n/a n/a

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized MWh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

Lifetime kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Annualized

Summer kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Winter kW n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Measure Life Yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

TRC Costs $ $ 161,667 $ 338,722 110%

Net Benefits $ n/a n/a n/a

BCR n/a n/a n/a

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 46 of 140

g. 2011 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 

programs. 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 energyliterate society.

Toward this goal, the Compact’s Energy Education Program continues to see a substantial 

increase in its outreach within the school population through its innovative programs (see 

Appendix E5 for more detail). Highlights of these programs included: 

● 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 5,000 students and teachers were reached.

● A Standards-based graduate level course for teachers to introduce and reinforce energy 

education concepts for the classroom

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

● 5 Teacher Workshops in partnership with NSTAR and NEED and in-service training for 

school systems reaching over 150 teachers in our service territory.

We were proud to have five of our schools recognized by the National Energy Education 

Development Project (“NEED”) 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’s 5th

Grade

State Senior School of the Year - Sandwich High School

National and State Special Project of the Year - Harwich Middle School Energy 

Adventure Seekers Club

Our greatest successes were seen with the “kids as teachers” model where high school and 

middle school students were trained and studied to present information on energy efficiency, 

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 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 47 of 140

with the Massachusetts state standards for science and technology, allowing teachers to 

introduce lesson plans discussing energy efficiency and conservation.

B. Low-Income Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2011 the Cape Light Compact implemented the following low-income programs6:

● Low-Income Residential New Construction

● Low-Income 1-4 Family Retrofit

● Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit

2. Low-Income Sector Performance Highlights 

During 2011, the PAs continued to leverage all applicable revenue streams available and built 

on the current Department of Housing and Community Development low-income energy 

efficiency program to deepen efficiency penetration consistent with a comprehensive, whole 

house/building approach. The program was able to leverage American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) funds slated for Public Housing Authority heating system 

replacements by providing minimal co-payments toward upgrades. This allowed PAs to not 

only achieve significant savings at a lower cost, but also enabled ARRA funding to stretch 

further with the replacement of more units. Some of the PAs were close to their goal in terms 

of therm/kWh savings as well as spending. However, some PAs were notably under in 

production and spending as a result of the extensive use of available ARRA funding instead of 

PA funds. Additionally, spending was affected by the composition of customers in each PA’s 

service area, particularly the proportion of low-income customers in the territory.

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

Tables II.B.4 through II.B.6 provide detailed information on the performance of each lowincome program.

 

6 The Cape Light Compact did not offer any pilot programs in the low-income sector this year.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 48 of 140

Within the Low-Income sector, the following programs are contributing to the variance 

between planned and evaluated values as well as the variance from preliminary to evaluated:

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (for 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 1 to 4 Family Retrofit (for Net Benefits and BCR): Please reference section 

II.B.b for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits, and 

BCR): Please reference section II.B.c for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the 

variances for this program. 

Table II.B.1

Low-Income Sector Summary

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 2,854,275 $ 2,489,571 -13%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 23,249 9,802 -58% 11,264 15% -52%

Annualized MWh 2,249 864 -62% 958 11% -57%

Demand

Lifetime kW 2,640.1 1,007.9 -62% 1,228.4 22% -53%

Annualized

Summer kW 242.2 85.5 -65% 107.5 26% -56%

Winter kW 490.5 197.6 -60% 159.4 -19% -67%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 7,229,071 $ 6,659,255 -8% $ 5,124,685 -23% -29%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 10,098,012 $ 6,529,481 -35%

TRC Costs $ $ 2,854,275 $ 2,489,571 -13%

Net Benefits $ $ 7,243,737 $ 4,039,910 -44%

BCR 3.5 2.6 -26%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 49 of 140

Table II.B.2

Low-Income Sector Summary of End-Uses

Lighting

Energy MWh 4,934 5,415 10%

Demand kW 463 632 36%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 174,637 $ 179,933 3%

HVAC

Energy MWh 161 115 -28%

Demand kW 1 - -100%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 521,486 $ 368,972 -29%

Refrigeration

Energy MWh 3,536 2,407 -32%

Demand kW 506 291 -43%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 96,695 $ 99,001 2%

Hot Water

Energy MWh 9 3 -69%

Demand kW 1 0 -65%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 71,065 $ 32,198 -55%

End Use Behavior

Energy MWh 351 320 -9%

Demand kW 34 37 10%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 874,884 $ 40,943 -95%

Envelope

Energy MWh 812 3,003 270%

Demand kW 3 268 8574%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 4,920,488 $ 4,403,638 -11%

Total

Energy MWh 9,802 11,264 15%

Demand kW 1,008 1,228 22%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 6,659,255 $ 5,124,685 -23%

End Uses Units

(Lifetime)

Preliminary 

Year-End 

Results

Evaluated 

Results

% Change 

from 

Preliminary 

to Evaluated
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 50 of 140

3. Low-Income Programs

a. Low-Income Residential New Construction

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Low-Income New Construction program was to encourage 

the construction of energy-efficient homes, and 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.

Table II.B.3

Low-Income Program Summary

Low-Income New Construction & Major Renovation

TRC Benefits $ $ 44,988 $ - -100%

TRC Costs $ $ 33,772 $ 2,280 -93%

Net Benefits $ $ 11,216 $ (2,280) -120%

BCR 1.3 - -100%

Low-Income Single Family Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ $ 7,666,827 $ 6,207,959 -19%

TRC Costs $ $ 2,046,395 $ 2,273,099 11%

Net Benefits $ $ 5,620,433 $ 3,934,860 -30%

BCR 3.7 2.7 -27%

Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ $ 2,386,196 $ 321,522 -87%

TRC Costs $ $ 745,334 $ 171,741 -77%

Net Benefits $ $ 1,640,862 $ 149,781 -91%

BCR 3.20 1.87 -42%

Hard-To-Measure Initiatives

TRC Costs $ $ 28,774 $ 42,450 48%

Total

TRC Benefits $ $ 10,098,012 $ 6,529,481 -35%

TRC Costs (incl HTM Initiatives) $ $ 2,854,275 $ 2,489,571 -13%

Net Benefits $ $ 7,243,737 $ 4,039,910 -44%

BCR 3.5 2.6 -26%

Sector Units

Planned

Value

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 51 of 140

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique residential dwelling 

unit served under this program.

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. 

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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 52 of 140

Building timelines and demands in the new construction program are unpredictable in a given 

year. As evidenced in the table above, there were no completed units in 2011. 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, there are big variances from expected production that result in commensurate 

variances in energy, demand and NEB savings. Although there were no project completions in 

2011, costs were incurred for projects likely to be completed in 2012.

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

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact did not see an impact in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.

● Additional Non-Energy Impacts for Low Income Programs: This additional research 

clarified and expanded the research performed in the Residential and Low-Income NonEnergy Impacts Evaluation (filed in D.P.U 11 -116). Values were updated for certain 

additional Non-Energy Impacts. Savings were not impacted by this research, however, if 

Table II.B.4

Low-Income Residential New Construction

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 33,772 $ 2,280 -93%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants units 9 - -100%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 3,752 $ - -100%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 111 - -100% - 0% -100%

Annualized MWh 14 - -100% - 0% -100%

Average Measure Life Yrs 8 - -100% - 0% -100%

Demand

Lifetime kW 62.1 - -100% - 0% -100%

Annualized

Summer kW 3.3 - -100% - 0% -100%

Winter kW 4.2 - -100% - 0% -100%

Average Measure Life Yrs 19 - -100% - 0% -100%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 23,464 $ - -100% $ - 0% -100%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 44,988 $ - -100%

TRC Costs $ $ 33,772 $ 2,280 -93%

Net Benefits $ $ 11,216 $ (2,280) -120%

BCR 1.3 - -100%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 53 of 140

the Compact had completed units this evaluation would have impacted benefits for the 

Compact. The additional research is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 28.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

b. Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Low-Income 1-4 Family Retrofit program was to increase 

energy efficiency and reduce the energy cost burden for income-eligible customers through the 

installation of electric energy efficiency measures to achieve deeper and broader energy 

savings consistent with a comprehensive, whole house approach.

Targeted Customers: This program targeted residential customers living in one- to four-unit 

dwellings who are at or below 60 percent of the state median income level and who are 

qualified to receive fuel assistance and/or utility discount rate(s). For two- to four-unit 

dwellings, 50 percent of the occupants must qualify as low-income. 

Definition of Program Participant: A participant is defined as a unique electric account 

served under this program.

Targeted End-Uses: 

● Lighting

● Heating and Ventilation

● Refrigeration

● Hot Water

● Envelope

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 (“LEAN”). 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 lead 

vendor/CAP and/or PA with the required documentation of all work performed. 

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 54 of 140

Docket/Exhibit where the Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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 1 to 4 Family Retrofit.

This program provided significantly higher incentives per home than planned due to a shift to 

more comprehensive visits geared towards serving customers in one year instead of over the 

course of multiple years. As a result, fewer participants were served with the program budget as 

compared to plan.

The significant decline in lifetime energy savings, annual energy savings, lifetime demand 

savings, summer demand savings and winter demand savings relative to plan is due to the focus 

on weatherization rather than electric measures such as CFLs. Given that weatherization 

measures have non-electric benefits that are not captured in the energy and demand savings, a 

better comparison of the program performance is shown in lifetime NEB where benefits are more 

aligned with plan .

Table II.B.5

Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 2,046,395 $ 2,273,099 11%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants accts 1,282 699 -45%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 1,596 $ 3,252 104%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 17,558 9,011 -49% 10,421 16% -41%

Annualized MWh 1,603 783 -51% 872 11% -46%

Average Measure Life Yrs 11 12 5% 12 4% 9%

Demand

Lifetime kW 2,201.9 955.9 -57% 1,197.5 25% -46%

Annualized

Summer kW 198.1 79.6 -60% 103.1 30% -48%

Winter kW 379.4 180.0 -53% 138.7 -23% -63%

Average Measure Life Yrs 11 12 8% 12 -3% 5%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 5,465,430 $ 6,406,733 17% $ 4,901,963 -23% -10%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 7,666,827 $ 6,207,959 -19%

TRC Costs $ $ 2,046,395 $ 2,273,099 11%

Net Benefits $ $ 5,620,433 $ 3,934,860 -30%

BCR 3.7 2.7 -27%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 55 of 140

Despite the fact that higher program costs generated lower program benefits, this program 

remained cost-effective.

Savings from the Low-Income 1-4 Family Impact evaluation fluctuated in both directions with 

substantial changes in kW savings and lifetime NEBs. While several of the evaluations below 

impacted the variances, the major offsets were attributed to the Program Impact Evaluation, 

The Demand Impact Model (described below) and the results of the Non-Energy Impact Study 

filed with the 2012 Mid-Term Modification.

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

● Massachusetts Multifamily Market Characterization and Potential Study: The primary 

objective of this market characterization study was to assess the potential energy 

efficiency savings available in multi-family buildings within Massachusetts. The results 

of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results but is being used to inform 

ongoing planning and program design. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 5.

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact saw a net decrease in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.

● Massachusetts 2011 Low Income Program Process Evaluation: This study assessed 

program processes with a particular focus on identifying similarities and differences in 

the perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, and customers 

regarding program goals, design and implementation across the PAs. The study produced 

recommended improvements for process-related issues, identified areas where the 

program changed in 2011, and followed up on topics initially researched in 2010. This 

evaluation has no impact on 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III, Study 16.

● Low Income Single Family Program Impact Evaluation: This impact evaluation 

quantified the gross per-unit savings generated by each Low Income measure. The results 

of this study were applied to 2011 program results and were determined by utilizing both 

billing and engineering analyses. The impact of this study varied for each PA based on 

planning assumptions and measure mix. The 2011 evaluated results had a net increase 

for the Compact due to this study. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, 

Study 17.

● Additional Non-Energy Impacts for Low Income Programs: This additional research 

clarified and expanded the research performed in the Residential and Low-Income NonEnergy Impacts Evaluation (filed in D.P.U. 11-116). Values were updated for certain 

additional Non-Energy Impacts. Savings were not impacted by this research, however, 

there was a net increase to benefits for the Compact. The additional research is discussed 

in more detail in Section III, Study 28.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 56 of 140

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

c. Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit program 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 program targeted public housing authorities, non-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: Depending on the PA, a participant is considered either a 

dwelling unit or a unique electric account number served in a facility with five or more units.

Targeted End-Uses: 

● Lighting

● Heating and Ventilation

● Refrigeration

● Hot Water

● Envelope

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

CAP Agencies on all aspects of the program design and implementation. All PAs worked in 

conjunction with LEAN as well as the Multi-Family Advisory Committee comprised of LEAN, 

Community Development Corporations, Public Housing Authorities and other nonprofit 

owners of low-income non-institutional multi-family housing. 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 as well as 

providing the lead vendor/CAP and/or PA with the required documentation of all work 

performed.

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 57 of 140

Docket/Exhibit where the Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.6. provides information on the performance of Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit.

This program experienced significant negative variances for all cost, savings and benefits metrics 

relative to plan. Despite the greater decrease in benefits as compared to costs, the program 

remains cost-effective.

The significant variances in total program costs, participants, lifetime and annualized energy 

savings as well as lifetime, annual summer and winter demand savings and lifetime NEBs is due 

to the influx of ARRA funding and the focus on single family homes. Because of this, the 

majority of projects focused on electric-only measures, which, together with longer-thanexpected project lead times, led to the budget and savings goals not being met for 2011. 

Table II.B.6

Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 745,334 $ 171,741 -77%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants units 258 73 -72%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 2,889 $ 2,353 -19%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 5,579 791 -86% 843 7% -85%

Annualized MWh 633 81 -87% 86 7% -86%

Average Measure Life Yrs 9 10 11% 10 -1% 11%

Demand

Lifetime kW 376.1 52 -86% 30.9 -41% -92%

Annualized

Summer kW 40.7 6 -85% 4.4 -26% -89%

Winter kW 107.0 18 -84% 20.7 17% -81%

Average Measure Life Yrs 9 9 -5% 7 -20% -24%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 1,740,178 $ 252,522 -85% $ 222,722 -12% -87%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 2,386,196 $ 321,522 -87%

TRC Costs $ $ 745,334 $ 171,741 -77%

Net Benefits $ $ 1,640,862 $ 149,781 -91%

BCR $ 3.2 1.9 -42%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 58 of 140

Incorporating the results from the demand impact model resulted in a significant decrease for 

Summer and Lifetime demand savings; the model also calculated coincidence factors which 

reflects the seasonal allocation of demand . 

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

● Massachusetts Multifamily Market Characterization and Potential Study: The primary 

objective of this market characterization study was to assess the potential energy 

efficiency savings available in multifamily buildings within Massachusetts. The results 

of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results but is being used to inform 

ongoing planning and program design. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 5.

● Demand Impact Model User Manual: The Demand Impact Model User Manual was 

updated to reflect new load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results 

with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compact saw a net decrease in program 

savings for the 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III, Study 9.

● Massachusetts 2011 Low Income Program Process Evaluation: This study assessed 

program processes with a particular focus on identifying similarities and differences in 

the perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, and customers 

regarding program goals, design and implementation across the PAs. The study produced 

recommended improvements for process-related issues, identified areas where the 

program changed in 2011, and followed up on topics initially researched in 2010. This 

evaluation has no impact on 2011 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III, Study 16.

● Additional Non-Energy Impacts for Low Income Programs: This additional research 

clarified and expanded the research performed in the Residential and Low-Income NonEnergy Impacts Evaluation (filed in D.P.U 11 -116). Values were updated for certain 

additional Non-Energy Impacts. Savings were not impacted by this research, however, 

there was a net increase to benefits for the Compact. The additional research is discussed 

in more detail in Section III, Study 28.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

C. Commercial & Industrial Sector Programs

1. Summary
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 59 of 140

During 2011, the Cape Light Compact implemented the following Commercial & Industrial 

(“C&I”) programs7:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

● C&I Large Retrofit

● C&I Small Retrofit

2. C&I Sector Performance Highlights 

During 2011, 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: 

● Gas/Electric Integration - Building on the transition which took place in 2010, gas and 

electric integration continued to grow and run more smoothly. Program Administrators 

identified multi-fuel leads and worked closely with their counterparts in the same service 

territory to develop combined gas and electric projects for their customers. With these 

advancements, the Program Administrators realized increased savings and participation 

as vendors became more comfortable identifying and installing gas measures.

● MOU Agreements – The use of these innovative agreements, focused on long-term 

energy savings with large C&I customers, continued to expand across the 

Commonwealth in 2011. The adoption of MOUs by an increased number of customers in 

2011 will serve to yield energy savings in years to come as the agreements ramp up, 

lifting performance of both New Construction/Major Renovation and Large Retrofit 

projects. 

● Upstream Initiative - New Construction program savings were bolstered during the 

fourth quarter of 2011 by the introduction of the Upstream Lighting initiative, which was 

launched in September of 2011. In just a few months, this initiative resulted in over $5 

million of incentives, supporting over 340,000 High Performance T8, High Output T5, 

and LED lamps by the end of the year. Overall, the emergence and advancement of LED 

products helped evolve programs in 2011, as costs came down and product became more 

readily available and reliable. 

A more detailed program-level discussion can be found in the following sections.

Tables II.C.1 through II.C.3 provide summary information on the performance of the commercial 

& industrial programs at the sector, end use, and program levels, respectively.

Tables II.C.4 through II.C.6 provide detailed information on the performance of each 

commercial & industrial program.

 

7 The Cape Light Compact did not offer any pilot programs in the commercial and industrial sector this year.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 60 of 140

The Cape Light Compact has a history of significant variances between plan 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 result in significant variances. As a result, 

relatively small 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 small number of 

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

savings and benefits for this program particularly challenging.

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 TRC Benefits, TRC Costs and Net 

Benefits): 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 TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR): 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 TRC Costs, TRC Benefits and Net Benefits): Please reference 

section II.C.c for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this 

program. 

Impact evaluation studies apply to the following C&I sector programs:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

● C&I Large Retrofit

Table II.C.1

Commercial & Industrial Sector Summary

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 9,659,199 $ 4,420,046 -54%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 230,622 126,518 -45% 134,400 6% -42%

Annualized MWh 17,612 9,883 -44% 10,497 6% -40%

Demand

Lifetime kW 59,472.88 29,261.20 -51% 27,003.44 -8% -55%

Annualized

Summer kW 4,538.25 2,303.42 -49% 2,135.33 -7% -53%

Winter kW 2,567.72 1,185.24 -54% 1,289.68 9% -50%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 573,369 $ 1,628,752 184% $ 1,347,567 -17% 135%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 33,764,352 $ 19,681,097 -42%

TRC Costs $ $ 11,179,131 $ 5,661,182 -49%

Net Benefits $ $ 22,585,221 $ 14,019,915 -38%

BCR 3.0 3.5 15%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 61 of 140

● C&I Small Retrofit

However, the combined effect of the impact evaluation studies at the sector level is not 

significant, as evidenced by the fact that the overall Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, shown in Table II.C.1, is not significant.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 62 of 140

Table II.C.2

Commercial & Industrial Sector Summary of End-Uses

Lighting

Energy MWh 72,465 75,273 4%

Demand kW 19,110 18,034 -6%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 1,249,464 $ 932,235 -25%

HVAC

Energy MWh 30,864 33,225 8%

Demand kW 6,932 5,779 -17%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 137,061 $ 148,763 9%

Motors

Energy MWh 5,427 5,362 -1%

Demand kW 2,119 2,065 -3%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ - $ - 0%

Refrigeration

Energy MWh 14,544 17,160 18%

Demand kW 362 374 3%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ - $ - 0%

Hot Water

Energy MWh 51 102 102%

Demand kW - - 0%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 21,649 $ 43,740 102%

Compressed Air

Energy MWh 825 911 10%

Demand kW 64 70 10%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ - $ - 0%

Envelope

Energy MWh 2,343 2,367 1%

Demand kW 674 681 1%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 220,578 $ 222,829 1%

Total

Energy MWh 126,518 134,400 6%

Demand kW 29,261 27,003 -8%

NEB (Lifetime) $ $ 1,628,752 $ 1,347,567 -17%

End Uses Units

(Lifetime)

Preliminary 

Year-End 

Results

Evaluated 

Results

% Change 

from 

Preliminary 

to Evaluated
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 63 of 140

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.

Table II.C.3

Commercial & Industrial Program Summary

Commercial & Industrial New Construction & Major Renovation

TRC Benefits $ $ 9,138,214 $ 5,122,234 -44%

TRC Costs $ $ 1,695,196 $ 1,088,578 -36%

Net Benefits $ $ 7,443,018 $ 4,033,656 -46%

BCR 5.4 4.7 -13%

Commercial & Industrial Large Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ $ 3,791,075 $ 5,801,782 53%

TRC Costs $ $ 1,137,872 $ 784,097 -31%

Net Benefits $ $ 2,653,203 $ 5,017,686 89%

BCR 3.3 7.4 122%

Commercial & Industrial Small Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ $ 20,835,063 $ 8,757,081 -58%

TRC Costs $ $ 8,319,822 $ 3,708,041 -55%

Net Benefits $ $ 12,515,241 $ 5,049,040 -60%

BCR 2.5 2.4 -6%

Hard-To-Measure Initiatives

TRC Costs $ $ 26,241 $ 80,466 207%

Total

TRC Benefits $ $ 33,764,352 $ 19,681,097 -42%

TRC Costs (incl HTM Initiatives) $ $ 11,179,131 $ 5,661,182 -49%

Net Benefits $ $ 22,585,221 $ 14,019,915 -38%

BCR 3.0 3.5 15%

Sector Units

Planned

Value

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 64 of 140

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program was all time-dependent gas and 

electric energy efficiency opportunities in the C&I sector – commercial, industrial, 

institutional, and government customers.

Definition of Program Participant: A count of the number of unique sites where one or more 

projects were completed during the program year, plus the number of unique sites participating 

in the Upstream Lighting buy-down initiative during the year.

Targeted End-Uses: 

● Lighting

● Motors & 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.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 65 of 140

C&I New Construction had more than double the expected number of participants in 2011 as 

compared to planned, but was under budget because cost per participant was significantly 

lower than anticipated in 2011. There are several explanations for the lower cost per 

participant:

● First, the economic climate in 2011 continued to make it difficult to plan for C&I New 

Construction and Major Renovation projects, and a number of project scopes were scaled 

back between planning and implementation phases, just as in 2010. 

● Second, the Cool Choice program continued to be well subscribed by customers in 2011. 

As was the case last year, Cool Choice incentives per customer tended to be substantially 

lower than other new construction projects.

● Lastly, the Upstream Lighting buy-down program was launched in September of 2011 as 

an initiative within New Construction, and proved immediately popular, contributing the 

majority of additional program participants at a substantially lower cost per participant.

Lifetime and annual energy savings were also significantly lower than planned in 2011 with an 

even greater variance than in program spending. There were a couple of reasons for this 

variance in savings being so much greater than the budget variance: 

● First, there was a shift in measure mix to HVAC measures from other non-lighting 

measures. Since HVAC has a higher cost than most non-lighting measures, the program 

Table II.C.4

C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 1,287,876 $ 837,336 -35%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants sites 79 163 106%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 16,302 $ 5,137 -68%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 59,213 28,053 -53% 29,561 5% -50%

Annualized MWh 3,841 2,294 -40% 2,395 4% -38%

Average Measure Life Yrs 15 12 -21% 12 1% -20%

Demand

Lifetime kW 15,699.7 9,158.09 -42% 7,645.58 -17% -51%

Annualized

Summer kW 1,034.4 687.40 -34% 583.98 -15% -44%

Winter kW 720.3 294.00 -59% 282.63 -4% -61%

Average Measure Life Yrs 15 13 -12% 13 -2% -14%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ 678,718 $ 815,186 20% $ 755,824 -7% 11%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 9,138,214 $ 5,122,234 -44%

TRC Costs $ $ 1,695,196 $ 1,088,578 -36%

Net Benefits $ $ 7,443,018 $ 4,033,656 -46%

BCR 5.4 4.7 -13%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 66 of 140

achieved less savings on a dollar per dollar basis than expected from this substantial 

portion of budget, contributing to a greater overall variance in savings.

● Second, there was also a small but not insignificant increase in the cost of energy for a 

substantial portion of program savings in lighting, due to the somewhat more expensive 

savings in Upstream Lighting buy-down than other program lighting, largely associated 

with LED lamps.

Lifetime demand savings, and annualized summer and winter demand savings were similarly 

lower than planned due to the shift in measure mix. Winter demand savings were more 

impacted than summer, at almost half of what was expected, due to the shift in measure mix to 

HVAC measures, which have higher summer coincidence factors.

By contrast, non-electric benefits were higher than plan. This was due to other fuel benefits

for HVAC measures that were not anticipated in the plan. Also, the Compact installed more 

lighting measures than planned. A deemed savings change resulted in a change to the negative 

NEB value for lighting that quantifies the reduction in lighting waste heat, making this value a 

lower negative value. 

Lastly, the BCR declined compared to planned, due to the increased cost of savings associated 

with greater HVAC in the measure mix and the increased cost associated with the addition of 

Upstream Lighting. This was somewhat mitigated by the increase in NEBs over what was 

expected. Despite these changes, the program remains cost-effective.

There were no significant changes from preliminary to evaluated results. 

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

● Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Process and Compressed Air Installations: This study 

produced realization rates for annual kWh, summer on-peak and seasonal peak kW, and 

winter on-peak and seasonal peak kW for those custom projects in the Process and 

Compressed Air end-use category. The net effect on each PA’s program is dependent on 

the previous realization rates being incorporated into each PA’s screening tool, and may 

therefore differ. The results of this study did not impact Cape Light Compacts 2011 

evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 20.

● Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Lighting Installations: This study produced 

realization rates for annual kWh, summer on-peak and seasonal peak kW, and winter onpeak and seasonal peak kW for those custom projects in the Lighting end-use category. 

The net effect on each PA’s C&I New Construction and C&I Retrofit programs is 

dependent on the previous realization rates being incorporated into each PA’s screening 

tool, and may therefore differ. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study

21.

● Massachusetts Large Commercial & Industrial Process Evaluation: The study examines 

key process topics identified by the EEAC, PAs and the DOER including how to improve 

integration and coordination, concerns about the adequacy of staffing levels, how to 

achieve deeper savings, whether medium-sized C&I customers are being adequately 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 67 of 140

served by the programs, the adequacy or program tracking databases, and program 

satisfaction. The results of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results. The study 

is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 22.

● HVAC Market Characterization and Penetration Analysis: This study estimates the 

market penetration of energy-efficient equipment in the Massachusetts commercial 

HVAC market, gauges the level of large C&I program influence on market penetration, 

and characterizes the market for emergency replacement. The results of this study did not 

impact the 2011 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, 

Study 23.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

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 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.

Definition of Program Participant: A count of the number of unique sites where one or more 

projects were completed during the program year.

Targeted End-Uses: 

● Lighting

● Motors and Drives

● HVAC

● Refrigeration

● Envelope

● Water Heating

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, 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 68 of 140

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 the Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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.

In 2011, this program achieved much higher savings than expected, at significantly lower costs 

than expected, and at a significantly lower cost per participant. This increase in savings, which 

was achieved at a much lower cost, in turn drives a much higher than expected BCR for this 

program.

The variance in the Large Retrofit program budget is driven by the following factors:

Table II.C.5

C&I Large Retrofit

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 941,260 $ 561,096 -40%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants sites 23 25 9%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 40,924 $ 22,444 -45%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 25,270 46,035 82% 48,536 5% 92%

Annualized MWh 1,923 2,952 53% 3,109 5% 62%

Average Measure Life Yrs 13 16 19% 16 0% 19%

Demand

Lifetime kW 7,621.57 5,703.22 -25% 5,593.58 -2% -27%

Annualized

Summer kW 610.3 388.16 -36% 378.44 -3% -38%

Winter kW 378.8 228.77 -40% 231.73 1% -39%

Average Measure Life Yrs 12 15 18% 15 1% 18%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ (6,385) $ (37,185) -482% $ (34,885) 6% -446%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 3,791,075 $ 5,801,782 53%

TRC Costs $ $ 1,137,872 $ 784,097 -31%

Net Benefits $ $ 2,653,203 $ 5,017,686 89%

BCR 3.3 7.4 122%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 69 of 140

● The incentive associated with a very large HVAC project was not taken by the customer 

because of federal vendor contract restrictions. This participant was first served by the 

Compact through a fully funded technical assistance (TA) study, and based upon that TA 

study, the customer installed equipment that resulted in annual savings in excess of 1000 

MWh – constituting roughly 40% of the program’s annual and lifetime energy savings, 

the largest portion of program savings from a single project. 

● Approximately 1/4 of lifetime program savings were from Refrigeration measures that

were achieved at a much lower than expected $/MWh. These measures were a much 

more significant share of program activity than anticipated. Also, the type of refrigeration 

measure installed was much less costly than other types of refrigeration measures. 

Furthermore, we believe that the project costs for these installations were lower than 

expected due to the buying power of the customers’ parent companies.

Program costs per participant were similarly lower than planned for the following reasons:

● The incentive associated with the very large government project was not paid out despite 

receiving technical assistance to steer the customer towards the most efficient equipment 

possible.

● Refrigeration incentives were less than 20% of their expected $/MWh and provided the 

second largest portion of lifetime MWhs at approximately 25% of total savings. 

Higher than expected program energy savings were driven by the following factors:

● Both HVAC and Refrigeration end-use measures were installed at far greater rates than 

expected for planned program activity, and at much lower $/MWh than expected for 

those measures. These two categories of measures therefore added significantly to 

program savings without comparable use of program budget funds. 

● The change in measure mix for program year 2011 to include less Lighting and greater 

HVAC and Refrigeration also drove the increase in measure life and a corresponding 

increase in lifetime savings. 

Decreases in demand savings were also driven by the change in measure mix, as the HVAC 

project had lower summer and winter coincidence than the Lighting measures.

Despite a deemed savings value change that resulted in a less negative NEB value for the 

reduction in lighting waste heat making, non-electric benefits were significantly lower than 

plan in 2011 due to a difference in the Lighting measure mix.

There were no significant changes from preliminary to evaluated results. 

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

● 2010 Combined Heat and Power Impact Evaluation Methodology and Analysis Memo: 

This study produced realization rates for annual kWh, therms, and fuel impacts for those 

CHP projects in the CHP end-use category. The net effect on each PA’s program is 

dependent on the difference between the new realization rate and the previous realization 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 70 of 140

rate incorporated into each PA’s screening tool, and may therefore differ. The study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 19.

● Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Process and Compressed Air Installations: This study 

produced realization rates for annual kWh, summer on-peak and seasonal peak kW, and 

winter on-peak and seasonal peak kW for those custom projects in the Process and 

Compressed Air end-use category. The net effect on each PA’s program is dependent on 

the previous realization rates being incorporated into each PA’s screening tool, and may 

therefore differ. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 20.

● Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Lighting Installations: This study produced 

realization rates for annual kWh, summer on-peak and seasonal peak kW, and winter onpeak and seasonal peak kW for those custom projects in the Lighting end-use category. 

The net effect on each PA’s C&I New Construction and C&I Retrofit programs is 

dependent on the previous realization rates being incorporated into each PA’s screening 

tool, and may therefore differ. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 

21.

● Massachusetts Large Commercial & Industrial Process Evaluation: The study examines 

key process topics identified by the EEAC, PAs and the DOER including how to improve 

integration and coordination, concerns about the adequacy of staffing levels, how to 

achieve deeper savings, whether medium-sized C&I customers are being adequately 

served by the programs, the adequacy of program tracking databases, and program 

satisfaction. The results of this study did not impact the 2011 evaluated results. The study 

is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 22.

● HVAC Market Characterization and Penetration Analysis: This study estimates the 

market penetration of energy-efficient equipment in the Massachusetts commercial 

HVAC market, gauges the level of large C&I program influence on market penetration, 

and characterizes the market for emergency replacement. The results of this study did not 

impact the 2011 evaluated results. The study is discussed in more detail in Section III, 

Study 23.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]

c. C&I Small Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The primary objective of the C&I Small Retrofit Program was to provide costeffective, comprehensive electric, gas, oil and propane retrofit services to small business 

customers on a turn-key basis using the same delivery model throughout the Commonwealth.

The Compact also provides application-based project services to small business customers 

under the umbrella of this program.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 71 of 140

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program was business customers with average 

monthly demand below 300kW. 

Definition of Program Participant: A count of the number of unique sites where one or more 

projects were completed during the program year.

Targeted End-Uses: 

● Lighting

● HVAC

● Hot Water

● Motors & Drives

● Refrigeration

● Hot Water

● Envelope

Delivery Mechanism: Direct Install 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. Non-direct install program services were delivered via the retrofit application 

process as was the case for Large C&I Retrofit.

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 

2011 plan was approved as part of its three-year plan (2010-2012) in the January 28, 2010 

DPU order in Docket 09-119. Subsequently, the Cape Light Compact has filed updates to its 

three-year plan adjusting certain of its programs and pilots (referred to as its 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 small commercial and industrial 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, the Compact continued with its All Fuels approach.

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

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 72 of 140

The Small Retrofit Program did not spend its budget in 2011 because it had only half as many 

participants as planned, and the cost per participant was lower than anticipated. 

The program’s reduced participation rate was especially evident in the government sector, 

which was originally expected to account for approximately 40% of program spending in 2011. 

Instead, actuals for this sector came in at less than half of the planned percent of overall 

spending. Since the Compact pays a higher incentive level for government projects (up to 

100% incentive as compared to up to 80% incentive for non-government), it makes sense that 

a low showing on the government side would reduce per participant spending from expected 

levels for the program overall. Reduced program participation and spending likewise yielded 

correspondingly lower energy and demand savings than planned, coming in at less than half of 

what was originally planned.

In contrast, non-electric benefits were again significantly higher than plan in 2011. This is due 

to a difference in the Lighting measure mix. Additionally, a TRM correction resulted in a 

change to the negative NEB value for lighting that quantifies the reduction in lighting waste 

heat, making this value a less negative one.

Changes from preliminary to evaluated results came from the Non-Controls Lighting impact 

evaluation as noted below and impacted the whole program slightly. While there is a small 

Table II.C.6

C&I Small Retrofit

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ $ 7,403,822 $ 2,941,149 -60%

Performance Incentive $ $ - $ - 0%

Participants sites 884 472 -47%

Program Cost / Participant $ $ 8,375 $ 6,231 -26%

Savings and Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 146,138 52,429 -64% 56,303 7% -61%

Annualized MWh 11,848 4,636 -61% 4,994 8% -58%

Average Measure Life Yrs 12 11 -8% 11 0% -9%

Demand

Lifetime kW 36,151.6 14,400 -60% 13,764.29 -4% -62%

Annualized

Summer kW 2,893.5 1,227.86 -58% 1,172.91 -4% -59%

Winter kW 1,468.6 662.46 -55% 775.32 17% -47%

Average Measure Life Yrs 12 12 -6% 12 0% -6%

Non-Electric Benefits (Lifetime) $ $ (98,964) $ 850,751 960% $ 626,628 -26% 733%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ $ 20,835,063 $ 8,757,081 -58%

TRC Costs $ $ 8,319,822 $ 3,708,041 -55%

Net Benefits $ $ 12,515,241 $ 5,049,040 -60%

BCR 2.5 2.4 -6%

Performance Category Units

Planned

Value

Preliminary Year-End

Results

Evaluated Results

Value % Change

from Planned Value

% Change

from

Preliminary

% Change

from Planned
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 73 of 140

decrease in summer demand, the change to coincidence factors for winter demand reflects an 

increase. In addition, the heating penalty associated with the lighting was larger and caused a 

significant decrease to the penalty received, as reflected in the difference between preliminary 

NEBs and evaluated results.

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

● Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts Small Business Direct Install 

Program: Multi-Season Study: This study improved on the 2010 impact evaluation of 

annual energy savings and peak demand impacts for the retrofit installation of highefficiency lighting fixtures through the C&I Small Retrofit programs. Results from 

extended 2011 summer metering were added to winter metering from the 2010 study. 

Combining the two impact evaluations produced revised energy kWh and connected kW 

realization rates, summer and winter coincidence factors and HVAC interaction factors. 

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 18.

The program’s performance and the results of the impact evaluations described above will be 

used to adjust the planning estimates for the program in the next three-year plan for 2013-2015. 

Changes to this program are not currently expected to result in a mid-term modification for the 

remainder of the current three-year plan. [A mid-term modification was submitted for this 

program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid-Term Modification filed with the Department on October 

28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11-116.]
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 74 of 140

III. EVALUATION MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES

The purpose of this section is to provide detailed information on the EM&V studies included in 

the Annual Report for each sector.

The Massachusetts Program Administrators completed thirty evaluation studies for the 2011 

Annual Report. The following is a statewide summary of the subset of these evaluation studies 

that had significant impact on the final evaluated data. 

The studies that had the most significant impact for electric Program Administrators were:

● Massachusetts Special and Cross-Sector Studies Area, Residential and Low-Income NonEnergy Impacts (NEI) Evaluation and Additional Non-Energy Impacts for Low Income 

Programs

● Low Income Single Family Program Impact Evaluation

● Demand Impact Model User Manual

● Massachusetts Mini Baseline Study of Homes Built at the End of the 2006 IECC Cycle

● Massachusetts Multifamily Program Impact Analysis

● 2010 Combined Heat and Power Impact Evaluation Methodology and Analysis Memo

In the Massachusetts Special and Cross-Sector Studies area, the Residential and Low Income 

Non-Energy Impacts (NEI) study had a large impact on overall residential and low income 

sector benefits based on the previously filed study in Cape Light Compact, D.P.U. 11-116. 

The supplemental research on non-energy impacts for low-income programs includes additional 

low income benefits that clarifies and expands the prior research performed in the Residential 

and Low-Income Non-Energy Impacts Evaluation. The additional information focused on 

lighting quality, refrigerator recycling, price hedging, and economic development, and the 

results have a significant positive impact on the benefits attributable to low-income programs. 

Additional information on the updated non energy benefit values for the low-income program 

can be found in Appendix C, Study 28.

The Low Income Single Family Program Impact Evaluation quantified the gross per-unit 

savings generated by each low-income measure through billing and engineering analyses. 

Depending on planning assumptions and measure mix, this study had a different impact on 

each of the Program Administrators because the results varied by measure. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 17.

The Demand Impact Model and User Manual updated previous demand impact factors to 

reflect the most recent load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak periods. The results of this study were applied to 2011 study results with 

the overall effect varying by Program Administrators and by program. This study had no 

impact on electric savings; it only changed demand and capacity factors. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 9. 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 75 of 140

The Massachusetts Mini Baseline Study of Homes Built at the End of the 2006 IECC Cycle was 

conducted in partnership with DOER to assess compliance with basic building code 

prescriptive path requirements at the end of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC) code cycle. The report provides a preliminary assessment of how new single-family 

residential building characteristics compare to the current User Defined Reference Home 

baseline. The study compared efficiency lighting levels, building practices, equipment 

efficiencies, and other characteristics in custom versus spec built homes. The results from this 

study significantly reduced the electric savings based on the penetration rates of high efficiency 

lighting and appliances with NTG ratios between 79 percent and 11 percent. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 3.

The Massachusetts Multifamily Program Impact Analysis provides a set of savings approaches 

that can be used by all of the PAs as well as program attribution information. These objectives 

were accomplished by interviewing key stakeholders, analyzing the results, and offering 

recommendations for future program improvement. The overall impact of the report resulted 

in 2011 savings decreasing due to the 18 percent free-ridership number derived from this 

study. This study is discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 8.

The 2010 Combined Heat and Power Impact Evaluation Methodology and Analysis Memo was 

intended to determine kWh realization rates, thermal realization rates, and fuel impact 

realization rates at both the Program Administrator and statewide level. The kWh realization 

rate will inform the net savings calculations and the thermal realization rates and fuel impact 

realization will inform implementation and engineering accuracy of the project screening 

process. With the new impact results, the resulting realization rate for NSTAR Electric will 

increase net savings while the resulting realization rate for National Grid will decrease net 

savings. This study is discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Study 19.

A. Summary

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

Reports.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 76 of 140

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)

Massachusetts Residential New Construction Home Buyer Survey App. C, Study 1

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Massachusetts Residential New Construction Focus Groups with 

Participant Builders App. C, Study 2

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Massachusetts Mini Baseline Study of Homes Built at the End of the 

2006 IECC Cycle App. C, Study 3

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Home Energy Services Net-to-Gross Evaluation App. C, Study 4

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Massachusetts Multifamily Market Characterization and Potential 

Study App. C, Study 5 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

Massachusetts Multifamily Program Process Evaluation App. C, Study 6

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Massachusetts Multifamily Program Impact Analysis App. C, Study 7

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Brushless Fan Motors Impact Evaluation App. C, Study 8 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

Demand Impact Model User Manual App. C, Study 9 Study is pending approval of the 2012 MTM, 

D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-116 

Massachusetts Consumer Survey Results 2011 App. C, Study 10

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Major Renovations Pilot Evaluation App. C, Study 11

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Massachusetts Residential New Construction Four to Eight Story 

Multifamily Pilot Interview Findings App. C, Study 12 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

Home Energy Services Packaged Measure Pilot Evaluation App. C, Study 13 Study is pending approval of the 2012 MTM, 

D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-116 

Heat Pump Water Heaters Evaluation of Field Installed Performance App. C, Study 14 Study is planned but not yet submitted for 

approval

Solar Hot Water Pilot Program Evaluation App. C, Study 15 Study is pending approval of the 2012 MTM, 

D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-116 

Residential Program Studies

All studies are 

implemented as 

planned

All studies are 

implemented as 

planned

Residential Pilot Studies
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 77 of 140

B. Residential Program Studies

1. Massachusetts Residential New Construction Home Buyer Survey

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Objective of the Study: Examine what buyers look for in a new home, awareness of ENERGY 

STAR homes, the role of ENERGY STAR certification in new home shopping, perceptions of 

ENERGY STAR homes, and reactions to recent changes in the program. The study also 

provides updates of similar surveys conducted in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas) 

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations. This study was 

informational, conducted to assess the role of energy efficiency in shopping for a newly 

constructed home as well as awareness and perceptions about the program.

Table III.A

Evaluation Studies in Annual Report (cont'd)

Studies

Location of 

Complete Study in 

Annual Report

Docket & Exhibit Approving Planned 

Evaluation Studies

Implemented as 

Approved? (yes/no)

Massachusetts 2011 Low Income Program Process Evaluation App. C, Study 16 Study is pending approval of the 2012 MTM, 

D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-116 

Low Income Single Family Program Impact Evaluation App. C, Study 17 Study is pending approval of the 2012 MTM, 

D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-116 

Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts Small 

Business Direct Install Program: Multi-Season Study App. C, Study 18 Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

2010 Combined Heat and Power Impact Evaluation Methodology and 

Analysis Memo App. C, Study 19 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Process and Compressed Air 

Installations App. C, Study 20

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Lighting Installations App. C, Study 21

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Process Evaluation of the Large Commercial and Industrial Energy 

Efficiency Programs App. C, Study 22

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

HVAC Market Characterization and Penetration Analysis App. C, Study 23

Study is pending approval of the 2010 AR, 

D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 and D.P.U. 

11-126

Massachusetts Three Year Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program 

Evaluation Integrated Report App. C, Study 26 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

Massachusetts Umbrella Marketing Evaluation Report App. C, Study 27 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

Additional Non-Energy Impacts for Low Income Programs App. C, Study 28 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

Community-Based Partnerships 2011 Evaluation Final Report App. C, Study 30 Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-150

All studies are 

implemented as 

planned

All studies are 

implemented as 

planned

All studies are 

implemented as 

planned

Low-Income Program Studies

Commercial & Industrial Program Studies

Special & Cross Sector Studies
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 78 of 140

# Finding

1 The importance of getting a more efficient home with lower energy bills has steadily 

risen for all buyers of new homes from 2002 to 2010 with the mean ranking, using a 

scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is one of the least important factors and 10 is one of the 

most important factors, rising from 7.2 in 2002 to 9.0 in 2010.

2 Close to three out of five buyers of new homes are now aware of the ENERGY STAR 

label on new homes; this is more than twice the percentage who were aware at the 

time of the first Massachusetts home buyer survey in 2002; most of the increase in 

awareness occurred between 2006 and 2010. 

3 Home buyers in 2010 are significantly more likely to discuss the energy efficiency of 

the new home, how much it would cost to heat and cool the home, and green building 

while shopping for or building a new home than they were in 2006. The percentage 

discussing energy efficiency in 2010 is 60% up from 37%; heating and cooling costs 

is 53% up from 25%; and green building is 26% up from 9%.

4 More than seven out of ten (72%) home buyers aware of ENERGY STAR homes 

believe they provide a little or a lot more value for the money, up from just over onehalf (53%) in 2006.

5 Overall satisfaction with the program has remained high with nearly three-quarters of 

buyers of new ENERGY STAR homes who know they have ENERGY STAR homes 

saying they are ‘satisfied’ or ‘extremely satisfied’. Asked to rate the importance of 

going through the Massachusetts program, after changes that do not require ENERGY 

STAR certification, three out of ten (30%) respondents say that going through the 

program would be very important if they were building or buying a new home today 

and an additional one-third (34%) believe program participation would be somewhat 

important.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Findings are based on telephone 

surveys of recent buyers of newly constructed homes in Massachusetts that were conducted from 

June through September of 2011. Surveys were completed with 100 households who had bought 

ENERGY STAR certified homes and 118 households who had bought homes that did not 

participate in the program.

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

Why: Though there were no specific recommendations from this study, the Findings indicate a 

positive trend. This upward trend in the growing importance of energy efficiency in new home 

purchases is communicated through mid stream actors such as real estate agents and mortgage 

bankers/brokers about long term affordability. The program continues to tap into the strong ally 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 79 of 140

relationships it has formed with the Real Estate and Mortgage industry to continue to provide 

trainings and marketing assistance on the importance of energy efficient new construction.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 1. 

2. Massachusetts Residential New Construction Focus Groups with 

Participant Builders

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Objective of the Study: The objective of the study was to assess the participating builders’ 

experience with the program and their reactions to changes made in 2011 and changes which 

may be forthcoming in 2012.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

# Recommendation

1 Capitalize on the theme that the program differentiates home builders in a positive 

manner throughout the marketplace. – On-going task

2 Continue to educate home buying consumers on the characteristics of energyefficient homes and potential savings associated with living in an energy-efficient 

home. – Working with Real Estate market – mid stream marketing.

3 If program Tiers and HERS rating scores are mentioned at all in marketing 

materials to the home-buying consumer, provide simple and clear explanations of 

their significance.

4 Incorporate additional educational information into marketing materials for 

program participants. Further outreach is necessary to raise the awareness of 

participant builders with respect to changes in the program.

5 If the shift to an open HERS rater market occurs, provide clear marketing materials 

to builders emphasizing the advantages offered by HERS raters. Builders should 

also be made aware that HERS raters operate in a competitive market, charging 

varying fees and offering different services.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Findings are based on two focus 

groups conducted in June of 2011 with home builders who participated in the program before 

2011. 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 80 of 140

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

Why: The program has incorporated the above recommendations as follows:

● By leveraging the National EPA ENERGY STAR Homes program websites Builder 

Partner Resource Center and Massachusetts specific builder marketing support, the 

program continues to assist and provide builder partners resources to stand out from their 

competitors. This is done through online support, marketing materials and through 

technical and sales trainings.

● Through the utilization of mid stream allies such as real estate professionals and 

mortgage brokers the program continues to educate the new residential home buying 

market on the benefits of purchasing an energy efficient new home. Value added benefits 

such as long term affordability, comfort and durability are discussed.

● Currently the program does not provide HERS Rating or Tier achievement directly to 

home buying consumers, however individual Raters may provide this information as part 

of their services, but this is decided outside of the programs requirements. All homes do 

receive a sticker indicating that it has participated in the program along with the final 

HERS Index and if it achieved ENERGY STAR.

● The program continues to provide several channels to distribute marketing materials, 

educational opportunities and programmatic updates. In 2011 the program launched a 

Massachusetts specific HERS Rater Website and Portal. The Portal allows program 

Raters to download the most recent program documentation, upload applications and 

incentive worksheets, report completions, view upcoming events and trainings and it also 

allows for the exchange of best practices and technical assistance on its message board. 

The program still also communicates information through email and fax blasts.

● Although the program currently provides Raters with an incentive to participate, the 

builder is made aware of this amount when they receive their participation confirmation 

letter. This shows not only the incentive the rater is receiving; it helps to establish a 

value and cost associated with the services provided. This will be beneficial in the 

upcoming years as the program moves towards decreasing Rater incentives.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 2. 

3. Massachusetts Mini Baseline Study of Homes Built at the End of the 

2006 IECC Cycle

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Objective of the Study: Homes were inspected between April and June of 2011 with three 

primary tasks in mind:

● Conducting a full HERS rating using REM/Rate software

● Filling out the 2006 IECC checklist developed by PNNL

● Providing program Sponsors with a mini baseline study of 50 non-ENERGY STARqualified homes completed at the end of the 2006 IECC code cycle

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 81 of 140

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: This study was 

conducted in partnership with DOER to assess compliance with basic building code 

prescriptive path requirements at the end of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code 

(“IECC”) code cycle, provide a preliminary assessment of how current new single-family 

residential building characteristics compare to current User Defined Reference Home 

(“UDRH”) inputs, and conduct audits of energy efficient lighting and appliances within the 

homes. The study also compared building practices, equipment efficiencies, and other 

characteristics in custom versus spec built homes.

# Finding

1 Some current UDRH inputs may underestimate and others overestimate the energy 

efficiency of current building practices or equipment. Heating system efficiency 

inputs—the average efficiencies of gas (natural gas and propane) furnaces and 

boilers in inspected homes are higher than the current UDRH inputs, but wall, floor 

and ceiling insulation levels are lower.

2 The 2006 IECC prescriptive path insulation requirements for wood-frame walls, 

floors over unconditioned space and ceilings are, respectively, R-19, R-30 or cavity 

filled (minimum R-19), and R-38 with an allowance for R-30 in up to 500 feet of 

cathedral ceiling area. (Note that a home failing to meet one or more 2006 

prescriptive path requirements does not mean the home failed to comply with 

building code—the home may have complied under a performance-based 

compliance path that allows trade—offs.) Most homes with wood framed walls 

(84%) had R-19 or higher insulation, 28% of homes with floors over unconditioned 

basements met the 2006 IECC prescriptive insulation requirement, 22% of homes 

with flat ceilings had R-38 or higher insulation, and no cathedral ceilings had R-38 

insulation. However, 67% of homes with cathedral ceilings met the 2006 IECC 

prescriptive insulation requirement by having a total of 500 square feet or less of 

cathedral ceiling area insulated to R-30.

3 Twenty-one percent of the total number of bulbs counted in the non- ENERGY 

STAR Homes were energy efficient. 

4 The majority of refrigerators and dishwashers installed in the non-ENERGY STAR 

homes were ENERGY STAR (73% and 89% respectively).

In most cases the difference between custom and spec homes is minimal. Custom homes tend to 

have higher R-value conditioned/ambient wall and flat ceiling insulation, while spec homes tend 

to have higher R-value floor and foundation wall insulation. Custom homes have slightly more 

efficient heating systems and spec homes have slightly more efficient water heating systems. 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 82 of 140

Spec homes have lower duct leakage and air infiltration. Custom homes have more energyefficient light bulbs and slightly higher percentages of ENERGY STAR refrigerators and 

dishwashers. As an overall indicator of a home’s energy efficiency, the HERS ratings conducted 

on the 50 inspected homes suggest there is little difference between the energy efficiency of 

custom homes (average HERS 85) and spec homes (average HERS 83); this difference is not 

statistically significant at the 90% confidence level.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Due to the 

penetration rate of energy efficient bulbs and appliances program savings from these measures 

are reduced accordingly.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): The 

penetration rates are incorporated into the savings calculations as free-ridership, accordingly the 

appropriate formula is as follows:

Net kWh savings = Gross kWh savings (100% – Free-ridership % + Spillover %)

Net kW savings = Gross kW savings (100% – Free-ridership % + Spillover %)

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: References to 

energy characteristics were not incorporated into the UDRH as this study looked at homes built 

under the 2006 IECC; the current code in Massachusetts is the 2009 IECC. The UDRH will be 

updated with results from the Full Baseline study, which looked at homes built under the 2009 

IECC and will be completed during the summer of 2012.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 3.

4. 2011 Home Energy Services Net-to-Gross Evaluation

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Objective of the Study: To determine measure-specific and program-level net-to-gross 

(“NTG”) values for several of the measures installed in the Home Energy Services program 

using information gathered from program tracking systems, participant surveys, and nonparticipant surveys.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Mass Save (Electric)

● Weatherization (Gas)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 83 of 140

Measure 

Category Measure

Participant 

FreeridershipParticipant 

Spillover

Nonparticipant 

Spillover NTG 

Direct 

Installs CFL 29% 2.5% N/R 73%

Air Sealing 8% 8% 28% 129%

Measures for 

which an 

Incentive was 

Offered

Insulation 25% 20% 28% 123%

Refrigerator 14% N/R N/A* 86%

Overall 113%

Note: N/R = Not Reported, N/A = Not Available

The evaluation findings are based on results from an array of data collection activities and 

evaluation tasks, including participant and non-participant surveys and self-report and discrete 

choice (DC)-based assessments of measure-level NTG ratios.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: The results of this 

study will be used to derive net energy savings by multiplying the gross reported savings by the 

NTG factors.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): 

NTG = 1 – FR + PS + NPS

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

Why: The results of the study are adopted with the following exception. The NTG factors for 

CFLs were also based on this study but modified by agreement with the EEAC consultants on 

July 2, 2012 to account for the potential of participants who would have bought CFLs outside 

of the HES program but through the Upstream Lighting program, which was estimated to be 

5%. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 4. 

5. Massachusetts Multi-Family Market Characterization and Potential 

Study

Type of Study: Market Characterization

Objective of the Study: The objective of this study was to assess the potential energy 

efficiency savings available in multi-family buildings within Massachusetts. The results of this 

study will be used to inform ongoing energy efficiency planning and program design by 

identifying the quantity of available potential and determining how it is distributed across end 

uses in multi-family buildings.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 84 of 140

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Multi-Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations from this study 

as the main purpose was to derive potential savings from multi-family buildings within 

Massachusetts.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Not Applicable.

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

Why: Not Applicable.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 5. 

6. Massachusetts Multi-Family Retrofit Program Process Evaluation

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The objective of this study was to assess program processes and 

identify similarities and differences between the perspectives and assumptions of program staff, 

implementation staff, and customers regarding program goals, design, and implementation. 

Primary activities for this study were: (1) report the opinions and perspectives gathered 

through the interview process; (2) draw conclusions based on the information obtained; and (3) 

offer specific, actionable recommendations for future program improvement. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Multi-Family Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study:

# Recommendations

1 Develop a comprehensive statewide Multi-Family program marketing and outreach 

plan that leverages a range of channels to make initial contact with both property 

managers and tenants and condo owners.

2 Continue to simplify the process for property managers. Via the Mass Save and/or 

PA Multi-Family websites, provide prospective participants with more detail on 

exactly how the program works, what measures could be included, the incentive 

levels, and sample proposals, in advance of calling the MMI. 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 85 of 140

3 Consider the costs, benefits, and appropriate incentives for additional standard 

program measures.

4 With each thermostat, leave behind easy to understand programming instructions in 

multiple languages.

5 Research and test program design and financing options with the aim of both 

increasing program participation and increasing savings from each property.

6 Provide materials (technical specifications, instructions) and websites for program 

participants to obtain technical information on measures and ensure that 

participants understand that they can contact the MMI for technical support.

7 Track program participation with unique identifiers for the building/facility (facility

ID) and participating tenant units (unit #s and/or electric and gas account numbers 

for individually metered units).

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The process evaluation focused on 

two key activities: (1) Assessing program processes; and (2) Identifying similarities in and 

differences between the perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, 

and customers regarding program goals, design, and implementation. 

The focus of this study was to report the opinions and various perspectives gathered through 

interviews with program stakeholders. Conclusions and recommendations were developed based 

on diverse opinions and perspectives. 

Evaluation Task Details

PA Program Manager 

Interviews (n=6)

Provided insight into PA’s perspective of the Multi-Family program 

in 2011, the overall process of participation in the program, any 

changes that occurred over the last year, any issues or key topics that 

emerged, and the current status of the program.

Implementer and MultiFamily Market 

Integrator Interviews 

(n=4)

Provided insight into program implementation, the data collection 

and reporting process, and statewide program collaboration.

Literature Review / 

Benchmarking

Explored common industry practices and innovative approaches that 

are being undertaken by MF programs throughout North America.

Property Manager 

Survey (n=64) Provided insight into satisfaction at the property management level, 

program delivery (in process), measure verification and persistence, 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 86 of 140

Expl

ain 

Whet

her or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommendations from the Study, and Why: 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. 

Recommendations will be considered for implementation consistent with the 2013-2015 ThreeYear Energy Efficiency Plan.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 6.

7. Massachusetts Multi-Family Retrofit Program Impact Analysis

Type of Study: Impact Analysis

Objective of the Study: This impact analysis has two primary objectives. First, the impact 

work aimed to provide a set of savings approaches (i.e., algorithms and deemed values) that 

can be used by all PAs (statewide) in future program years. Second, the analysis collected 

information to inform program attribution, including the measurement of installation rates, 

persistence, free-ridership, and spillover.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Multi-Family Retrofit Program (Gas and Electric)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 

Measure Installation, Persistence, and Freeridership

and freeridership and spillover.

Tenant / Condo-owner 

Survey (n=73)

Provided insight into satisfaction at the individual tenant level, 

program delivery, verification and persistence of measures installed 

in tenant spaces, freeridership of tenant space CFLs, and spillover.

Property Manager 

Focus Group (n=9)

Provided additional insight into the validity of and rationales behind 

the measure verification, persistence, and net-to-gross results from 

the survey, as well as further discussion of key topics and testing 

alternative program design strategies identified during the literature 

review/benchmarking task

Program Database and 

Audit Data Review

Conducted a thorough review of program tracking databases, and a 

related review of program audit data not contained in the program 

tracking databases to determine what data are collected, understand 

the data details, determine the appropriate baseline for estimating 

measure-specific savings generated, and to determine the best way 

to aggregate and analyze the program data. The data review 

informed the subsequent engineering review (results of the 

engineering review are provided in a separate report.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 87 of 140

Measure PA Data Source

Installation 

Rate

Persistence 

Rate

FR 

(Weighted)

FR 

(n)

Common Area 

CFLs 

All (except 

NSTAR) 91% 100% 31% 9 

Dwelling CFLs All (except 

NSTAR) 98% 99% 12% 3

1

Dwelling CFLs All (except 

NSTAR) 98% 99% 51% 49 

Other CFLs NSTAR 89% 100% 27% 6 

Common Area 

Lighting Fixtures All PAs 100%2

99% 20% 27 

Dwelling Lighting 

Fixtures All PAs 99% 100% 16% 31 

Total Lighting (except CFLs in units 

where the occupant pays the electric 

bill)

96% 100%318% 63

Insulation/Air 

Sealing All PAs 100% 100% 19% 22

Showerheads Showerheads and 

aerators combined 100% 93% 15% 15

Aerators Showerheads and 

aerators combined 100% 96% 15% 15

Programmable 

Thermostats All PAs 100% 69%4

24% 20

Total (All) 97% 100%318% 63

1. For property managers that pay for dwelling electricity; 2. One respondent reported 

installing more measures than PA participant tracking data, 100% assumes respondent recall 

was inaccurate; 3. PM and Tenant combination 4. Installed and programmed; 

Based on PM Survey Responses

Based on Tenant/Condo Owner Survey Responses

Summary of Proposed Savings Approaches

Measure 

Category Primary Algorithm Alternative Approach

Lighting –

CFLs

Lighting –

Linear 

Fluorescen

ts

Same algorithm, but deemed values are provided for 

baseline wattage and operational hours.

Lighting –

LED Exit 

Signs

Same algorithm but, some deemed input values are 

provided.

Lighting –

Metal 

Halides

Same algorithm, but deemed values are provided for 

baseline wattage and operational hours.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 88 of 140

Lighting –

Occupanc

y Sensors

Same algorithm, but some deemed input values are 

provided.

Refrigerat

ors

Refrigerator Recycling

No Recycling

Same algorithm, but some deemed input values are 

provided.

Attic 

Insulation 

Basement 

Insulation 

Wall 

Insulation 

(gas) 

Same algorithm, but some deemed input values are 

provided.

Attic 

Insulation

Basement 

Insulation

Wall 

Insulation

(electric)

Air Conditioning Savings:

Electric Heating Savings:

Same algorithm, but some deemed input values are 

provided.

Other 

Insulation 

(electric)

Deemed annual kWh savings = 137 kWh.

Other 

Insulation 

(gas)

Deemed annual MMBtu savings = 1.2 MMBtu.

Air sealing 

(electric)

Same algorithm producing a deemed savings approach 

per 1000 ft2based on zip code and heating type

Air 

Sealing 

(gas)

Same algorithm producing a deemed savings approach 

per 1000 ft2based on zip code and heating type

Thermosta

ts 

(electric)

Deemed annual kWh savings = 282 kWh.

Thermosta

ts (gas)

Deemed annual MMBtu savings = 2.4 MMBtu.

Heat pump 

tune-up

ΔkWhdwelling = 180 kWh

ΔkWhCommonArea = 325 kWh

Aerators 

(electric)

Deemed annual kWh savings = 41.7 kWh.

Aerators 

(gas)

Deemed annual MMBtu savings = 0.36 MMBtu.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 89 of 140

Showerhe

ads 

(electric)

Deemed annual kWh savings = 55.6 kWh.

Showerhe

ads (gas)

Deemed annual MMBtu savings = 0.48 MMBtu.

Pipe Wrap 

(electric)

Deemed annual kWh savings = 55.6 kWh

Pipe Wrap 

(gas)

Deemed annual MMBtu savings = 0.48 MMBtu.

Tank 

Wrap 

(electric)

Deemed savings per wrap = 31.5 kWh

These results were determined by reviewing program audit data and also reviewing the 

measure-specific engineering savings estimates contained in each PA’s program tracking 

database, and their relationships to the per unit values in PA Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) models 

and to the methods described in the Technical Reference Manual (TRM). Also, a review of 

third party algorithms from other Technical Resource Manuals or from recent studies to get 

another perspective of how various jurisdictions calculate savings for similar measures was 

conducted. These reviews included both local sources (within Massachusetts or New England 

PAs), as well as outside sources like the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER), the 

Ohio TRM, and the New York TRMs.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: The results of this 

study were used to derive net energy savings by multiplying the gross reported savings by the 

NTG factors. The impact of this study was a decrease in the reported net savings.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): The 

report includes all required algorithms and calculations to interpret and verify results.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: The NTG 

results were adopted. The proposed savings approaches will be used in 3-year planning.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study #7. 

8. Brushless Fan Motors Impact Evaluation

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: To identify energy savings associated with BFM retrofits in 

residential HVAC applications, as installed through the Cool Smart program.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential Cooling and Heating Equipment (Electric)
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 90 of 140

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: This evaluation used 

on-site spot measurement and long-term metering of BFM retrofits to determine statistically 

significant savings ( 18% at an estimated 90% confidence interval) for a sample of 26 pilot 

participants. 

The summer demand coincidence factor was calculated using ISO-NE definitions of peak 

period. Both energy and demand savings included the cooling interactive effect. The 

following table summarizes the results.

Brushless Furnace Motor Fan Motor Results

Item Evaluated Savings

Annual kWh motor savings 246 kWh

Direct motor savings kWh 219 kWh

Interactive cooling savings kWh 27 kWh

Interactive heating penalty (mmbtu) -0.676 mmBtu

Connected kW 0.182 kW

CF – summer 0.26

CF – winter 0.25

Summer demand savings (kW) 0.047

Winter demand savings (kW) 0.038

Annual Equivalent Full Load Hr 1,493hrsmeasured

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Sections II.A.5 for the program listed above.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): Not 

Applicable.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: The results of 

the study are adopted.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 8.

9. Demand Impact Model Update User Manual

Type of Study: Impact
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 91 of 140

Objective of the Study: Update the existing residential demand impact model originally 

created by Quantec in 2001 with an improved interface and more recent Massachusetts- or 

New England-specific load shape data.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (Electric)

● Multi-Family Retrofit (Electric Only)

● Mass Save (Electric)

● Behavior/Feedback Program (Electric Only)

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances (Electric)

● Low-Income Single Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Multi Family Retrofit (Electric Only)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The updated model 

utilizes the best available load shape data, per-unit measure energy savings, and ISO-NE 

definitions of peak period to allow PAs to dynamically calculate demand impacts.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: The model can be 

used to assess demand impacts for any of the Residential or Low-Income programs. This 

model will be utilized where demand impacts are not calculated in a typical impact evaluation. 

The results of this study only affect demand and energy calculations, not savings. Gas 

programs are minimally impacted by the outcome of this study.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): Not 

Applicable

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: The results of 

the study are adopted.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 9.

10. Massachusetts Lighting Consumer Survey Report 

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Objective of the Study: The objective of the study was to understand the market for energyefficient light bulbs, with particular emphasis on establishing a baseline at the onset of the 

changes in lighting standards resulting from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), which went into effect on January 1, 2012. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 92 of 140

● Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Lighting Program (Electric)

Recommendations Derived from the Study:

# Recommendation

1a The team will continue to track satisfaction with CFLs in the next two waves of 

the survey to be completed in mid- and late-2012. The evaluation team will 

continue to inquire what both satisfied and dissatisfied respondents like and do 

not like about CFLs in order to provide a more complete understanding of CFL 

satisfaction. The evaluation team will also ask respondents if they have recently 

shifted their opinion about CFLs and why. 

1b The PAs have little direct control over the persistent concerns about CFLs. The 

fact that they contain mercury, cannot dim as well as other bulb types, emit a 

different quality of light, and take a while to warm up represents limitations of the 

technology. However, at least for dimmability, warm-up time, and light quality, 

some bulbs suffer from these problems more than others. The PAs may want to 

continue to work with the program partners to support the highest quality CFLs 

on the market, perhaps holding additional focus groups or doing other types of 

consumer research to identify which bulbs those might be.

1c At this time, the LEDs on the market meant to replace 40 Watt and 60 Watt 

incandescents do not save much more energy than CFLs, but they do address at 

least some of the concerns with them, including concerns about mercury, 

dimmability, and warm-up time. Of course, they also cost more than CFLs. 

Therefore, in trying to increase adoption of LEDs, the PAs may want to consider 

educational materials that highlight these advantages of LEDs, but in a manner 

that does not add to the denigration of CFLs. 

2a The PAs may consider increasing consumer education efforts regarding covered 

CFLs, as they are more difficult to distinguish from incandescents when simply 

looking at bulbs in the lighting aisle of the store. For example, signage at the 

point of purchase could note that the bulb is a CFL and that it can be used with a 

wider variety of fixtures.

2b The PAs may also want to consider reclassifying this bulb from “specialty” to 

“covered standard”. Although the covered CFL is not the most common design, it 

does not have any “specialty” functions, such as being dimmable or fitting into a 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 93 of 140

candelabra base. In fact, the covered CFL may offer the best opportunity to 

capture those customers who reject spirals for aesthetic or “fit in fixture” reasons. 

From an incentive and implementation perspective, the switch in classification 

may just be a matter of semantics, but from an evaluation and energy-savings 

perspective, the covered CFL is most accurately grouped with other A-line bulbs 

and not with specialty bulbs, because, at least in the short-term, covered CFLs 

will usually replace A-line incandescents—and perhaps spiral CFLs—and not 

specialty incandescents. 

3 Satisfaction with the dimming capabilities of CFLs has been a persistent concern 

among consumers and many program administrators as well. Current indications 

are that screw-in LEDs dim more consistently and to a greater degree than 

dimmable CFLs. Therefore, the PAs may consider removing dimmable CFLs 

from the list of products they support, and turn instead to LEDs as their preferred 

dimmable technology. 

4 The PAs may want to consider placing a consumer education campaign that helps 

consumers make more informed bulb choices, rather than simply defaulting to the 

incandescent bulb with which they are most familiar. The best choice may not 

always be the most efficient one, but perhaps consumers who are considering 

stockpiling will learn that efficient bulb options to replace incandescents exist for 

nearly all of their lighting needs. Moreover, PA education on EISA standards 

and alternative bulb types may encourage consumers to choose efficient options 

over stockpiling or buying halogen bulbs.

5 The PAs may want to continue their efforts at helping consumers make the 

transition from thinking about Watts to thinking about lumens. Educational 

materials and point-of-purchase displays that show typical uses based on lumens 

provide one example. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The recommendations were based 

on information gathered during the data collection activities for the market assessment. This 

included an in-depth consumer surveys to track key indicators of the market for compact 

fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”), light emitting diodes (“LEDs”), and halogens as well as the impact 

of EISA. The survey was timed to coincide with the EISA-mandated onset of the phase-out of 

100 Watt incandescent bulbs. The results provide a baseline understanding of these important 

indicators at the earliest stages of EISA; the evaluation team will field two additional surveys 

later in 2012 to track changes that may occur as EISA implementation continues.

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

Why: Program Administrators plan to incorporate recommendation on continuing consumer 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 94 of 140

education of more efficient light bulbs and supporting LED technology when applicable. Future 

studies will focus on analyzing the trend in CFL dissatisfaction to see if this is a persistence 

issues, but no changes will be made until more data is provided. Program Administrators will 

fully incorporate appropriate lighting strategies based on the findings from the additional survey 

waves planned for 2013 as more EISA standards go into effect.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study #10.

C. Residential Pilot Studies

11. Memo: Major Renovations Pilot Evaluation

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: As follow up to the preliminary report on non-participant interviews 

issued in 2011, this memo briefly summarizes findings from interviews with homeowners, 

architects and builders involved with projects completed by the end of 2011. The memo 

focuses on satisfaction with the Pilot and suggestions for how the Pilot could be improved or 

made more user-friendly. In addition, it summarizes a discussion with a HERS rater who 

worked with 5 of the 11 completed projects. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

# Recommendation

1 Make requirements for participating in the Pilot clearer

2 Encourage further energy-efficiency upgrades and address smaller projects.

3 Make clear what programs a project qualifies for and if it can participate in multiple 

programs.

4 Speed up the administration process—minimize delays in issuing incentives.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Recommendations are based on 

findings from discussion with a HERS rater who worked with five of the eleven completed 

projects and in-depth interviews conducted with eight homeowners, three architects and three 

builders. In most cases the interviewees played more than one role on the projects they were 

involved in. For example, the owner may have been the architect and/or been the one who 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 95 of 140

applied to participate in the Pilot. The builder may have been hired by the applicant or submitted 

the application for the project to participate in the Pilot. The architect may have also been the 

general contractor or builder and may have submitted the application for the project to participate 

in the Pilot. All interviewees were asked to provide suggestions for how the Pilot could be 

improved or made more user-friendly.

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

Why: The Major Renovations pilot went through an update in early 2012 to make adjustments 

based on lessons-learned and to address the findings from interviews with homeowners, 

architects and builders.

One adjustment was that the pilot became a contractor-focused program rather than a 

homeowner-focused program. The change was made in response to homeowner comments that 

the pilot requirements were unclear. Homeowners were struggling to understand and manage the 

technical requirements of the pilot, while a contractor should have greater familiarity with the 

requirements.

Another adjustment was that the eligibility requirements changed to allow major renovations of 

any size to participate. This change ensured there would not be a gap between the Home Energy 

Services program and the Major Renovations pilot, where people would not qualify for either 

program.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 11.

12. Massachusetts Residential New Construction Four to Eight Story MultiFamily Pilot Interview Findings

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: Assess the strengths and areas in need of improvement of the three 

year pilot that was introduced to serve smaller, four to eight story buildings that do not qualify 

for ENERGY STAR certification but are too small for commercial programs. The report 

focuses on the lessons learned from the pilot about addressing the energy efficiency potential of 

the mid-rise multi-family new construction market.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

# Recommendation

1 Offer a performance-based program for the mid-rise multi-family new construction 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 96 of 140

market, or possibly the entire multi-family market over three stories.

2 The pilot’s verification of ventilation and infiltration rates for individual units 

through the High Performance Building Adder is a positive innovation. Given that 

quality installation of insulation and air sealing have shown to be important in 

single family structures, multi-family programs should continue to fund and 

encourage these measures.

3 Offer a long-term program. Ideally, a program would run for a longer period of 

time and be renewed annually, so that prospective participants know that the 

program will be in place when their projects complete. With a longer-term 

program, implementers should focus their efforts on reaching projects at the earliest 

stage possible. 

4 Try to identify and recruit more projects with less of an energy efficiency or green 

building tilt. Expanding relationship-based marketing focused on the design 

community would enable programs to reach more projects and provide the 

assistance they need to incorporate higher levels of energy efficiency.

5 Consider offering assistance and support for the design team, especially as more 

projects with less of a green tilt are recruited. 

6 Consider efforts to address market concerns and misperceptions about energyefficient building practices. Participant interviews identified a number of concerns 

particular to this market, notably that more efficient systems need more 

sophisticated staffs and training for building operation and that it would be more 

difficult to obtain replacement parts. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Recommendations are based on 

findings from fourteen interviews conducted with the pilot’s sponsors (three interviews), 

implementer (two interviews), and participants with completed projects (nine interviews 

representing fourteen projects). The interviews examined the pilot’s goals and objectives, the 

process of signing up and completing verification, outreach and the timing of projects served, the 

measures covered, the measures installed, barriers to energy efficient multi-family new 

construction, and satisfaction.

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

Why: With the goal of transitioning the current Massachusetts Multi-Family New Construction 

Pilot to a full program, the following program design features which incorporate the above 

recommendations are being explored. The proposed program will continue to provide a single 

point of contact for the participants and provide service for all fuel sources and meter 

configurations. To address the issue of long development timelines, a suite of program offerings 

will provide a stepped enrollment mechanism for pre-bid and post-bid projects. (The bid process 

is the project milestone after which efforts to influence energy efficiency are no longer possible.) 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 97 of 140

The first offering will include a simple prescriptive application to service post-bid projects. The 

goal will be to maximize the capture of energy savings from established designs with a focus on 

residentially metered electric savings. 

In tandem with this simple prescriptive offering, a whole building prescriptive program and an 

interactive savings tool are being developed for pre-bid projects. Third party verification and 

commissioning activities will continue to be incentivized. In total, these approaches will be 

capable of servicing multi-family projects from 4 stories and up. These combinations of 

measures, in conjunction with the transition mechanism, will allow the program to offer costeffective incentives that will move projects to achieve higher levels of energy efficiency and 

pave the way to recruit and educate more first-time program participants.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 12.

13. 2011 Home Energy Services Packaged Measure Pilot Evaluation 

Type of Study: Pilot Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The evaluation was a review to determine whether the additional 

customer incentives offered in an effort to achieve deeper savings at one time in the Home 

Energy Services program made a difference in the customer’s willingness to move forward 

with installation of energy efficient measures, meeting the pilot’s stated goal, as well as 

assessing the delivery of the pilot itself.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Mass Save (Electric)

● Weatherization (Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

# Recommendation

1 The Cadmus Team suggests that if the PAs reissue the pilot, they consider 

additional package combinations, such as an all-insulation package. PAs might 

also consider a package option without the heating system requirement, which is

the highest cost item.

2 The Cadmus Team suggests that the PAs and vendors market the pilot and continue 

to encourage the HES auditors to explain fully the benefits of the pilot when 

conducting HES audits. 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 98 of 140

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The recommendations are based on

PA program manager interviews, program vendor staff interviews, participant and nonparticipant 

customer surveys, and a review of pilot and historical program data.

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

Why: 

1

If the PAs decide to reissue the pilot, additional package combinations will be 

discussed for appropriateness and cost effectiveness.

2

The PAs will look into the best approach for handling this recommendation if the 

pilot is reissued.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 13.

14. Heat Pump Water Heaters Evaluation of Field Installed Performance 

Type of Study: Technology Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The objective of this study was to quantify the in-situ performance of 

three types of heat pump water heaters (“HPWH”). The study was also meant to answer 

questions on the efficiency, reliability, and performance of the three types of HPWHs. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: This is a new pilot measure that will not 

directly affect savings from any program during this annual report year. Going forward, this is 

likely to affect only electric programs.

Results of the Study: This study did not have recommendations per se, but rather quantified the 

results of HPWH use that can be used in the analysis of potential HPWH measures.

Small Tank (50-60 gal) Large Tank (80 gal)

Measure Life 10 years 10 years

Incremental Cost $1,510 $2,610

Mean Annual kWh Saved over 

ERWH 1,687 2,670

Annual Energy Usage

HPWH; Monitored (kWh) 734-4,035 [1643]11,200-2,040 [1579]1

ERWH; EF=0.91 (kWh) 1,898-5,813 [3330]13,110-6,078 [4249]1
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 99 of 140

Gas, Oil, or Propane; EF=0.56 

(MMBTU) 1,289-3,105 [1950]1

1,880-3,226 [2410]1

Gas, Oil, or Propane; EF=0.67 

(MMBTU) 957-2,664 [1577]1

1,510-2,757 [1987]1

Mean Winter Peak Demand 

Reduction over ERWH2 374.1 W

Mean Summer Peak Demand 

Reduction over ERWH3 174.8 W

1 Minimum – Maximum [Mean]

2

June-August, Weekdays, 1pm-5pm

3 December – January, Weekdays, 5pm-7pm

How the Study Determined Those Results: The study came to its conclusions through 

evaluating the in-situ performance of three types of HPWH products. Fourteen units were 

monitored for over one year.

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

Why: There are not any strict recommendations to adopt from this study but the PAs will use 

the results from this study in future analysis of HPWH measures.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 14.

15. Solar Hot Water Program Pilot Evaluation 

Type of Study: Pilot Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The objective was to evaluate this pilot program through billing 

analyses, surveys, on-site validations, and engineering reviews.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential Building Practices and Demonstration Program

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: Key findings of this 

evaluation include:

# Finding

1 The SHW pilot program gross gas savings, based on engineering estimates and 

modeling, is predicted to be approximately 701 MMBTU/yr, with average savings 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 100 of 140

of approximately 14.2 MMBTU/yr per program participant.

2 The SHW pilot program net gas savings, based on a billing analysis to account for 

takeback and other effects, is approximately 512 MMBTU/yr, with average savings 

of approximately 10.9 MMBtu/yr per program participant.

3 Site visits confirmed the quality of SHW installations, with the only consistent 

problem being the lack of a UV-resistant jacket over the foam insulation on outdoor 

piping. The most common non-plumbing issue observed was excessive shading of 

solar collectors.

4 The cost-effectiveness of SHW systems installed through this program is low, with 

simple post-rebate payback periods to customers of 50 years, on average. Some 

well loaded and well sited systems, however, achieved simple payback periods of 

10 years. However, including O&M costs could extend these payback periods of a 

well loaded system to over 100 years and of a well sited system to over 20 years, 

respectively.

Data for this report were obtained through billing analyses, customer surveys, site visits, and 

engineering reviews of solar hot water systems installed through this program over the past 

several years. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: The Solar Hot 

Water Pilot program is a pilot program and is not currently reporting savings. As part of this 

evaluation, total program natural gas savings were calculated to be approximately 701 

MMBTU/year.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): The 

report includes all required algorithms and calculations to interpret and verify results.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: N/A

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 15.

D. Low-Income Program Studies

16. Massachusetts 2011 Low Income Program Process Evaluation 

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The focus for this process evaluation was to report the opinions and 

various perspectives gathered through interviews with program stakeholders. The key objectives 

for the 2011 program process evaluation were as follows:
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 101 of 140

● Follow up on topics discussed during the 2010 process evaluation, such as progress in 

standardization goals, internal and external QA/QC processes, and participant waitlists;

● Identify and discuss areas where the program changed in 2011 and reason(s) for the 

changes; and

● Recommend improvements for process-related issues and suggest ways to standardize or 

streamline processes between agencies/PAs.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Low Income Single-Family Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

● Low Income Multi-Family Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study:

Low Income Single Family Program Process Evaluation Recommendations

# Recommendation

1 If not already, all PAs should provide savings goals to their lead agencies to improve 

transparency between PAs and program implementers. Lead vendors should then 

provide all sub-agencies information about annual savings goals, especially in cases 

where it is a challenge to meet the PAs’ savings goals. Furthermore, it may prove 

beneficial for all agencies to track certain savings performance indicators in a 

manner similar to that of how they track budgets and spending. If indicators for 

savings performance currently do not exist, this should be a topic for discussion in 

the Best Practices working group meetings.

2 The PAs should establish an approval system that does not cause significant delays 

the PAs ability to provide program budgets to implementers. The process should be 

set up in a way that PAs can provide contracts and budget information to the 

agencies in advance of program [start date] year, to provide services to customers in 

a timely and effective manner and ensure agencies can plan effectively. Multi-year 

contracts and budgets should be implemented, when possible, with any subsequent 

revisions negotiated in advance of existing contract expiration dates.

3 Through the Best Practices working group, standardize a streamlined approval 

process for repairs that works for the agencies and PAs.

4 Through the Best Practices working group (including the PAs), develop, document 

and put into practice both (a) a standardized definition of the waitlist; and (b) 

standardized methods for tracking and reporting this information. One suggested 

definition for wait list is the number of eligible low income customers who have 

completed all the necessary paperwork to participate and are awaiting an audit.

5 Coordinated and developed through the Best Practices working group, PAs should 

investigate funding a statewide energy education curriculum, including leave-behind 

materials and energy saving tips. This effort should aim to increase the depth of 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 102 of 140

energy savings resulting from behavior change, and provide thorough and consistent 

energy conservation messages to participants.

6 An assessment of necessary or recommended trainings should be discussed through 

the Best Practices Group to ensure quality auditors and contractors while also 

maintaining cost-effectiveness.

7

Through the Best Practices working group (or sub-committee) including CRI and 

DHCD, discuss ways to further streamline the QA/QC process so it serves the needs 

of the PA-funded program while minimizing participant intrusion. The objectives of 

the discussion should be:

a. Clearly articulate the objectives of multiple QA/QC visits to a 

participant’s home. 

b. Establish the value of agencies conducting 100% post inspections 

versus redirecting resources to serve more homes. 

c. Determine where the objectives of the DHCD and CRI inspections 

align and identify if there are opportunities for collaboration and 

coordination.

d. Assess how changes in federal funding levels are expected to affect 

DHCD inspections and what affect that has on collaboration or 

coordination opportunities. 

Findings from this discussion should be clearly documented and action items to 

improve QA/QC process should be adopted.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 103 of 140

Low Income Multi-Family Retrofit Program Process Evaluation Recommendations

# Recommendation

1 The LIMF Advisory Committee should encourage more standardization across PAs 

by developing standardized project screening criteria or a tool to determine savings 

and cost effectiveness for both gas and electric projects.

2 Identify one single representative program to remain involved with during the entire 

participation process with building managers. Consider looking to the Multi-Family 

Market Integrator used in the market rate multi-family program as a model.

3 Update program materials, including the Program Guide, and clarify the role of each 

PA’s branded benchmarking software tool. To ensure continued participation and 

energy savings into the future, plan for the need to increase participation in the 

LIMF program by raising awareness among potential participants of their eligibility 

and the existence of the program. Facilitate this effort by developing marketing 

collateral, such as leave-behind materials, that help to clarify and differentiate the 

LIMF program eligibility and requirements from other potential funding sources that 

may commonly be offered to participants.

4 Develop data formats to track program savings and administer the program more 

consistently. To prepare for any future audit or evaluation efforts, all implementers 

should collect and store building manager contact information as part of the program 

tracking data, then share those details with the PAs.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The recommendations were 

developed through 77 interviews with program stakeholders.

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

Why: 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 104 of 140

Low Income Single-Family Program Process Evaluation Recommendations 

Responses:

# Recommendation PA Response

1

If not already, all PAs should provide savings goals 

to their lead agencies to improve transparency 

between PAs and program implementers. Lead 

vendors should then provide all sub-agencies 

information about annual savings goals, especially in 

cases where it is a challenge to meet the PAs’ savings 

goals. Furthermore, it may prove beneficial for all 

agencies to track certain savings performance 

indicators in a manner similar to that of how they 

track budgets and spending. If indicators for savings 

performance currently do not exist, this should be a 

topic for discussion in the Best Practices working 

group meetings.

PAs have been and will 

continue to provide savings 

goals to lead vendors to the 

best of their ability. Often, 

lead vendors not only 

manage the overall spend 

of the program between the 

various agencies 

implementing the program 

but also their performance 

as it relates to savings 

goals for PA’s territory. 

2

PAs should establish a system that does not cause 

significant delays to the PAs ability to provide 

program budgets to implementers. The process 

should be set up in a way that PAs can provide 

contracts and budget information to the agencies in 

advance of program [start date] year, to provide 

services to customers in a timely and effective 

manner and ensure agencies can plan effectively. 

Multi-year contracts and budgets should be 

implemented, when possible, with any subsequent 

revisions negotiated in advance of existing contract 

expiration dates.

The PAs are always willing 

to work with the DPU to 

establish a regulatory 

approval system that does 

not cause significant delays 

in program delivery.

3

Through the Best Practices working group, 

standardize a streamlined approval process for repairs 

that works for the agencies and PAs.

This recommendation is 

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.

4

Through the Best Practices working group (including 

the PAs), develop, document and put into practice 

both (a) a standardized definition of the waitlist; and 

(b) standardized methods for tracking and reporting 

This recommendation is 

being considered for 

adoption at this time. The 

PAs have not formally 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 105 of 140

this information. One suggested definition for wait 

list is the number of eligible low income customers 

who have completed all the necessary paperwork to 

participate and are awaiting an audit.

adopted or rejected any 

recommendations that 

require changes to program 

design and operations.

5 Coordinated and developed through the Best 

Practices working group, PAs should investigate 

funding a statewide energy education curriculum, 

including leave-behind materials and energy saving 

tips. This effort should aim to increase the depth of 

energy savings resulting from behavior change, and 

provide thorough and consistent energy conservation 

messages to participants.

PAs are in process of 

reviewing current 

marketing collateral and 

energy education materials 

that is used by the PAs 

and/or agencies. Once the 

analysis of what is 

currently available is 

complete, the PAs will 

determine if the 

recommendation for the 

development and/or 

utilization of statewide 

materials should be 

adopted. 

6

An assessment of necessary or recommended 

trainings should be discussed through the Best 

Practices Group to ensure quality auditors and 

contractors while also maintaining cost-effectiveness.

This recommendation is 

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.

7 Through the Best Practices working group (or subcommittee) including CRI and DHCD, discuss ways 

to further streamline the QA/QC process so it serves 

the needs of the PA-funded program while 

minimizing participant intrusion. The objectives of 

the discussion should be:

Clearly articulate the objectives of multiple 

QA/QC visits to a participant’s home. 

Establish the value of agencies conducting 

100% post inspections versus redirecting 

resources to serve more homes. 

Determine where the objectives of the DHCD 

and CRI inspections align and identify if there 

This recommendation is 

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.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 106 of 140

are opportunities for collaboration and 

coordination.

Assess how changes in federal funding levels 

are expected to affect DHCD inspections and 

what affect that has on collaboration or 

coordination opportunities. 

Findings from this discussion should be clearly 

documented and action items to improve QA/QC 

process should be adopted.

Low Income Multi-Family Retrofit Program Process Evaluation Recommendations 

Responses:

# Recommendation PA Response

1 The LIMF Advisory Committee should encourage 

more standardization across PAs by developing 

standardized project screening criteria or a tool to 

determine savings and cost effectiveness for both gas 

and electric projects.

This recommendation is 

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.

2

Identify one single representative program to remain 

involved with during the entire participation process 

with building managers. Consider looking to the 

Multi-Family Market Integrator used in the market 

rate multi-family program as a model.

This recommendation is 

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.

3 Update program materials, including the Program 

Guide, and clarify the role of each PA’s branded 

benchmarking software tool. To ensure continued 

participation and energy savings into the future, plan 

for the need to increase participation in the LIMF 

program by raising awareness among potential 

participants of their eligibility and the existence of 

the program. Facilitate this effort by developing 

marketing collateral, such as leave-behind materials, 

that help to clarify and differentiate the LIMF 

program eligibility and requirements from other 

PAs are in process of 

reviewing current marketing 

collateral and energy 

education materials that is 

used by the PAs and/or 

agencies. Once the analysis 

of what is currently 

available is complete, the 

PAs will determine if the 

recommendation for the 

development and/or 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 107 of 140

potential funding sources that may commonly be 

offered to participants.

utilization of statewide 

materials should be adopted. 

4

Develop data formats to track program savings and 

administer the program more consistently. To 

prepare for any future audit or evaluation efforts, all 

implementers should collect and store building 

manager contact information as part of the program 

tracking data, then share those details with the PAs.

This recommendation is 

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.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 16.

17. Low Income Single Family Program Impact Evaluation

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The objective of the study was to determine gross per-unit savings 

generated by each Low Income program measure.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Low-Income Single Family Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The PA-weighted 

Massachusetts-wide per-unit gross ex post energy savings (by measure and primary fuel type of 

treated homes) are summarized below.

Category Measure

Natural Gas 

(Therms/year)

Electric 

(kWh/year)

Oil 

(MMBTUs/

year)

Insulation 

and Air 

Sealing

Insulation and Air Sealing 

(overall) 263* 1,616 28.1

Air Sealing 105 501 9.9

Attic Insulation 83 1,071 11.6

Wall Insulation 115 824 11.2
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 108 of 140

Category Measure

Natural Gas 

(Therms/year)

Electric 

(kWh/year)

Oil 

(MMBTUs/

year)

Basement Ceiling 

Insulation 15 30 2.9

Basement Wall Insulation 13 37 0.2

Furnace Fan (due to 

weatherization) 206 (kWh) -- 224 (kWh)

Cooling (due to 

weatherization) 138 (kWh) -- 153 (kWh)

Heating 

System 

Heating System 

Replacement 199* -- 18.4

Boiler Reset Controls -- -- 4.4

Programmable Thermostat -- -- 3.1

Furnace Fan (due to furnace 

replacement) 172 (kWh) -- 132 (kWh)

Appliances

Refrigerator Replacement -- 762 --

Second Refrigerator 

Removal -- 1,180 --

Freezer Replacement -- 239 --

Window AC Replacement -- 204 --

Lighting

CFLs -- 45 --

Torchieres -- 211 --

Fixtures -- 140 --

Domestic 

Hot Water

Domestic Hot Water 

(overall) 5 128 0.7

Low-Flow Showerhead 9 188 1.1
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 109 of 140

Category Measure

Natural Gas 

(Therms/year)

Electric 

(kWh/year)

Oil 

(MMBTUs/

year)

Faucet Aerator 2 40 0.2

Pipe Wrap 4 41 0.4

Distribution

Duct Insulation 55 -- 4.3

Duct Sealing 33 -- 3.3

Other Baseload (TLC Kits) -- 25** --

* Indicates this number is based on billing analysis. All other measure results through 

engineering analysis (simulation or algorithms).

** Reflects MA-wide average based on each PA's kit contents and participation. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

table in Section II.B.5

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): A 

complete set of measure-specific engineering algorithms are provided in the appendix of the 

report.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: The results of 

the study are adopted.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 17. 

E. Commercial and Industrial Program Studies

18. Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts Small Business 

Direct Install Program: Multi-Season Study

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Objective of the Study: 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 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 110 of 140

evaluation focused on savings due to the equipment change only and does not include savings 

due to the installation of lighting controls.8

Through extended metering of lighting time-of-use, the study determined program realization 

rates for the following savings parameters: 

● Annual energy savings (kWh)

● Annual energy savings during energy on-peak period (%)

● Summer and winter peak period demand reduction (kW)

● Annual heating gas and oil impact (MMBtu)

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric Only)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The impact factors for 

the statewide program are provided in Table 1. The table includes factors for adjusting the 

gross energy and peak demand savings and for estimating the gas and oil impacts of lighting 

fixtures measures implemented through the C&I Small Retrofit program. 

Impact factors are provided separately for WMECO due to a difference in the methodology for 

estimating gross savings for the 2010 and 2011 programs. 

The impact factors are based on post-retrofit verification, metering, and analysis performed at 

126 participant sites statewide. Metering was performed at all 126 sample sites during winter 

2010-2011 and at 26 sites with expected seasonal variation (e.g., schools and summer camps) 

during summer-fall 2011. 

Impact Factors:

 

8 The impact evaluation of lighting control installations was conducted in Small Business 

Direct Install Program: Pre/Post Lighting Controls Study. June 2012.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 111 of 140

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Results of the 

study will be applied to update existing impact factors used in calculating small business 

program lighting fixture electric energy and demand savings. As applied the results will 

marginally decrease energy and summer demand savings and marginally increase winter demand 

savings.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): 

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, 

respectively:

Adjusted gross energy impacts are calculated by applying the kWh realization rate (kWh RR) 

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

Similarly, summer and winter peak demand impacts are calculated by applying the connected 

demand realization rate (kW RR), 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. 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 112 of 140

The statewide coincidence factors are based on the ISO-NE on-peak capacity periods; the 

WMECO coincidence factors are based on the ISO-NE seasonal peak capacity periods. A 

detailed description of the formulas for applying the impact factors in Table 1 is provided in the 

full report (see pages 3-4).

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: Results of the 

study have been adopted by MA Program Administrators

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 18.

19. 2010 Combined Heat and Power Impact Evaluation Methodology and 

Analysis Memo

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The study was intended to produce kWh realization rates, thermal 

realization rates, and fuel impact realization rates at both the PA and statewide level. The 

kWh realization rate was meant to inform evaluation departments’ net savings calculations 

while the thermal realization rates and fuel impact realization rates were produced to inform 

PA implementation and engineering departments regarding the accuracy of their project 

screening process. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I Retrofit (Electric Only)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results:

Summary of 

Realization Rates 

Program 

Administrator

Weighted Mean 

kWh Realization 

Rate

Weighted Mean 

Thermal 

Realization Rate

Weighted Mean 

Fuel Impact 

Realization Rate

NGRID 0.86 ± .08 1.01 ± .11 0.87

NSTAR 1.15 ± .16 1.03 ± .08 1.06

Prgm Avg 0.93 ± .07 1.01 ± .08 0.90
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 113 of 140

The study determined realization rates at the PA level and statewide level. A combination of 

onsite equipment verification, examination of operating conditions, interviews with site 

personnel, and equipment metering of 15 individual projects completed during 2010 was 

performed to inform modeling assumptions and determine realization rates. Metering was 

performed over a 6 month period, with at least 1 month of summer and 1 month of winter 

metering required for site inclusion in the evaluation. The results were extrapolated over the 

remainder of the 12 months to determine evaluated savings. PAs represented in the study sample 

were NSTAR and National Grid.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: How the results 

impact each program’s savings is a function of the previous realization rates that were being 

incorporated into each PA’s savings models. Since this is the first time CHP has been evaluated, 

program administrators had been assuming a 100% kWh realization rate. With the new impact 

results, the resulting realization rate for NSTAR will increase net savings while the resulting 

realization rate for National Grid will decrease net savings.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): Net 

Savings = Gross kWh Savings x Gross Realization Rate9x (1 – Freeridership Rate + Spillover 

Rate). Further information can be found in the Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for 

Estimating Savings from Energy Efficiency Measures 2011 Program Year – Report Version.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: N/A – This

study has been adopted by both NSTAR and National Grid.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 19.

20. Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Process and Compressed Air 

Installations

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The study’s objective was to produce both energy (kWh) and demand 

(kW) realization rates for program administrators’ custom process and compressed air projects. 

A 90% confidence interval was set for energy and an 80% confidence interval was set for 

demand in the sample design. Realization rates were to be produced at the individual PA level 

and also at the statewide level. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric Only)

● C&I Retrofit (Electric Only)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 

 

9

Realization rate determined by this study.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 114 of 140

Overall Process Results Annual MWh

% OnPeak 

MWh

On-Peak 

MWh

On-Peak 

Summer 

k W

On-Peak 

Winter 

k W

Summer 

Season 

Peak kW

Winter 

Season 

Peak kW

Total Tracking Savings 22,888 - - 2,833 2,883 2,833 2,883

Total Measured Savings 17,434 - - 2,324 2,531 2,381 2,573

Realization Rate 76.2% - - 82.0% 87.8% 84.0% 89.3%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 14.9% - - 

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 2,602 - - 

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 24.0% 20.4% 24.3% 20.6%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 558 516 578 531

Error Ratio 0.74 - - 1.30 1.23 1.26 1.21

Overall Compressed Air Results Annual MWh

% On-Peak 

MWh

On-Peak 

MWh

On-Peak 

Summer 

kW

On-Peak 

Winter kW

Summer 

Season Peak 

kW

Winter 

Season 

Peak kW

Total Tracking Savings 6,064 - - 756 746 756 746

Total Measured Savings 5,168 - - 577 553 569 560

Realization Rate 85.2% - - 76.3% 74.1% 75.2% 75.1%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 24.6% - - 

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 1,274 - - 

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 28.6% 30.9% 27.8% 30.0%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 165 171 158 168

Error Ratio 0.57 - - 0.84 0.92 0.83 0.89

Compressed Air Results by PA Annual MWh

% On-Peak 

MWh

On-Peak 

MWh

On-Peak 

Summer 

kW

On-Peak 

Winter kW

Summer 

Season Peak 

kW

Winter 

Season 

Peak kW

National Grid

Total Tracking Savings 3,936 48.1% 1,893 485 476 485 476

Total Measured Savings 3,507 44.9% 1,575 381 395 367 402

Realization Rate 89.1% 93.4% 83.2% 78.6% 83.0% 75.6% 84.4%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 34.0% - 33.8%

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 1,191 - 532

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 40.3% 40.5% 39.9% 39.1%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 154 160 146 157

Error Ratio 0.57 - 0.51 0.88 0.89 0.87 0.86

NSTAR

Total Tracking Savings 1,170 - - 143 144 143 144

Total Measured Savings 913 - - 117 114 117 115

Realization Rate 78.0% - - 81.6% 79.2% 81.6% 79.6%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 45.1% - - 

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 412,081 - - 

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 34.6% 37.1% 34.7% 36.7%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 40 42 41 42

Error Ratio 0.74 - 0.72 0.75 0.81 0.76 0.80

WMECO

Total Tracking Savings 958 - - 128 126 128 126

Total Measured Savings 747 - - 78 44 85 43

Realization Rate 78.0% - - 61.3% 34.7% 66.8% 34.5%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 24.6% - - 

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 184 - - 

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 55.0% 95.9% 52.5% 98.0%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 43 42 45 43

Error Ratio 0.32 - - 0.80 1.42 0.75 1.43
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 115 of 140

The study determined realization rates at the PA level and statewide level. A combination of 

onsite equipment verification, examination of operating conditions, interviews with site 

personnel, and equipment metering of 28 custom process and 11 custom compressed air projects 

completed during 2010 was performed to inform modeling assumptions and determine 

realization rates. Metering was performed over a 3 month period, with the resulting data being 

extrapolated over the remainder of the 12 months to determine evaluated savings. PAs 

represented in the study sample were National Grid, NSTAR, Unitil and WMECO.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: How the results 

impact each program’s savings is a function of the previous realization rates that were being 

incorporated into each PA’s savings models. For instance, if a PA had been carrying a higher 

realization rate than was produced in this study, the affected program’s savings would decrease 

once the new realization rate was incorporated. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): Net 

Savings = Gross Savings x Gross Realization Rate10 x (1 – Freeridership Rate + Spillover Rate). 

Further information can be found in the Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for 

Estimating Savings from Energy Efficiency Measures 2011 Program Year – Report Version.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: N/A – This 

study has been adopted by all PAs.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 20.

21. Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Lighting Installations

Type of Study: Impact Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The study’s objective was to produce both energy (kWh) and demand 

(kW) realization rates for program administrators’ custom lighting projects. A 90% 

confidence interval was set for energy and an 80% confidence interval was set for demand in 

the sample design. Realization rates were to be produced at the individual PA level and also at 

the statewide level. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric Only)

● C&I Retrofit (Electric Only)

 

10 Realization rate determined by this study.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 116 of 140

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 

The study determined realization rates at the PA level and statewide level. A combination of 

onsite equipment verification, examination of operating conditions, interviews with site 

personnel, and equipment metering of 45 individual projects completed during 2010 was 

Statistic

Annual 

MWh

On-Peak 

Summer 

kW

On-Peak 

Winter kW

Summer 

Season 

Peak kW

Winter 

Season 

Peak kW

Total Tracking Savings 46,463 7,659 8,061 7,659 8,061

Total Measured Savings 45,696 7,166 7,392 7,056 7,056

Realization Rate 98.3% 93.6% 91.7% 92.1% 87.5%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 9.3% 9.3% 13.1% 9.7% 13.1%

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 4,259 669 966 685 923

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 7.3% 7.3% 10.2% 7.6% 10.2%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 3,319 521 752 534 719

Error Ratio 0.30 0.38 0.58 0.40 0.58

Statistic

Annual 

MWh

% OnPeak 

MWh

On-Peak 

MWh

On-Peak 

Summer 

kW

On-Peak 

Winter 

kW

Summer 

Season 

Peak kW

Winter 

Season 

Peak kW

Cape Light Compact

Total Tracking Savings 31 - - - - - - 

Total Measured Savings 25 - - - - - - 

Realization Rate 79.5% - - - - - - 

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 0.0% - - - - - - 

Error Bound at 90% Confidence - - - - - - - 

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 0.0% - - - - - - 

Error Bound at 80% Confidence - - - - - - - 

Error Ratio 0.00 - - - - - - 

National Grid

Total Tracking Savings 9,109 44.3% 4,036 1,886 2,250 1,886 2,250

Total Measured Savings 8,922 47.9% 4,273 2,185 1,913 2,159 1,926

Realization Rate 97.9% 108.1% 105.9% 115.9% 85.0% 114.5% 85.6%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 5.9% - 13.9% 9.5% 11.7% 10.0% 12.1%

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 529 - 595 207 225 216 232

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 4.6% - 10.9% 7.4% 9.2% 7.8% 9.4%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 412 - 464 207 225 216 232

Error Ratio 0.16 - 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.26 0.34

NSTAR

Total Tracking Savings 30,375 - - 4,628 5,127 4,628 5,127

Total Measured Savings 30,915 - - 3,938 4,280 3,815 3,950

Realization Rate 101.8% - - 85.1% 83.5% 82.4% 77.0%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 13.5% - - 14.9% 16.2% 15.3% 15.8%

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 4,182 - - 586 694 582 622

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 10.5% - - 11.6% 12.6% 11.9% 12.3%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 3,259 - - 457 541 454 485

Error Ratio 0.34 - - 0.42 0.46 0.43 0.44

WMECO

Total Tracking Savings 7,999 - - 1,409 967 1,409 967

Total Measured Savings 7,139 - - 1,351 1,385 1,364 1,346

Realization Rate 89.3% - - 95.9% 143.2% 96.8% 139.2%

Relative Precision at 90% Confidence 8.7% - - 19.4% 45.7% 21.7% 47.6%

Error Bound at 90% Confidence 619 - - 262 633 296 640

Relative Precision at 80% Confidence 6.8% - - 15.1% 35.6% 16.9% 37.1%

Error Bound at 80% Confidence 482 - - 204 493 231 499

Error Ratio 0.24 - - 0.48 1.21 0.53 1.25
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 117 of 140

performed to inform modeling assumptions and determine realization rates. Metering was 

performed over a 3 month period, with the resulting data being extrapolated over the remainder 

of the 12 months to determine evaluated savings. PAs represented in the study sample were 

Cape Light Compact, National Grid, NSTAR and WMECO.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: How the results 

impact each program’s savings is a function of the previous realization rates that were being 

incorporated into each PA’s savings models. For instance, if a PA had been carrying a higher 

realization rate than was produced in this study, the affected program’s savings would decrease 

once the new realization rate was incorporated. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): Net 

Savings = Gross Savings x Gross Realization Rate11 x (1 – Freeridership Rate + Spillover Rate). 

Further information can be found in the Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for 

Estimating Savings from Energy Efficiency Measures 2011 Program Year – Report Version.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: N/A – This 

study has been adopted by all PAs.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 21. 

22. Massachusetts Large Commercial & Industrial Process Evaluation

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The study is a process evaluation of the Massachusetts Large 

Commercial and Industrial energy efficiency programs. The study examines key process 

topics identified by the EEAC, PAs and the DOER including how to improve integration and 

coordination, concerns about the adequacy of staffing levels, how to achieve deeper savings, 

whether medium-sized C&I customers are being adequately served by the programs, the 

adequacy or program tracking databases, and program satisfaction. This study was conducted 

on behalf of the PAs and the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (“EEAC”).

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

# Recommendation

1 Target participants with more sophisticated audits and technical assistance.

 

11 Realization rate determined by this study.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 118 of 140

2 PAs should be more proactive in reaching out to the trade allies.

3 The PAs need to simplify paperwork and accelerate rebate processing. 

4

Reach out to trade ally organizations to disseminate program information and 

identify contractors who would promote the programs. 

5 A standard lifecycle cost tool would probably be well-received. 

6 Market the reduced interest financing option to dormant participants. 

7

The vendor interviews reaffirmed previous process evaluation findings that PAs 

need to work closely with architects and engineers who specify the new 

construction and major renovation projects. 

8 The PAs should implement a means of combining small jobs into a bigger pool. 

9

The program needs to do a better job of warning program vendors about 

changes in program funding. 

10 In order to clearly identify projects by end-use, the PARIS categories should be 

adopted, and data entry constrained to the following values.

11 Measure Categories should be used to indicate how projects are treated within 

these end-uses, according to the list of measures in the TRM.

12 A set of core data should be collected for all projects and included in tracking 

systems. 

13 All data that is collected on customer application forms should be captured in 

tracking systems so that it is available for analysis. 

14 Create or populate a field with consistent business type names. 

15 Define Custom vs. Prescriptive projects based on savings calculation

16 Define C&I customer size categories by rate class instead of program.

17 Enter project data or create queries that extract files in such a way that each 

record represents a single customer site, project and type of measure.

18 Save the queries or code used to produce extract files from one year to the next.

19 Develop a statewide security policy and practice to allow all project and 

customer data to be delivered at once.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 119 of 140

20 Build the capability to link gas and electric customer projects.

21 Provide a mechanism for linking billing and tracking data.

22 Add quality control through rule-based data entry screens that prevent invalid 

combinations of program, end use and measure category.

23 Calculate savings through lookup tables, wherever possible.

24 Provide premise number instead of account number where available.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The study draws on multiple 

sources of information including: In-depth interviews with EEAC consultants, C&I program 

managers and staff, participating and nonparticipating trade allies, trade association 

representatives, and participating customers; Focus group discussions with participating 

customers; Computer-Aid Telephone Interview (“CATI”) surveys with hundreds of participants 

including both recent (2010-2011) participants and “dormant” participants who have not 

participated in the C&I programs since 2008-2009; and an examination of the various PA 

program tracking databases.

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

Why: As this report was recently issued, the recommendations are currently under 

consideration.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 22. 

23. HVAC Market Characterization and Penetration Analysis – Final 

Report

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The objective of the study was to estimate the market penetration of 

energy-efficient equipment in the Massachusetts commercial HVAC market, gauge the level of 

large C&I program influence on market penetration, and characterize the market for 

emergency replacement.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● C&I Retrofit (Electric & Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 120 of 140

# Recommendation

1 Consider raising efficiency levels for condensing gas boilers. Given the high market 

penetration for high-efficiency condensing gas boilers reported by both participating 

contractors (84%-90%) and non-participants (90%-100%), it appears that the 

program could benefit from raising efficiency levels. 

2 Consider offering stocking incentives to distributors. One-half of respondents 

believe that availability is an important factor in selecting new equipment in 

emergency replacement situations. In order to ensure the wide availability of highefficiency models, consider offering stocking incentives to distributors to maintain 

an inventory of high-efficiency equipment.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The evaluation included telephone 

interviews with commercial HVAC contractors and distributors in Massachusetts. The 

evaluation had a goal of completing 80 interviews, however only 51 were completed. Each 

respondent was asked to estimate the market penetration for their firm. This figure was then 

rolled up to estimate market penetration for the entire market.

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

Why: As this report was recently issued, the recommendations are currently under 

consideration.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 23.

24. Prescriptive Gas Final Program Evaluation Report

This study applies to gas energy efficiency programs only and is, therefore, not included 

in Cape Light Compact’s Annual Report.

25. Impact Evaluation of 2010 Custom Gas Installations

This study applies to gas energy efficiency programs only and is, therefore, not included 

in Cape Light Compact’s Annual Report.

F. Special and Cross Sector Studies

26. Massachusetts Three Year Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program 

Evaluation Integrated Report

Type of Study: Impact and Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: 
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 121 of 140

This report provides the findings from the 2011 annual impact and process evaluation of the 

Massachusetts Behavioral programs. This represents the second formal report of the threeyear evaluation under the Massachusetts Cross-Cutting evaluation area. This report covers two 

of three behavior programs or pilots implemented between 2009 and 2011: the 

Behavior/Feedback programs administered by National Grid and NSTAR which are both 

implemented by OPOWER, and the Behavior/Feedback pilot administered by WMECo, called 

Western Mass Saves and implemented by C3.

The study evaluates the savings impacts of the two behavior programs or pilots during the 2011 

program year. The report also includes a demographic analysis of the savings for the 

Behavior/Feedback program administered by National Grid. The report also includes a 

process evaluation of the Behavior/Feedback pilot administered by WMECo, which included a 

customer survey and web statistics.

Additionally, the report investigates a number of research questions related to behavior 

programs, such as: How do savings differ by opt-in or opt-out programs? Will the savings 

persist with or without treatment? Do these programs lead to additional participation in other 

programs and what are the associated energy savings? Are there specific population 

characteristics that lead to greater savings? 

Programs to which the Impact Results of the Study Apply: 

● Behavior/Feedback (Electric & Gas)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 

Behavior/Feedback Electric Results:

PA

Cohort or 

Measure 

Name

Program 

Year

Base 

Usage

Annualized 

Net Savings 

per HH

Net 

Savings 

%

Total 

Evaluated 

Participants

National 

Grid 2009 PY2 10,825kWh 223 kWh 2.06%

23,309

National 

Grid 2010 PY2 12,051 kWh 196 kWh 1.63%

67,980

National 

Grid 2010 Add PY1 15,008 kWh 240 kWh 1.60%

23,557

National 

Grid 2011 PY1 9,767 kWh 134 kWh 1.37%

94,322
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 122 of 140

Complete results of the impact evaluation can be found in Section 5 of “Massachusetts Three 

Year Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Integrated Report.”

Net program savings were determined by conducting billing analysis to estimate annual electric 

and therm savings. Average annual net savings attributable to the behavioral program were 

determined using a linear fixed effects regression analysis of customer billing data that included 

billing data from behavioral program participants (who received the Home Energy Reports), and 

a matched comparison group of residential customers. The billing analysis approach is described 

in Section 3.4 of “Massachusetts Three Year Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation 

Integrated Report.” 

In addition, net program savings were also determined by conducting a channeling analysis 

where net program savings determined by billing analysis were adjusted by factoring out deemed 

savings values counted in other programs. Therefore, the savings values cited here reflect only 

those program savings directly obtained by the Behavior/Feedback program, factoring out 

savings jointly attributable to the Behavior/Feedback program and other energy efficiency 

programs. This adjustment is described in Section 3.3 of “Massachusetts Three Year CrossCutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Integrated Report.” 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please see Table 

II.A.08 in National Grid’s and Western Massachusetts Electric Company’s 2011 Energy 

Behavior/Feedback Gas Results:

PA

Cohort or 

Measure 

Name

Progra

m 

Year

Base 

Usage

Annualized 

Net Savings 

per HH

Net 

Savings 

%

Total 

Evaluated 

Participants

National 

Grid 2009 PY2 137.2 MMBTUs

1.72 

MMBTU

1.25

%

23,685

National 

Grid 2010 PY1 139.9 MMBTUs

1.69 

MMBTU

1.21

%

74,138

National 

Grid 2011 PY1 102.7 MMBTUs

1.02 

MMBTU

0.99

%

87,691

NSTAR Wave I PY1 55.7 

MMBTUsa

0.53 

MMBTU

0.94

%

22,840

NSTAR Wave II PY1 121.5 

MMBTUs

1.82 

MMBTU

1.50

%

22,108
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 123 of 140

Efficiency Annual Reports and Table II.A.9 in NSTAR Gas Company’s 2011 Energy Efficiency 

Annual Report.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): Please 

see the Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for Estimating Savings from Energy 

Efficiency Measures 2011 Program Year – Report Version.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: Impact results 

for the Behavior/Feedback programs are being adopted.

Programs to which the Process Results of the Study Apply: 

● Behavior/Feedback Pilots (Electric Only)

● Behavior/Feedback Programs (Electric & Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

The process evaluation identified recommendations in two areas: (1) program design and 

evaluation for opt-in programs, (2) evaluating persistence.

# Recommendation

1 Program design and evaluation for opt-in programs:

Waitlisted or delayed treatment participants should be used whenever 

possible to establish a comparison group. 

In the absence of a waitlist or delayed treatment, Variability in Adoption 

(“VIA”) designs are the most appropriate for quasi-experiments. 

Ensure that the “treatment effects” do not occur prior to treatment, 

indicating a pre-existing saving trajectory (no treatment effects seem to 

occur prior to treatment). 

Employ surveys and other qualitative research techniques to assess what 

customers would have done in the absence of the program. 

Evaluation must also consider the effects of feedback in keeping 

customers on a trajectory. 

Consider adjusting the impact models to account for self-selection bias.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 124 of 140

2 Evaluating persistence:

Persistence should be examined in two ways: (1) with program treatment, 

and (2) without program treatment. 

All behavioral programs should be continually evaluated for persistence; 

however opt-in models have little data to date that document persistence 

beyond one year. 

Evaluating/measuring participants’ and non-participants’ attitudes and 

intentions using a tested conceptual model can provide confidence in 

interpreting statistical results. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The study developed the 

recommendations by researching and citing best practices for evaluating quasi-experimental 

design and persistence in behavior programs. 

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

Why: The Company will adopt the recommendations from the study because they will help 

maintain evaluation best practices.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 26.

27. Massachusetts Umbrella Marketing Evaluation Report

Type of Study: Process Evaluation

Objective of the Study: The objective of this study was to establish baseline campaign 

awareness in advance of the 2012 marketing campaign. The report also builds on an interim 

evaluation of the 2010 Massachusetts Umbrella Mass Save Statewide Marketing Campaign, 

which focused on documenting the campaign’s organizational structure and initial strategy.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (Electric)

● Multi-Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

● Mass Save (Electric and Gas)

● Behavior/Feedback Program (Electric and Gas)

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances (Electric)

● Residential Heating and Water Heating (Gas)

● Weatherization Program (Gas)

● C&I New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 125 of 140

● C&I Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations from this report 

as it was designed to establish baseline campaign awareness.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Not Applicable 

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

Why: Not Applicable

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 27. 

28. Additional Non-Energy Impacts for Low Income Programs

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: This study includes additional investigation that clarifies and expands 

the research performed in the Residential and Low-Income Non-Energy Impacts Evaluation. 

The additional information focused on refrigerator recycling, lighting quality, price hedging,

and economic development. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Low-Income Single Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

● Low-Income Multi Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The results have a 

positive impact on the benefits attributable to low income programs. The results were arrived 

at through a process of meeting and building consensus among Program Administrators, 

LEAN, and the EEAC.

Lighting Quality

Item NEI

Increased Lighting Quality $56/participant

Refrigerator Recycling

Item NEI

Avoided Landfill Space $1.06

Plastics & Glass Recycling $1.25
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 126 of 140

Item NEI

Incineration Insulating Foam $170.22

Price Hedging

Item NEI

Hedge against volatile prices

$0.76/MMBTU 

of gas

$0.005/kWh

Economic Development

Massachusetts – Gas Estimate

Increase in 

GSP (Billion $) 

(1) Savings 

(Tbtu) (2)

Savings 

(therms) (3)

Economic 

output per 

therm (4)

11% for low 

income (5)

Inflated from 

2008 to 2011$ 

(6)

28 664 6,640,000,000 $4.22 $0.46 $0.486

(1) Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth; ENE; October 2009; page 49.

(2) Energy Efficiency in Massachusetts: Engine of Economic Growth; ENE; October 2009; 

page 2.

(3) Tbtu times 10,000,000

(4) Calculated as Increase in GSP/Savings (therms)

(5) Multiply economic output per therm by 11%; assumes 11% inures to the benefit of lowincome (the low-income fraction of population).

(6) Uses an inflation rate of 1.85% from BCR models.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 127 of 140

Massachusetts – Electric Estimate

Increase in 

GSP (Billion 

$) (1)

Savings 

(GWh) (2)

Savings (kWh) 

(3)

Economic 

output per 

therm (4)

11% for low income (5) 

(6)

70 217,300 217,300,000,000 $0.32 $0.04

(1) Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth; ENE; October 2009; page 47.

(2) Energy Efficiency in Massachusetts: Engine of Economic Growth; ENE; October 

2009; page 2.

(3) GWh times 1,000,000

(4) Calculated as Increase in GSP/Savings (kWh)

(5) Multiply economic output per therm by 11%; assumes 11% inures to the benefit of 

low-income (the low-income fraction of population).

(6) Using an inflation rate of 1.85% from BCR models does not change the estimate of 

$0.04/kWh from 2008 to 2011$.

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: This additional 

research will result in an increase in benefits in the Low-Income Programs.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Program(s): Not 

Applicable.

If the Results of the Study Are Not Adopted by the PA, Fully Explain Why: The results of 

the study are adopted.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 28.

29. 2011 Commercial and Industrial Natural Gas Programs Free-ridership 

and Spillover Study

This study applies to gas energy efficiency programs only and is, therefore, not included in 

Cape Light Compact’s Annual Report.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 128 of 140

30. Community Based Partnership Interim Process Evaluation

Type of Study: Process

Objective of the Study: The overall objective of this evaluation is to assess the effectiveness 

of each community-based partnership that falls within the scope of the evaluation and 

determine its potential for replication and/or full-scale implementation. 

The Community-Based Partnerships 2011 Evaluation Final Report provides an overview of 

each effort’s structure and performance against the goals, presents findings from the research 

activities conducted with a goal of providing feedback and identifying areas for program 

improvement. The report also presents comparative analysis of community-based efforts under 

evaluation with the goal of developing best practices for design and implementation of such 

efforts. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Renew Boston (Electric and Gas)

● New Bedford Community Mobilization Initiative (Electric and Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

# Finding

1 Determine the goals of each community-based effort (and how it complements 

the overall portfolio) upfront.

2 Be strategic with the selection of communities. 

3 Understand the targeted population and barriers that might prevent the 

achievement of goals. Clearly document how the community-based initiative 

seeks to intervene prior to launch.

4 Establish metrics before launching the effort, and track metrics consistently 

across community-based initiatives.

5 Consider most efficient and cost-effective delivery structure that would align 

with the effort’s goals.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 129 of 140

6 Require that all costs and resources required for support be clearly documented 

and tracked. 

7 For future evaluation efforts explicitly evaluate participation trends; marketing 

efforts and conversion rates; and the full costs of these partnerships, including 

resources expended by the PAs, implementers and community groups.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The findings presented in the study 

were developed through analysis of program materials and tracking databases, in-depth 

interviews with the PA staff, in-depth interviews with program stakeholders and community 

groups, historical participation analysis (for one effort), and participant interviews. As part of 

the research, the evaluation team has also conducted a literature review of community-based 

programs implemented across the United States, and developed both partnership-specific logic 

models and an overarching theory of change for community-based partnerships. 

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

Why: These findings are targeted at future efforts, and will be considered by the PAs and 

interested stakeholders as additional efforts are launched.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 30.

G. Future Studies

Table III.B summarizes the studies expected to be included in next year’s Annual Report.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 130 of 140

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

RNC Net Impact Study Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

RNC Incremental Cost Study Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

RNC Baseline Study/Code Compliance Assessment*

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes

Home Energy Services: Contractor Charettes in Support of Lost 

Opportunity Metric*

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

Net-to-Gross study on Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (Cool 

Smart)*

Study is pending approval of the 2010 

AR, D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 

and D.P.U. 11-126

Yes

Home Energy Services: Impact Evaluation*

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes

Residential Lighting Consumer Survey Phase II 

Study is pending approval of the 2010 

AR, D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 

and D.P.U. 11-126

Yes

Residential Lighting Shelf Stocking Survey

Study is pending approval of the 2010 

AR, D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 

and D.P.U. 11-126

Yes

Residential Lighting Supplier Interviews Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Residential Lighting Onsite Saturation Study*

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

Lighting Sensitivity Analysis (EISA Baseline Study) 3YP Version*

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

Consumer Electronics Potential Study

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

Consumer Electronics Saturation Study* Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 131 of 140

Table III.B

Evaluation Studies in Next Annual Report (cont'd)

Studies Docket & Exhibit Approving Planned 

Evaluation Studies

Expected to be 

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Residential Pilot Studies

Process and Impact Evaluation of the WI FI Thermostat Pilot*

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

Electronically Commutated Motor (ECM) Circulator Pump Pilot Program*

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

Impact Evaluation of the 2011-2012 Boiler Reset Control Pilot Program* Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

2012 Lighting Controls Pilot Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Commercial & Industrial Studies

Small C&I Billing Analysis

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes

Small C&I Lighting Controls Impact Study*

Study is pending approval of the 2010 

AR, D.P.U. 11-63 through D.P.U. 11-73 

and D.P.U. 11-126

Yes

Large C&I - Prescriptive Measure Impact Evaluation (VSDs)

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes

Large C&I - Potential Study to assess the mid-sized C&I customers

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

Large C&I - 2011 CHP Impact Evaluation Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - Custom Electric Impact Evaluation (Refrigeration, Motor, 

Other)

Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - Upstream Lighting Impact & Process Evaluation Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - C&I Customer Profile Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - Existing Building Market Characterization Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - Lighting Controls Study Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - Whole System Approach Assessment Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - New Construction Market Characterization Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Large C&I - New Construction Baseline Code Compliance Study*

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes

Large C&I - Prescriptive Measure Impact Evaluation (Lighting)*

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 132 of 140

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). The purpose of this section is to address these statutory 

budget requirements. 

For each sector, Tables IV.A through IV.C summarize and compare planned and actual PP&A 

costs, outsourced activities, and budget allocation, respectively.

B. Minimization of Administrative Costs

The most significant factor in the Compact’s approach to minimizing administrative costs in 

2011 was the statewide collaborative process, which was 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, resulted in economies of scale that reduced the cost for each 

Program Administrator. For example, the joint release of many RFPs led to minimization of 

administrative costs in that the costs for preparation and release of the RFPs were shared by 

the PAs. The Program Administrators also minimized administrative costs by coordinating 

Table III.B

Evaluation Studies in Next Annual Report (cont'd)

Studies Docket & Exhibit Approving Planned 

Evaluation Studies

Expected to be 

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Special & Cross-Cutting Studies

Non-Energy Impacts 2011 - C&I*

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes

Education Program Process (Literature Review)* Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Residential Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot Impact Evaluation (CLC)

Study is pending approval of the 2011 

MTM, D.P.U. 10-140 through D.P.U. 10-

150

Yes

Community-Based Inititative: Northampton/Pittsfield Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Umbrella Marketing Post-Campaign Study Study is planned but not yet submitted 

for approval Yes

Job Creation Study*

Study is pending approval of the 2012 

MTM, D.P.U. 11-106 through D.P.U. 11-

116 

Yes

* The PAs anticipate filing these studies with the 2013-15 Three Year Plan.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 133 of 140

energy efficiency program delivery, where appropriate, with other customer service activities 

such as customer acquisition, key account management and trade ally relationships. 

Notwithstanding any appropriate coordination with other customer service departments, it was 

necessary and appropriate for the Compact to maintain a skilled and dedicated administrative 

staff in order to ensure successful delivery of programs, compliance with the GCA, timely 

responses to the directives of the Council, Department, and DOER; and documentation and 

achievement of substantial savings. The Program Administrators sought to balance the need to 

minimize administrative costs to the extent prudent with the need to maximize program quality 

and oversight. Councilors have emphasized the need to devote sufficient administrative 

resources to successfully implement the aggressive programs called for in the 2010-2012 

Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan.

Another factor in the Compact’s efforts to control administrative costs is its grassroots service 

to the community through its volunteer Town or County appointed 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 through their role on the 

Energy Efficiency Committee, 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.

While the economies of scale and other steps taken by the Compact to minimize costs in 2011 

were effective, and administrative costs incurred by the Compact are transparent and are 

presented in the Compact’s narrative and supporting tables (see Appendix B), 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 Program Administrators’ energy 

efficiency 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 GCA, 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 Compact sought 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

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 134 of 140

Table IV.A

Program Planning and Administration Costs

Residential

Residential New Construction & Major Renovation $ 5,213 2.2% $ 8,733 2.9% $ 3,520 0.7%

Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment $ 25,592 2.9% $ 27,523 3.8% $ 1,931 0.9%

Multi-Family Retrofit $ 12,556 2.4% $ 9,439 4.1% $ (3,116) 1.7%

MassSAVE $ 261,273 3.5% $ 324,491 5.4% $ 63,218 1.8%

Behavior/Feedback Program $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

ENERGY STAR Lighting $ 57,071 2.8% $ 44,994 3.2% $ (12,078) 0.4%

ENERGY STAR Appliances $ 10,320 2.9% $ 14,409 3.0% $ 4,089 0.2%

Residential Education Program $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0%

Workforce Development $ - 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0%

Heat Loan Program $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0%

R&D and Demonstration $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

Deep Energy Retrofit $ - 0.0% $ 2,655 5.5% $ 2,655 5.5%

Power Monitor Pilot $ - 0.0% $ 19,360 5.7% $ 19,360 5.7%

Residential New Constr & Maj Reno - SW Pilot $ - 0.0% $ 151 0.9% $ 151 0.9%

Residential New Constr MF (4-8 story) SW Pilot $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

Residential New Constr Lighting Design SW Pilot $ - 0.0% $ 309 5.6% $ 309 5.6%

Residential New Constr V3 EStar Homes SW Pilot $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0%

Residential Technical Development $ - 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0%

Hot Roofs $ - 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0%

Home Automation $ - 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0%

Community Based Pilot $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

Statewide Marketing & Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0%

EEAC Consultants $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

DOER Assessment $ 28,505 100.0% $ 105,813 100.0% $ 77,308 0.0%

Sponsorships & Subscriptions $ 13,090 100.0% $ 24,298 100.0% $ 11,208 0.0%

Residential Total $ 413,619 3.3% $ 582,175 5.8% $ 168,555 2.5%

Change from Planned

to Actual

Value

Change in % -- 

Plan to 

Actual

Customer Sector / Program

Planned Actual

Value ($)

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Value ($)

% of Total 

Program 

Costs
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 135 of 140

None of the sectors experienced variances of 10% or greater as compared to planned Program 

Planning and Administration costs.

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.

Table IV.A

Program Planning and Administration Costs (cont'd)

Low-Income

Low-Income Residential New Construction $ 777 2.3% $ 82 3.6% $ (696) 1.3%

Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit $ 57,378 2.8% $ 183,642 8.1% $ 126,264 5.3%

Low-Income MuiltiFamily Retrofit $ 25,420 3.4% $ 6,666 3.9% $ (18,754) 0.5%

Statewide Marketing & Education $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

Low-Income Energy Affordability Network Funding $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0%

DOER Assessment $ 4,774 100.0% $ 16,141 100.0% $ 11,367 0.0%

Low-Income Total $ 88,350 3.1% $ 206,531 8.3% $ 118,181 5.2%

Commercial & Industrial

C&I New Construction and Major Renovation $ 35,471 2.8% $ 27,496 3.3% $ (7,975) 0.5%

C&I New Construction and Major Renovation - Gvmt $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

C&I Large Retrofit $ 26,022 2.8% $ 33,290 5.9% $ 7,268 3.2%

Large C&I Retrofit - Government $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

C&I Small Retrofit $ 206,907 2.8% $ 138,447 4.7% $ (68,460) 1.9%

C&I Small Retrofit - Government $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

Community Based Pilot $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

Statewide Marketing & Education $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

EEAC Consultants $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

DOER Assessment $ 15,331 100.0% $ 57,390 100.0% $ 42,059 0.0%

Sponsorships & Subscriptions $ 10,910 100.0% $ 23,076 100.0% $ 12,166 0.0%

Commercial & Industrial Total $ 294,641 3.1% $ 279,698 6.3% $ (14,942) 3.3%

Grand Total $ 796,610 3.2% $ 1,068,404 6.3% $ 271,794 3.1%

Customer Sector / Program

Planned Actual Change from Planned

to Actual

Value ($)

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Value ($)

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Value

Change in % -- 

Plan to 

Actual
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 136 of 140

Residential and Low Income experienced a significant variance between planned to actual by 

outsource category. 

There was a shift from Outsourced Activities to In-House Activities across all sectors. In 

general, outsourced EM&V costs and vendor implementation costs (which are captured in the 

Sales, Technical Assistance and Training budget category) were significantly lower than planned 

for all sectors. Also, in-house Marketing and Sales, Technical Assistance and Training costs 

were significantly higher than planned. 

As the Cape Light Compact did not know the exact cost of EM&V when it filed its plan, it 

assumed that 4% of its total budget would be spent on EM&V activities in its plan. 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.

When formulating its plan, the Cape Light Compact inquired about implementation costs with its 

vendors and used these inputs to develop its plan. However, as implementation occurred, 

vendors realized that they could provide services more cost-effectively than they had estimated 

at the time the plan was developed.

Conversely, in-house Marketing and Sales, Technical Assistance and Training 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 costs Marketing and Sales, Technical 

Assistance and Training costs that would be needed when it filed its plan, and the assumptions 

made did not reflect the actual requirements.

Table IV.B

Outsourced and Competitively Procured Services

Residential

Planned $ 316,905 10% $ 2,077,475 76% $ 648,823 24% $ 2,726,298 90% $ 3,043,203

Actual $ 741,325 32% $ 1,324,141 84% $ 247,433 16% $ 1,571,575 68% $ 2,312,900

% Planned to Actual 22% 8% -8% -22%

Low-Income

Planned $ 82,715 9% $ 237,075 29% $ 575,837 71% $ 812,912 91% $ 895,627

Actual $ 288,399 36% $ 445,754 86% $ 71,799 14% $ 517,553 64% $ 805,952

% Planned to Actual 27% 57% -57% -27%

Commercial & Industrial

Planned $ 350,069 19% $ 1,052,016 73% $ 398,115 27% $ 1,450,131 81% $ 1,800,200

Actual $ 289,009 28% $ 440,994 61% $ 284,987 39% $ 725,980 72% $ 1,014,989

% Planned to Actual 9% -12% 12% -9%

Total

Planned $ 749,689 13% $ 3,366,565 67% $ 1,622,776 33% $ 4,989,341 87% $ 5,739,030

Actual $ 1,318,733 32% $ 2,210,889 79% $ 604,219 21% $ 2,815,108 68% $ 4,133,841

% Planned to Actual 19% 11% -11% -19%

Customer Sector

($) % of Total

Activities

($) % of Total

Outsourced

($)

Total

Activities

In-House Activities

Competitiely Procured Non-Competitiely Procured Total Outsourced Activities

($) % of Total

Activities

Outsourced Activities

($) % of Total

Outsourced
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 137 of 140

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.”12

The Low-Income budget represents greater than 10% 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.

 

12 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).

Table IV.C

Customer Sector Budget Allocation

Residential $ 12,386,208 49.7% $ 9,998,543 59.1% $ (2,387,665) 9.4%

Low-Income $ 2,854,275 11.5% $ 2,489,571 14.7% $ (364,704) 3.3%

Commercial & Industrial $ 9,659,199 38.8% $ 4,420,046 26.1% $ (5,239,153) -12.7%

Total $ 24,899,683 100.0% $ 16,908,160 100.0% $ (7,991,523) 0.0%

% of Total 

Program Costs

Change in % from Planned to 

Actual Planned Actual

% of Total 

Program Costs

Customer Sector

Total Program 

Costs

% of Total 

Program Costs

Total Program 

Costs

Total Program 

Costs
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 138 of 140

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

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 139 of 140

VI. AUDITS

The purpose of this section is to address audits conducted during the past 5 program years.

In accordance with the Administrative Services Agreement between Barnstable County and the 

Cape Light Compact, management of the Cape Light Compact funds is done by Barnstable 

County. Under this service, Cape Light Compact Energy Efficiency funds are annually 

audited as part of the Barnstable County audit. In addition to the Department’s review, the 

Cape Light Compact Energy Efficiency Funds have been included as part of the Barnstable 

County Audit since calendar year 2001, fiscal year 2002.

The Cape Light Compact is presently reviewing audit and attestation service options for an 

independent audit of the Energy Efficiency Program for calendar year 2011.
Cape Light Compact

2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12-xxx

Page 140 of 140

VII. APPENDICES

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

Appendix Appendix Contents

A Glossary

A.1.a Types of Costs in Each Budget Category

A.1.b Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

B Cost-Effectiveness Supporting Tables and Documentation

B.1.a D.P.U. 08-50 Tables: 2011 Annual Report Filing

B.2.a Screening Tool: Preliminary

B.2.b Screening Tool: Evaluated

B.3 TRM

C Program and Pilot Program EM&V Studies

D Performance Incentives Supporting Documentation

E Other Supporting Documentation

E.1.a Statewide RFPs

E.1.b Cape Light Compact-Specific RFPs

E.2 Audit Documentation

E.3 Cape Light Compact-Specific Contracts

E.4 Cape Light Compact Town Activity Reports

E.5 2011 Energy Education Program Activity

F Lost Base Revenue Information