# Cape Light Compact

Annual Report on Ener gy Efficiency Activities

in 2011

Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

August 1, 2012This 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

................................ ................................ ............................ 140Cape 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 th e 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 du ring 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 progr am 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 o f the Green Communities Act in ensuring that they make available all cost

effective energy efficiency opportunities.

Overall, the PAs worked diligently with the Department, the Department of Energy Resources (“DOER”), the Energy Efficiency Advisory Coun cil (“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 a ggressive 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

ene rgy 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 c ustomers 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 rem ain 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 th rough 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 prog ram 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 consul tants 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 implement ation 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 n ecessary 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 conten d 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

reac h 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 R eport (“Annual Report”) for 2011

. The purpose of the Annu al 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 varian ces 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 modific ations 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 Repo rts, 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 residentia l, 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 2 5 % 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 co ntinued 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, 201 0

- 2012, energy efficiency plan:

● Achieved a 8 2 % increase in total TRC benefits with only a 29 % increase in TRC costs, and yielding a 11 6 % 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 th e U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant and the U.S. D epartment 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 wi th a Mass Save r 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 ST AR® for Homes Leadership in Housing Award, and the 2011 Outstanding Achievement in Marketing and Communications Award from the Association of Energy Services Professionals.

Tables 2 I.A and I.B provide summary information on program performance at the port folio 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, significant 3 variances ex ist at the portfolio level for:

● All metrics between planned and preliminary values,

● Most metrics between planned and evaluated values

, with the exception of Lifetime NEB s 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 thi s 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, “ s ignificant” variances are defined throughout this Annual Report as variances of +/

- 20% or more between the stated values at the program, sector or portfolio level.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 o f 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 T RC 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

- Inc ome Residential New Construction, Low

Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit and Low

- Income Multi

- Family Retrofit programs are contributing to the variance between planned and evaluated values. Please referenceCape 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 re ference 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 f or the Residential, Low

- Income, and C&I sectors.

A. Residential Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2011 , the Cape Light Compact implemented the following Residential p rograms 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 Pilot 4

● Residential New Construction

- Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

Residential Pilots (Non

- Statewide & Cape Light Compact

- Specific)

● Heat Pump Water Heating Pilot (Non

- Sta tewide)

● 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, th is 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 remaine d 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 p rogram 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 constructio n. 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 Mass achusetts 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 rel ief 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 success fully 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 (“HV AC”) 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 en hanced through joint electric and gas integration through the establishment of circuit rider outreach for COOL Smart through the GasNetworks TM 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

- F amily 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 enroll ed facilities , which was the res ult 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 prog ram 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 wholeCape 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 t he Mass Save/Residential Conservation Services program was fully integrated with the gas Weatherizat ion 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
p articipating c ontractors, Home Performance Contractors ( “ HPC s” ) and Independent Installation Contractors ( “ IIC s” )

, 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 communi cation 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 a nd 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 acqui sition 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 s afety t raining

 Weatherization crew chief training

 Building analyst training

In 2011, the HEAT Loan p rogram 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 receiv ed 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 E NERGY S TAR 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 suc cessfully 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 pr ogram 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 varian ce betwee n planned and evaluated values:Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 10 of 140

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (for TRC Benefits, Net Ben e fits 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.

● M ass S ave (for TRC Benefits , TRC Costs and Net Benefits): Please reference section II.A.2d for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the v ariances for this program.

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs , Net Benefits and BCR): Please reference section II.A. 2 e for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances (for TRC Benefits, Net Ben e fits 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 140Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 12 of 140Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 13 of 140Cape 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 Manage ment Committee (“JMC”). The JMC contractor was responsible for tracking and reporting program activity and advised the JMC on necessary program changes and enhancements. A separate third

- party vendor conducted quality assurance/quality control of field activities. The JMC utilized aCape 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 fi led 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

- 1 16, 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 contribu ted 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 mea sures , such as insulation in a new construction setting

.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 me asures 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 t he 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 associate d with the program increased while the total resource costs decreased, the net benefits and BCR are greater than planned

, and the program is cost

effective

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

● Massachu setts 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 rec ent 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 201 1 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 result s of this study did not impact the 201 1 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 characteri stics 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 ver sus 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 Dem and Impact Model User Manual was updated to reflect new load shape data, per

- unit measure energy savings, and ISO

- NECape 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. T he Compa ny 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 201 2 Mid

- Term Modification filed with the Department on October 28, 201 1 in Compact , D.P.U. 11

- 116 .]

b. Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential Cooling and Heating Equipment (“CO OL 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 ( “ ECM s ” )

.
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 equi pment/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 dist ributors 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 ad ministered 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 C OOL 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 S mart p rogram for training and Quality Installation Verification (“QIV”). Whenever appropriate, these training were jointly provid ed 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 S mart for HVAC measures using COOL S mart 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.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 primar y 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 impac ted 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 of fered 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 ev aluation 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.

Beca use 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 cost

effective

.
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 201 1 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 Compa ct 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 re sults of this study were applied to 2011 study results with the overall effect varying by PA. The Compa ct 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 modif ication for the remainder of the current three

- year plan. [A mid

- term modification was submitted for th is 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 mu lti

- 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 de livery 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 Progra m 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. Subseq uently, 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 201 2 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 impl emented , 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 weat herization 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 meas ure mix. As noted above, the program did not see enough weatherization workCape 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 me a sures and contin ue to look for opportunities such as working with the boards and facility managers. Lifetime NEB s 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

. The Cape Light Compact filing a 2012 Mid

Term 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

- F amily 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. Th e 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 f

orward, 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 objecti ve 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 Mult ifamily 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% free

ridership number derived from this study. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 7.

● Demand Impa ct 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 eff

ect varying by PA. The Compa ct 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 modi fication was submitted for th is 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 livin g 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 interes ted 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

● Ref rigeration

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 l ead v endors selected through a competitive bidding process. L ead v endors were responsible for managing and training market based participants such as participa ting IICs and HPCs. Additional lead v endor 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 informationCape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 24 of 140

Two groups of Mass Save p articipating c ontractors, HPC s and IIC s, provide d services in addition to those services offered by the lead vendor. All p articipating c ontractors had to meet program eligibility and requirements. HPCs independently recruit ed customers, provid ed HEAs and implement ed weatherization measures. IICs provide d installation of weatherization measures for those customers who received a HEA from the l ead v endor . IICs also had the opportunity to independently recruit customers and refer them to the l ead v endor for the HEA.

In order to receive incentives or program rebates, customers were required to have a n HEA through either the PA’s lead v endor or via a p articipating HPC to identify and prioritize all cost

effective energy efficiency improvements

. I nsulation 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 complete d . This en sure d 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

- pa rty Quality Control (“QC”) vendor responsible for performing QC inspections of program implementation vendors and participating contractors. The QC vendor provide d valuable information and feedback to the HES members on program successes and identif ied ar eas 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 p rogram. It is expected that training requireme nts for contractors to retain their status as a HES
p articipating c ontractor 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. Subseque ntly, 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, a nnualized energy savings were not significantly impacted because t he 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 Net

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 majori ty 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 determine d

measure

- specific and program

- level net

- to

- gross (NTG) ratios for the Home Energy Services (HES) program. The information was gathered through Customer Self

Reporting and Stati stical 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. T he Compa ct saw a net decrease in program savings for the 2011 evaluated results . This study is discussed in mor e 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 result s of this study were applied to 2011 study results with the overall effect varying by PA. T he Compa ct 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 Service s 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 recomme ndations were based on interviews, surveys, and historical data. This study does not affect 2011 results. This study is discussed in mor e 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 th is 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 energy

efficient lighting technologies and c ontrols.

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, particip ants 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 Negotiat ed 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® Lig hting
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

- effective ness improved

. Annualized and lifetime energy savings were lower t han 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 low er 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: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. T h e Compa ct saw a net decrease i n 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

- e fficient 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 address ed 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 wil l 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 mor e 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 th is program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid

- Term Modification filed with the Dep artment on October 28, 2011 in Compact, D.P.U. 11

- 116 .]

f. ENERGY STAR® Appliances

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the progra m 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 energy

efficient 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

● P ersonal Desktop Computers

● LCD Computer Monitors

● Advanced Powe r Strips (“Smart Strips”)Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 30 of 140

● Secondary refrige rators and freezers (recycling)

● Pool pumps

Delivery Mechanism: The program utilizes upstream incentives and mail

- in rebates, which dramatically increas ed 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 pa yment 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 Re visions (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 cos t

- 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 ai r 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 refriger ators and TVs. T he 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/Free zer 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:Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 32 of 140

● Demand Impact Model User Manual : The Demand Impact Mod el 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 Compa ct saw a net i ncrease 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 th is program i n the Compact’s 201 2 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 Ret rofit 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 chal lenges 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 Administr ators 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 Progr am 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

c ontractors 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 me asured 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 it s 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 signific antly 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 Repo rt 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 mea sure 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

.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 app roach 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 Administra tors 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 w ant 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 pr ogram (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 P rogram 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. provi des 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 mid

2011 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 summar izes 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 a ddition, 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 201 1 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 11

.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 progr am 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: T his 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: T he 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 o f its programs and pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid

- YearCape 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 t hat 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, an d 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 comme rcial programs. The report focused on the lessons learned from the pilot about addressing the energy efficiency potential of the mid

- rise M ulti

- F amily new construction market. TheCape 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 te ams 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 s tudy 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 Prog ram 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 f or 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.

Definiti on 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 thisCape 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 nat ure 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 progr am in the 2013

- 2015 three

- year plan.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 Implemente d 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 HPWH s w ere installe d by a plumbin g 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. T he overall performance of the HPWHs show s great promise. In general, these HPWHs were more than twice as efficient as a traditional electric resistance tank water heater. T he evaluation found minimal issues with these new units , which performed with remarkable energy and cost savings as compared to electric resistance water heaters.

Docket/Exhibit where the Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 2011 pl an 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 2 010 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 Ca pe Light Compact’s plan tracked with actuals as two participants were planned 5 and two units were installed in 201 1 in customers’ homes. Due to the fact that the evaluated cost per participant was similar to planned costs, total program costs are not sign ificantly 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 al one 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

.Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 43 of 140

f. Power Mon itor Pilot (Cape Light Compact

- S pecific)

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: In 2009, the Cape Light Compact conducted Phase I of this pilot, in an effort to gain insight to behavioral aspects of energy use. The Compact identified 91 participants on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard and installed an in

home energy monitoring system in each participant’s home. The monitoring system enables the participant to view their electricity consumption in real time, displaying energy usage down to the minute. Participants had access to an online dashboard, which offered participants feedback on their energy consumption and demand, savings metrics in kWh, dollars, and 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 netwo rking 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 p rimarily 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 Imple mented 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 evaluat ion 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 target s 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 info rmation 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 plan ned 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 pro gram or as an additional measure offering within an existing program in the 2013

- 2015 three

- year plan.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 kno wledge of energy efficiency technology and practices, moving towards an energy

literate 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 inno vative programs (see Appendix E5 for more detail). Highligh ts 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 s ources 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 i nformal science educator workshops for science and nature center staff

● 5 Teacher Workshops in partnership with NSTAR and NEED and i n

- 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 5 th Grade State Middle School of the Year

- Bourne Midd le School’s Energy Savers Club National and State Elementary School of the Year

- Eastham Elementary School’s 5 th Grade State Senior School of the Year

- Sandwich High School National and State Special Project of the Year

- Harwich Middle Schoo l Energy Adventure Seeke rs 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 comm unity members. As evidenced in requested programs from year to year, schools have moved towards adopting energy education into their yearly scope and sequence of classro om 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 alignCape 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 programs 6 :

● Low

- Income Residential New Construction

● Low

- Income 1

- 4 Family Retrofit

● Low

- Income Multi

- Family Retrofit

2. Low

- Income Sector Performance Highlights

During 201 1 , the PAs continued to leverage all applicable revenue streams available and built

on the current D epartment 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 upgrade s . This allowed PAs to not only achieve significant savings at a low er cost, but also enab led 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 extensi ve 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 provi de summary information on the performance of the low

income 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 low

income program.

6 The Cape Light Compact did not offer any pilot programs in t he 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 B CR): 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.Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 49 of 140Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 50 of 140

3. Low

- Income Progra ms

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

.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 Progr am 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 adju sting 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 i nformation 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 p roduction 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, d emand 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 varyi ng by PA. The Compa ct 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 ex panded the research performed in the Residential and Low

- Income Non

Energy 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, ifCape 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 Compa ct . 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 Dep artment 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 app roach

.
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 disco unt 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 conju nction 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 init iative 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) a nd 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, an nual 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 .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 p rogram 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 offs ets 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 pr ogram 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 Massa chusetts. 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 Imp act 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 Compa ct 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 ide ntifying 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

- relat ed 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 Sin gle 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 engine ering 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 Compa ct due to this study. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III, Study 17.

● Ad ditional Non

- Energy Impacts for Low Income Programs: This additional research clarified and expanded the research performed in the Residential and Low

- Income Non

Energy Impacts Evaluation (filed in D.P.U. 11

- 116). Values were updated for certain additiona l Non

- Energy Impacts. Savings were not impacted by this research, however, there was a net increase to benefits for the Compa ct . 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 t he 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 th is program in the Compact’s 201 2 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 pro gram 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

● Env elope

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 comp rised 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 Pr ogram 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) a nd 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 rela tive 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

- than

expected project lead times, led to the budget and savings goals not being met for 2011.Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 58 of 140

Incorporating the r esults 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 w as 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 Compa ct saw a net decrease in progr am 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 a nd 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 a reas 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 Non

Energy 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 Compa ct . 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 abo ve 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

- t erm modification was submitted for th is 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. SummaryCape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 59 of 140

During 2011

, the Cape Light Compact imple mented the following Commercial & Industrial (“ C&I ”) programs 7 :

● 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 h ighlights 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 de velop 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 introductio n 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 y ear. 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 e ach commercial & industrial program.

7 The Cape Light Compact did not offer any pilot programs in the commercial a nd industrial secto r 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 La rge 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 varia nce between planned and evaluated values:

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovati on (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 Ret rofit (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

s ection 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 RetrofitCape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 61 of 140

● C&I Small Retrofit

However, t he 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 140Cape 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, institutio nal 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 w hen equipment fails or is near the end of its useful life. In doing so, the Program Administrators worked to ensure that the best practices propagated by the program are ultimately built into the evolution of better building requirements.Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 64 of 140

Targeted Custom ers: 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 o f unique sites where one or more projects were completed during the program year, plus the number of unique sites participati ng 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 on going 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 Ma jor 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 explanat ions for the lower cost per partic ipant:

● 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, th e 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 a n even greater variance than in program spending. There were a couple of reasons for this variance in savings being so much gre ater 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 programCape 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 o f 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

s ubstantial portion of program savings in lighting, due to the somewhat more expensive savings in Ups tream Lighting b uy

- 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 h eat, making this value a lower negative valu e.

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. T his was somewhat mitigated by the increase in NEB s 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 th ose custom projects in the Process and Compressed Air end

- use category. The net effect on each PA’s progra m is dependent on the previous realization rates being incorporated into each PA’s screening tool, and may therefore differ. The results of this stud y 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 on

peak 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 Retrofi t 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 Evalua tion: 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 ar e being adequatelyCape 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 Marke t 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 wil l 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 mo dification was submitted for th is program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid

- Term Modification filed with the Dep artment 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 an d 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 pr actices.

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 proje cts 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 service s, 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, thi s 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 expect ed BCR for this program.

The variance in the Large Retrofit program budget is driven by the following factors: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 restriction s . 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 th e 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 meas ures 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 instal lations were lower than expected due to the buying power of t he 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 approximat ely 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 pro gram budget funds

.

● The change in measure mix for program year 2011 to include less Lighting and greater HV AC 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 meas ure 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: Thi s 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 realizatio nCape 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 fo r 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 bei ng 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 o n

- peak and seasonal peak kW, and winter on

peak 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 bein g 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 pro gram 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 s tudy 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 progr am 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 th is 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 cost

effective, comprehensive electric

, gas , oi l 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 p rogram.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 Wat er

● Motors & Drives

● Refrigeration

● Hot Water

● Envelope

Delivery Mechanism: Direct Install v endors 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 rep orts 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 me asures 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, insula tion, 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 governm ent sector, which was originally expected to account for approximately 40% of program spend ing in 2011. Instead, actuals for this sector came in a t less than half of the planned percent of overall spend ing . 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 prog ram participation and spend ing 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 smallCape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 73 of 140

decrease in summer demand, the change to coinciden ce factors for winter demand re f lects 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 t he 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 high

efficiency 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 evaluat ions produced revised energy kWh and connected kW realization rates, summer and winter coincidence factors and HVAC interaction factors. The net effect for the Compa ct 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 current ly expected to result in a mid

- term modification for the remainder of the current three

- year plan. [A mid

- term modification was submitted for th is program in the Compact’s 2012 Mid

- Term Modification filed with the Department on October 28, 201 1 in Compact , D.P.U. 11

- 116 .]Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 74 of 140

III. EVALUATION MEASUREME NT 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 thi rty 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 Pro gram Administrators were:

● Massachusetts Special and Cross

- Sector Studies Area, Residential and Low

- Income Non

Energy 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 Massac husetts 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

- 1 16

. 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 inform ation 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 be nefit 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. Depe nding 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 Use r 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 varyi ng 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 p reliminary 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 character istics 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 di scussed 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 realiza tion 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 reali zation 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 140Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 77 of 140

B. Residential Program S tudies

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.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 facto rs, 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 surve y 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 one

half (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 (3 0%) 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 ENERG Y 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 p rogram continues to tap into the strong allyCape 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 comp lete 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 Residen t ial 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 energy

efficient 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 nece ssary 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 sho uld 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 p rogram 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 ab ove 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 t o 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 continu es 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 parti cipated 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 allo ws 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 th e 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 Evaluati on
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 STAR

qualified 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 Ga s)

● 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 audi ts 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 input s, 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 per formance

- 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 fl at 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 i nsulation

. 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 energy

efficient light bulbs and slig htly 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 ho mes (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 bu lbs 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 (1 00%

– Free

- ridership % + Spillover % )

Net kW savings = Gross kW savings (1 00%

– 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 co de 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 Appendi x 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 non

participant surveys.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply:

● Mass Save (Electric)

● Weatherization (Gas)

Results of the Study and How the Stud y Determined those Results:Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 83 of 140

Measure Category Measure Participant Free

ridership Participant

Spillover Non

participant 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:

● Mult i

- 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 w ithin 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 a nd 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 con clusions 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

- F amily 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

- F amily 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 o f 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 o btain 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 uni ts (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 goal s, 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

- F amily program in 2011, the overall process of participation in the program, any changes that occurred over the last year, any issues or key to pics that emerged, and the current status of the program.

Implementer and Multi

F amily 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 Three

Year 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 individ ual 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 Databas e 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 a ppropriate 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% 3 18% 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% 3 18% 63 1. For property managers that pay for dwelling electricity; 2. One r espondent 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 ft 2 based on zip code and heating type

Air Sealing (gas) Same algorithm producing a deemed savings approach per 1000 ft 2 based 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 calculat e 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 s avings.
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
p articipants.

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 resu lts of the study are adopted.

A copy of the complete study can b e found in Appendix C, Study 8.

9. Demand Impact Model Update User Manual

Type of Study: ImpactCape 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 N ew 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

- Incom e 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, an d 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 program s. 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.

F ormulas 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 b e found in Appe ndix 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 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), which went i nto 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 abo ut 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 quali ty, 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 aCape 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 con sistently 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 w ho 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 op tions 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 durin g 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 consumerCape 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 mo re 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 su mmarizes 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 involv ed in

. For example, the owner may have been the architect and/or been the one whoCape 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 archite ct 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 1 1.

12. Massachusetts Residential New Construction Four to Eight Story Multi

F amily 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 intr oduced 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 o f 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 S tudy:

# Recommendation

1 Offer a performance

- based program for the mid

- rise multi

- family new constructionCape 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 focu sed 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 energy

efficient building practices. Participant i nterviews 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 Ca me 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

- F amily New Construction Pilot to a full program, the fo llowing 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 sa vings.

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 incentivize d. 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 cost

effective 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 Evalua tion

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 instal lation 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 Conclus ions: 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 o f Study: Technology Evaluation

Objectiv e 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 HPWH s.
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] 1 1,200

- 2,040 [1579] 1

ERWH; EF=0.91 (kWh) 1,898

- 5,813 [3330] 1 3,110

- 6,078 [4249] 1Cape 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) 9 57

- 2,664 [1577] 1 1,510

- 2,757 [1987] 1

Mean Winter Peak Demand Reduction over ERWH 2 374.1 W

Mean Summer Peak Demand Reduction over ERWH 3 174.8 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 yea r.
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 th e 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 validati ons, 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 savingsCape 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 o f 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 S HW 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 co uld 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 Unders tand 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 c an 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 duri ng 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 improveme nts 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 sa vings 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 o f 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 adv ance 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, d ocument 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
comp leted 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 ofCape 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 sho uld 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. Establi sh 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. A ssess 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 proce ss 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

- F amily Market Integrator used in the market rate multi

- family program as a model.

3 Update pr ogram 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 ra ising 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 eligibil ity 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, a ll 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 in terviews 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 i t 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 performan ce 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 possib le, 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 recommendati ons 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 trackin g and reporting This recommendation is being considered for ad option at this time. The PAs have not formallyCape 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 parti cipants. 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 th e 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 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 dis cussion should be: Clearly articulate the objecti ves 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 desi gn 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 shou ld 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

- F amily 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
prog ram 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/orCape 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 b eing 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 11.2Cape 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 1.1Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 1 09 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 . A ll 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

com plete 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 Ap pendix 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 impactCape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 110 of 140

evaluation focuse d 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 (Electr ic 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 a nd 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 impa ct 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 Progr am(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 (HVAC ELEC ) 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 coinc idence factor (CF SP for summer, CF WP for winter) and HVAC demand interaction factor (HVAC SP for summer, HVAC WP for winter) to the tracking connected kW savings.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 WMEC O 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 whic h 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 We ighted 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 0.90Cape 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 represent ed 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 eac h 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 re sulting 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 Rate 9 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 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 dema nd in the sample design. Realization rates were to be produced at the individual PA level and als o 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 140Cape 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 per iod, 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 Progra m’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 Rate 10 x (1

– Freer idership 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 d esign. 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 thi s 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 wasCape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 117 of 140

performed to inform modeling assumptions and determine realizati on 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 W MECO.

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 h ad 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) : Ne t Savings = Gross Savings x Gross Realization Rate 11 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

– Re port 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 A ppendix 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 Retr ofit (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 ana lysis.

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 pra ctice 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 Recommende d 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 cu stomers; 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 pr ograms since 2008

- 2009; and an examination of the various PA program tracking databases.

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided to Adopt Recommend ations 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 t he 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 t he 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 high

efficiency models, con sider 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 ent ire 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 2 3.

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 g as 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 three

year evaluation under the Mas sachusetts 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 progra ms 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 10,825 kWh 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 % 94,322Cape 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 l inear 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 bil ling 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 p rogram, factoring out savings jointly att ributable to the Behavior/Feedback program and other energy efficiency
programs

. This adjustment is described in Section 3.3 of “Massachusetts Three Year Cross

Cutting 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 MMBTUs a 0.53

MMBTU 0.94

% 22,840

NSTAR Wave II PY1 121.5 MMBTUs 1.82

MMBTU 1.50

% 22,108Cape 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 Neces sary 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 Adopte d by the PA, Fully Explain Why: Impact results for the Behavior/Feedback p rograms are being adopted.

Programs to which the Process Results of the Study Apply:

● Behavior/Feedback Pilots (Electric Only)

● Behavior/Feedback Programs (Electric & Gas)

Recommen dations 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.

Ensu re 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 h ave 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 be yond 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 d eveloped 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 C ampaign, 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 Equipmen t (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 P rogram (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

- Energ y 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 Lig hting Quality $56/participant

Refrigerator Recycling

Item NEI

Avoided Landfill Space $1.06

Plastics & Glass Recycling $1.25Cape 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 low

income (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 adopte d.

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 wi thin 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 developin g 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; marketin g 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 stakeho lders 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 140Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 131 of 140Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 132 of 140

IV. STATUTORY BUDGET REQ UIREMENTS

A. Introduction

The Green Communities Act requires that energy efficiency programs minimize administrative costs, utilize competitive procurement processes, and spend a certain amount on low

- income
programs. G.L. c. 25

, §§ 19(a)

- (c). The purpose of this sec tion 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, pr ogram 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 sca le that reduced the cost for each Program Administrator. For example, th e joint release of many RFPs le d 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 coordinatingCape 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 appr opriate 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 resp onses 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 Compac t’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, provid e 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 voluntee r 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 a nd 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 mak e 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 quantita tive 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 perc ent change in actual Program Planning and Administration Costs relative to plan, at the program, sector, and portfolio level s

.Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 134 of 140Cape 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 cos ts.

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 a nd portfolio level s

.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 c osts 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

we re 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 a bout 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

- effective ly 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 Sa les, Technical Assistance and Training costs that would be needed when it filed its plan, and the assumptions made did not reflect the actual requirements.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 in crease 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, i n 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 spen t 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 Lig ht 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).Cape Light Compact 2011 Annual Report, D.P.U. 12

- xxx

Page 138 of 140

V. PERFORMANCE INCENTIV ES

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 Li ght 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 par t 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 prese ntly 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.