Cape Light Compact 

Annual Report on 

Energy Efficiency Activities 

in 2010

Submitted to the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities 

and the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources 

August 15, 2011 
This page intentionally blank. 
Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

II. Program Performance................................................................................... 7

A. Residential Sector Programs...................................................................... 7

B. Low-Income Sector Programs...................................................................52

C. Commercial & Industrial Sector Programs....................................................65

III. Evaluation Measurement and Verification Activities.............................................87

A. Summary ...........................................................................................87

B. Residential Program Studies.....................................................................90

C. Low-Income Studies............................................................................ 115

D. C&I Studies ...................................................................................... 118

E. Special and Cross Sector Studies ............................................................. 147

F.      Cape Light Compact-Specific Studies........................................................ 150

G. Future Studies.................................................................................... 152

IV. Statutory Budget Requirements.................................................................... 156

A. Introduction ...................................................................................... 156

B. Minimization of Administrative Costs....................................................... 156

C. Competitive Procurement...................................................................... 158

D. Low-Income Spending ......................................................................... 160

V. Performance Incentives.............................................................................. 162

VI. Audits .................................................................................................. 163

VII. Appendices............................................................................................ 164
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 1 of 164

I. INTRODUCTION

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

Department on January 28, 2010 in D.P.U. 09-116 through 09-127 (the “Gas and Electric 

Orders”), program year 2010 showed remarkable success with respect to goal attainment and 

achievement of real benefits for the environment and the economy in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. Collectively, the Program Administrator (the “Cape Light Compact”), along 

with all the gas and electric distribution companies and municipal aggregators (together, the 

“Program Administrators” or “PAs”) were able to deliver on their goals during program year 

2010, as established in the Gas and Electric Orders, while maintaining the balance between 

meeting the budget for their programs and complying with the directives of the Green 

Communities Act (“GCA”) in ensuring that they make available all cost-effective energy 

efficiency opportunities. Overall, the Cape Light Compact and other PAs worked diligently with 

the Department of Public Utilities (“Department”), the Department of Energy Resources 

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

to meet challenging 2010 program year goals. In many cases, achievements in savings and 

benefits exceeded those goals. Program year 2010 performance showed that strong savings levels 

were achieved, that both Residential and Commercial and Industrial (“C&I”) program 

implementation showed strong results, and that the PAs worked well to implement the programs 

in the field while also ramping up programs to unprecedented spending and savings levels so as 

to meet obligations not just for program year 2010, but for the full life of the Three-Year Plans. 

On a statewide basis, the results shown by the PAs are generally at or in excess of initially 

projected amounts for annual MWh and therm goals. In fact, as noted by the EEAC in its recent 

2010 Annual Report to the Massachusetts General Court and the Department, the combined 

efforts of the PAs resulted in enough savings to power 85,000 households and heat 14,000 homes 

annually. At the same time, the results show greenhouse gas emission reductions equivalent to 

the annual output of over 74,000 cars, and significant progress towards greenhouse gas, NOx, 

and SO2 emission reductions. The ability to achieve or exceed nearly all of the statewide goals 

and targets, despite a very difficult economic climate in the Commonwealth, results in significant 

benefits for the environment, the economy, and end-use customers. 

In addition, while working to achieve their programmatic goals for 2010, the Cape Light 

Compact and other PAs have worked diligently to establish statewide marketing of energy 

efficiency program offerings through the use of the Mass Save label, which won the AESP 

Outstanding Achievement in Marketing and Communications Award based on work 

accomplished in 2010. Simultaneously, the PAs have engaged in over 35 studies across a wide 

span of program sectors to ensure that the Evaluation, Monitoring, 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 Cape Light 

Compact and other PAs have worked diligently with financial institutions, and, through the 

partnership with the Massachusetts Bankers Association, worked to develop financing options to 

expand access to energy efficiency measures for customers in 2010, for the life of the ThreeYear Plans, and beyond. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 2 of 164

The Cape Light Compact and other PAs have continued to be engaged in the monthly EEAC 

process, and have worked collaboratively with each other and with the EEAC’s consultants to 

meet stringent reporting and data collection deadlines so as to adequately monitor and review 

where the Three-Year Plan efforts have succeeded, and where improvement could be anticipated 

for the future. Given the unprecedented nature of these efforts and the significantly ambitious 

goals established in the Three-Year Plans, the Cape Light Compact and other PAs contend that 

the 2010 program year performance has been an unmitigated success and has in many ways 

exceeded the expectations for the first year of the Three-Year Plan. The Cape Light Compact 

and other PAs continue to endeavor to achieve deeper savings from participating customers, and 

have worked to reach a broader range of customers to capture all available efficiency 

opportunities that can be delivered in a cost-effective manner.

A. Purpose of Annual Report

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

Report”) for 2010. The purpose of the Annual Report is to: 

● Provide a comparison of the Cape Light Compact’s planned, preliminary year-end, 

and evaluated (where applicable) expenses, savings, and benefits at the portfolio, 

sector, and program levels for the program year. 

● Identify significant variances between the Cape Light Compact’s planned and 

evaluated costs, savings, and benefits for the program year, and discuss reasons for 

such variances. 

● Discuss how program performance during the program year informs the Cape Light 

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

upcoming years. 

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

individually and jointly with other Program Administrators (“PAs”)) that have not 

been included in previous Annual Reports, and explain how the results of the EM&V 

studies impact program cost-effectiveness. 

● Describe the performance incentives that the Program Administrators propose to 

collect.1 

B. Organization of Annual Report

The Cape Light Compact’s 2010 Annual Report is organized as follows: 

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

and sector levels. 

● Section II provides detailed information on program performance at the sector and 

program levels for the residential, low-income, and C&I sectors. 

● Section III provides detailed information on the EM&V studies included in the 

Annual Report for each sector. 

 

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 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 3 of 164

● 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 2010 the Cape Light Compact invested 28% more funds toward energy efficiency 

programs and services in our communities than in the 2009 program year. The 2009 program 

year represented a 93% increase in funding over the 2008 energy efficiency programs. Since 

the passage of the GCA, and implementation of all available cost-effective efficiency 

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

annually to over $13 million – this more than doubling of investments in energy efficiency 

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

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

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

● Completed the Green Affordable Homes projects implemented between 2008 and 

2010. In 2006, the Cape Light Compact received a $1.5 million grant from the 

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust’s Green 

Affordable Housing Initiative to be used for the development of affordable housing 

utilizing green design. With this grant money, the Cape Light Compact assisted 

builders in the development of 55 affordable housing units on Cape Cod and Martha’s 

Vineyard, built to LEED-H® standards and included the installation of renewable 

energy systems; 

● Expanded Commercial & Industrial Program implementation throughout Barnstable 

County by identifying and managing projects funded by both the U.S. Department of 

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

Agriculture Grant; 

● Celebrated the Association of Energy Engineers New England Chapter Award for the 

best comprehensive energy efficiency project in the commercial category to Cape Air, 

the largest regional airline in the U.S. This project was also honored with the 

MassSaver award for its extensive efforts to increase the business’ efficiency through 

participation in the Cape Light Compact C&I Programs; and 

● Received, along with other regional PAs, the 2010 ENERGY STAR® Award for 

Sustained Excellence in recognition for consistent demonstration of the effectiveness 

of regional collaboration in transforming the market for ENERGY STAR® qualified 

products. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 4 of 164

Tables2 I.A and I.B provide summary information on program performance at the portfolio and 

customer sector levels, respectively. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 18,636,789 13,531,218 -27%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Savings & Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 303,068 176,227 -42% 165,946 -6% -45%

Annualized MWh 26,325 16,254 -38% 15,378 -5% -42%

Demand

Lifetime kW 92,376 37,190 -60% 37,514 1% -59%

Annualized

Summer kW 6,613 2,784 -58% 2,764 -1% -58%

Winter kW 4,646 2,911 -37% 2,881 -1% -38%

NEB (Lifetime) $ 23,463,784 13,924,782 -41% 15,110,138 9% -36%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 68,610,103 38,156,209 -44%

TRC Costs $ 21,215,238 14,998,735 -29%

Net Benefits $ 47,394,865 23,157,474 -51%

BCR n/a 3.23 2.54 -21%

Preliminary Year-End Results

Table I.A: Program Portfolio Summary

Evaluated Results

Performance 

Category Units Planned Value

Please Note: The Planned Values in Table I.A and all subsequent tables that contain Planned 

Values in this Annual Report can be found in the 08-50 tables in Appendix B.1.b of this filing. 

The Cape Light Compact’s 2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 D.P.U. 

Order in Docket 09-119. On August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain 

of its 2010 programs and pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in 

D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011). Please note that the Cape Light Compact did not file 

updated 08-50 tables in its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing. In order to cite plan values that 

appear in the Cape Light Compact’s 2010 Annual Report, the Cape Light Compact included 08-

50 tables for its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing as Appendix B.1.b. 

As shown in Table 1.A above, significant3

 variances exist at the portfolio level for: 

● All metrics between planned and preliminary values, and 

● All metrics between planned and evaluated values. 

 

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. 

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

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

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 5 of 164

There are no significant variances at the portfolio level between preliminary values and 

evaluated values. This indicates that the EM&V impact studies did not have a significant impact 

on portfolio level results. 

Each sector contributed to these variances as follows: 

● Residential (for Total Program Costs, Lifetime Energy, Lifetime Demand, Summer 

Demand, NEB (Lifetime), 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, TRC Benefits, and Net Benefits): Please reference section 

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

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

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

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

the cause of the variances for this sector. 

Value % Change from 

Planned

Residential

TRC Benefits $ 34,831,733 19,382,496 -44%

TRC Costs $ 10,751,784 7,186,647 -33%

Net Benefits $ 24,079,949 12,195,849 -49%

BCR n/a 3.24 2.70 -17%

Low-Income

TRC Benefits $ 5,922,383 4,301,936 -27%

TRC Costs $ 2,088,750 1,828,369 -12%

Net Benefits $ 3,833,633 2,473,567 -35%

BCR n/a 2.84 2.35 -17%

C&I

TRC Benefits $ 27,855,987 14,471,777 -48%

TRC Costs $ 8,374,704 5,983,719 -29%

Net Benefits $ 19,481,283 8,488,059 -56%

BCR n/a 3.33 2.42 -27%

TOTAL

TRC Benefits $ 68,610,103 38,156,209 -44%

TRC Costs $ 21,215,238 14,998,735 -29%

Net Benefits $ 47,394,865 23,157,474 -51%

BCR n/a 3.23 2.54 -21%

Units Planned 

Value

Evaluated Results

Sector

Table I.B: Customer Sector Summary
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 6 of 164

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

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

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

● Within the Residential sector, the Multi-Family Retrofit, MassSAVE and ENERGY 

STAR® Lighting programs are contributing to the variance between planned and 

evaluated values. Please reference section II.A.2 for a more detailed discussion of the 

cause of the variances by program within this sector. 

● Within the Low-Income sector, the Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit and LowIncome Multi-Family Retrofit programs are contributing to the variance between 

planned and evaluated values. Please reference section II.B.2 for a more detailed 

discussion of the cause of the variances by program within this sector. 

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

Retrofit and C&I Small Retrofit programs are contributing to the variance between 

planned and evaluated values. Please reference section II.C.2 for a more detailed 

discussion of the cause of the variances by program within this sector. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 7 of 164

II. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

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

sector and program levels for the Residential, Low-Income, and C&I sectors. 

A. Residential Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2010, the Cape Light Compact implemented the following Residential programs and 

Residential pilots: 

Residential Programs (Statewide) 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation 

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment 

● Multi-Family Retrofit 

● MassSAVE 

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting 

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances 

Residential Pilots (Statewide) 

● Deep Energy Retrofit 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation - Major Renovation Statewide 

Pilot 

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

● Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot 

● Residential New Construction - V3 ENERGY STAR® Homes Statewide Pilot 

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

● Heat Pump Water Heating Pilot (Non-Statewide) 

● Power Monitor Pilot (Cape Light Compact-Specific) 

● Home Automation Pilot (Cape Light Compact-Specific) 

Tables II.A.1 through II.A.3 provide summary information on the performance of the residential 

programs at the sector, end use, and program levels, respectively. 

Tables II.A.4 through II.A.16 provide detailed information on the performance of each 

residential program and pilot program, respectively. 

 

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 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 8 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 9,449,462 6,388,566 -32%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Savings & Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 96,058 75,897 -21% 75,217 -1% -22%

Annualized MWh 10,179 8,652 -15% 8,372 -3% -18%

Demand

Lifetime kW 39,712 14,813 -63% 15,504 5% -61%

Annualized

Summer kW 2,489 1,181 -53% 1,189 1% -52%

Winter kW 2,032 2,011 -1% 1,958 -3% -4%

NEB (Lifetime) $ 19,030,126 7,837,252 -59% 9,022,607 15% -53%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 34,831,733 19,382,496 -44%

TRC Costs $ 10,751,784 7,186,647 -33%

Net Benefits $ 24,079,949 12,195,849 -49%

BCR n/a 3.24 2.70 -17%

Planned 

Value Units

Preliminary Year-End Results

Table II.A.1: Residential Sector Summary

Evaluated Results

Performance Category

During 2010, 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: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation - In 2010, the Massachusetts New 

Homes with ENERGY STAR® program faced a market in which energy codes were 

changing, single-family development remained slow, and opportunities to capture 

future energy savings were becoming increasingly difficult. To address these barriers 

the program engaged in code support activities and introduced several new marketing 

efforts including a lumberyard outreach series, increased e-mail marketing and social 

media activity. The program launched four new pilots, multi-family new 

construction, major renovations, lighting design and ENERGY STAR® Version 3, to 

aid in identifying the next generation of energy savings opportunities. The program 

also increased market penetration while providing energy savings for homeowners 

and reducing peak demand. These efforts resulted in the program receiving its fourth 

consecutive ENERGY STAR® award for Sustained Excellence in Program Delivery. 

● Multi-Family Retrofit - Implementation of the Multi-Family Market Integrator 

(“MMI”) began in July 2010 and continued as a primary focus at all PA multi-family 

working group meetings to address start up tasks such as data tracking and reporting, 

and coordination with program vendors. A data gathering form was developed and 

used at intake to identify key customer facility data and eligibility, and forwarded to 

the appropriate vendor for customer contact. In addition, monthly activity reports 

were developed and reviewed, to track program progress. Requests thru the MMI 

increased as customers utilized the new single telephone number. Energy efficient 

lighting retrofits were high in demand from this market sector. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 9 of 164

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting - The lighting program in 2010 started off slowly (due to 

the lead time for new program measures) but then progressed at a good pace. The 

program focus shifted from the bare spirals of previous years to specialty lighting and 

a new hard-to-reach lighting market. Qualified Light-Emitting Diode (“LED”) 

products were also introduced in 2010, but due to a long testing period for ENERGY 

STAR® qualification, there were only a couple of commercially available, 

residential, qualified products that had completed testing for market availability in 

2010. Many qualified LEDs have since been qualified for marketing, so plan year 

2011 will have many more LED offerings. 

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances – The mail-in refrigerator, secondary refrigerator 

recycling, and the mid-stream television promotions comprised the majority of the 

adopted measures in this program. The lack of inventory of higher efficiency room 

air conditioners during the summer of 2010 caused this portion of the program to 

have to make up for these savings in other areas. Room air cleaner, computer and 

monitor rebates, new measures in 2010, had slower adoption rates. 

● MassSAVE – 

o A Request for Proposals (“RFP”) was initiated in 2010 for a new lead 

vendor and in place as of the first quarter of 2011; 

o A new market model was rolled out including full integration of the gas 

weatherization program with this program via mandatory audits; 

o The program moved back to the single audit model as a result of lessons 

learned; 

o The new 3rd party QA/QC was introduced into the program; and 

o HEAT Loan was expanded to include micro loans ($500-$2,000), nonowner occupied loans, and expanded loan offerings from a maximum of 

$15,000 in 2010. 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

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

planned and evaluated values. 

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

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

for this program. 

● MassSAVE (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR): Please reference 

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

program. 

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

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

for this program. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 10 of 164

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

Impact evaluation studies apply to the following Residential sector programs: 

● MassSAVE 

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting 

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances 

However, the combined effect of the impact evaluation studies at the sector level is not 

significant. As a result, there is no significant variance in the Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there is no significant effect from the implementation of the impact evaluation studies, 

there is little difference between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary 

Year-End Results % Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding 

significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section 

above applies. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 11 of 164

End Uses Units 

(lifetime)

Preliminary 

Year-End 

Results

Evaluated 

Results

% Change from 

Preliminary to 

Evaluated

Lighting

Energy MWh 48,367 46,524 -4%

Demand kW 4,206 4,022 -4%

NEB $ 380,454 363,868 -4%

Heating, Ventillation & Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Energy MWh 11,284 11,084 -2%

Demand kW 6,614 6,611 0%

NEB $ 1,578,625 1,304,046 -17%

Motors & Drives

Energy MWh 350 350 0%

Demand kW 49 49 0%

NEB $ 40,323 40,323 0%

Refrigeration

Energy MWh 2,019 1,542 -24%

Demand kW 213 212 -1%

NEB $ 0 0 0%

Hot Water

Energy MWh 455 455 0%

Demand kW 189 189 0%

NEB $ 594,850 460,062 -23%

Process

Energy MWh 6,835 6,835 0%

Demand kW 801 801 0%

NEB $ 0 0 0%

End Use Behavior

Energy MWh 136 136 0%

Demand kW 38 38 0%

NEB $ 0 0 0%

Envelope

Energy MWh 6,111 7,951 30%

Demand kW 2,603 3,483 34%

NEB $ 5,227,922 6,839,232 31%

Solar Hot Water

Energy MWh 339 339 0%

Demand kW 100 100 0%

NEB $ 15,077 15,077 0%

Total

Energy MWh 75,897 75,217 -1%

Demand kW 14,813 15,504 5%

NEB $ 7,837,252 9,022,607 15%

Table II.A.2: Residential Sector Summary of End Uses
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 12 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned

Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

TRC Benefits $ 1,079,130 902,816 -16%

TRC Costs $ 491,819 525,503 7%

Net Benefits $ 587,311 377,312 -36%

BCR n/a 2.19 1.72 -22%

Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

TRC Benefits $ 1,131,262 1,400,725 24%

TRC Costs $ 674,832 616,987 -9%

Net Benefits $ 456,431 783,738 72%

BCR n/a 1.68 2.27 35%

Multi-Family Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ 1,920,590 64,853 -97%

TRC Costs $ 472,849 37,519 -92%

Net Benefits $ 1,447,741 27,334 -98%

BCR n/a 4.06 1.73 -57%

MassSAVE

TRC Benefits $ 25,346,901 12,846,893 -49%

TRC Costs $ 6,334,839 4,279,697 -32%

Net Benefits $ 19,012,063 8,567,196 -55%

BCR n/a 4.00 3.00 -25%

ENERGY STAR Lighting

TRC Benefits $ 4,566,401 3,121,448 -32%

TRC Costs $ 1,401,781 820,905 -41%

Net Benefits $ 3,164,620 2,300,543 -27%

BCR n/a 3.26 3.80 17%

ENERGY STAR Appliances

TRC Benefits $ 787,448 1,045,762 33%

TRC Costs $ 319,340 433,119 36%

Net Benefits $ 468,109 612,642 31%

BCR n/a 2.47 2.41 -2%

Program/

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Evaluated Results

Table II.A.3: Residential Program Summary
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 13 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned

Deep Energy Retrofit

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

TRC Costs $ 83,333 26,659 -68%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Residential New Construction & Major Renovation - 

Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

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

TRC Costs $ 257,547 43,992 -83%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

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

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

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

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

TRC Costs $ 22,222 11,264 -49%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Residential New Construction - V3 Energy Star Homes Statewide Pilot

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

TRC Costs $ 0 0 0%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot

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

TRC Costs $ 11,111 9,022 -19%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Power Monitor Pilot

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

TRC Costs $ 233,333 74,496 -68%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Home Automation Pilot

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

TRC Costs $ 10,800 0 -100%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table II.A.3: Residential Program Summary (cont'd)

Program/

Performance Category Units Planned Value

Evaluated Results
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 14 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned

Hard-to-Measure Initiatives

TRC Costs $ 437,978 307,484 -30%

TOTAL

TRC Benefits $ 34,831,733 19,382,496 -44%

TRC Costs $ 10,751,784 7,186,647 -33%

Net Benefits $ 24,079,949 12,195,849 -49%

BCR n/a 3.24 2.70 -17%

Table II.A.3: Residential Program Summary (cont'd)

Program/

Performance Category Units Planned Value

Evaluated Results

2. Residential Programs

a. Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation program 

was to capture lost opportunities, encourage the construction of energy-efficient homes, and 

drive the market to one in which new homes are moving toward 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 and/or major renovations. 

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

program. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Hot Water 

Refrigeration 

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered by each PA in its service territory and 

coordinated regionally through the Joint Management Committee (“JMC”). The JMC’s 

contractor was responsible for tracking and reporting program activity. The contractor also 

conducted quality assurance/quality control of field activities and advised the JMC on necessary 

program changes and enhancements. The JMC utilized a market-based network of trained 

contractors who offered energy efficiency and rating services to homebuilders for a fee. 

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 15 of 164

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011). 

Green Affordable Housing Initiative (Cape Light Compact-specific component of the Residential 

New Construction & Major Renovation program)

In 2006, the Cape Light Compact received a $1.5 million grant from the Massachusetts 

Technology Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust’s Green Affordable Housing Initiative, to be 

used for the development of affordable housing utilizing green design. With this grant money, 

the Cape Light Compact assisted builders in the development of 43 Residential affordable 

housing units on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard to be built to LEED-H® standards and to 

include the installation of renewable energy systems. The Green Affordable Housing Initiative 

was implemented from 2008 – 2010. 

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

Renovation. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 380,019 525,503 38%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants hhlds 59 76 29%

Program Cost / Participant $ 6,441 6,915 7%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 2,479 5,174 109% 5,174 0% 109%

Annualized MWh 271 333 23% 333 0% 23%

Average Measure Life yrs 9.1 15.6 70% 15.6 0% 70%

Demand

Lifetime kW 941 721 -23% 721 0% -23%

Annualized

Summer kW 51 37 -28% 37 0% -28%

Winter kW 98 73 -25% 73 0% -25%

Average Measure Life yrs 18.4 19.6 19.6

NEB (Lifetime) $ 676,612 283,649 -58% 283,649 0% -58%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 1,079,130 902,816 -16%

TRC Costs $ 491,819 525,503 7%

Net Benefits $ 587,311 377,312 -36%

BCR n/a 2.19 1.72 -22%

Table II.A.4: Residential New Construction & Major Renovation

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 16 of 164

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

This program generated higher than expected costs but achieved higher savings due to 1) greater 

affordable home completions than anticipated, 2) the fact that the homes in the program were 

built to higher performance standards than anticipated, and 3) the fact that a greater proportion of 

electrically heated homes were built than anticipated. As higher program costs were coupled 

with higher program savings, this program is cost-effective. 

2010 was a unique year for the Cape Light Compact’s Residential New Construction & Major 

Renovation program. The Cape Light Compact’s 2010 plan assumed that the economic 

downturn would result in lower participation. However, the continuation of federal and state 

support for affordable new construction enabled more affordable homes to be built than planned 

in 2010. Since evaluated participants were significantly higher than planned participants, 

evaluated total program costs were significantly higher than planned. 

Additionally, the homes were built to higher efficiency levels than planned because of the Cape 

Light Compact’s administration of the Green Affordable Homes Initiative with the 

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center grant funding. The plan assumed that most of the affordable 

homes would be built to either the LEED for Homes Certified or LEED Silver standard. 

However, most of the homes were built to the LEED Platinum standard, the highest level of 

LEED-H achievement. This contributed to significantly higher evaluated annual energy savings 

as compared to planned. Furthermore, there were simply a greater number of electric homes 

built versus planned. This also contributed to significantly higher evaluated energy savings as 

compared to planned. 

Given the high proportion of affordable new homes in the new construction completions, the 

significant variances between evaluated and planned lifetime energy savings, annual energy 

savings, average measure life, lifetime demand savings, summer demand savings, winter demand 

savings and non-electric benefits can also be explained by the fact that certain building 

approaches are specific to affordable new construction. Affordable new construction practices 

place more emphasis on building shell measures as compared to lighting and appliance measures. 

Affordable units typically feature hard-wired fixtures, which limit the savings opportunities from 

lighting. Since building shell measures have significantly higher savings and longer lifetimes as 

compared to lighting and appliances measures, the significant positive variances between 

evaluated and planned annual energy savings, lifetime energy savings and average measure life 

can be explained by this shift in measure mix. 

The significant negative variance between evaluated and planned lifetime demand savings, 

summer demand savings and winter demand savings is also attributable to a shift in measure 

mix. The percent change in the summer demand savings is explained by reduced savings from 

appliance measures. Also, affordable homes do not typically feature central air conditioning, 

which limits summer demand savings. The percent change in lifetime demand savings is 

explained by lower summer demand savings. The percent change in winter demand savings is 

explained by reduced savings from lighting and appliance measures. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 17 of 164

The significant negative variance between evaluated and planned non-electric benefits is 

attributable to the shift from propane to electrically-heated homes using heat pumps. The plan 

assumed that nearly half of the homes were to be heated by propane and approximately 20 

percent were to be electrically heated. However, nearly half of the homes completed were 

electrically heated and around 10 percent heated by propane. This resulted in higher electric 

savings and benefits and lower non-electric savings and benefits. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

The following is the one impact evaluation study that applies to this program. 

1. Estimated Net-to-Gross (NTG) Factors for the Massachusetts PAs 2010 Residential New 

Construction Programs, Residential HEHE and Multi-Family Gas Programs, and C&I 

Gas Programs: The object of the study was to assist the Massachusetts PAs in identifying 

reasonable estimated net-to-gross factors for the 2010 Residential New Construction 

programs; C&I programs; Multi-Family Retrofit and Residential High Efficiency Heating 

and Water Heating programs. However, the findings in this evaluation simply confirm 

that the net-to-gross ratio that is already being applied by the Cape Light Compact will 

continue to be applied. As a result, there is no Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Mystery Shopping: This study 

provided insight into the current marketing strategies of real estate agents listing 

ENERGY STAR® homes, and the effect of program-sponsored trainings on these 

marketing strategies. The results of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

2. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program, 2011Baseline Phase 1:

Completion of Planning: This study describes the planning process for the 2011 Baseline 

Study and the work done to develop a sample of eligible homes. The results of this study 

did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in 

Section III. 

3. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Estimated Maximum 

Potential Savings from Enhanced Compliance with the IECC 2009 Residential Building 

Code in Massachusetts: This study estimated the potential savings for the years 2011, 

2012, and 2013 that might be achieved through promoting compliance with the newlyadopted IECC 2009 energy code for four measures—wall insulation, basement insulation, 

proper insulation of ducts in unconditioned spaces, and fifty percent high efficacy lamp 

requirement—in order to provide needed guidance to the PAs on the implementation and 

evaluation costs that might be justified. The results of this study did not impact the 2010 

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

4. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for Residential Programs – Suggested 

Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this study was to develop approaches for 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 18 of 164

consideration by the PAs for estimating net program impacts for the Massachusetts PA’s 

residential programs. The results of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

There is one impact evaluation study that applies to this program. However, the findings in this 

evaluation simply confirm the net-to-gross value that is being applied by the Cape Light 

Compact will not change. As a result, there is no difference between the Evaluated Results % 

Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned. As a result, 

all of the discussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned section above applies. 

The significant variance in net benefits and BCR is due to higher costs and lower benefits versus 

plan. The lower benefits are driven by the fact that higher energy savings did not offset the 

lower demand savings and lower non-electric benefits than planned. 

b. Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment program was to 

raise residential consumer awareness and market share of properly installed high-efficiency 

cooling and heating equipment and systems. 

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

or replacement HVAC equipment including new systems in existing and new homes (new 

systems); replacement systems in existing homes (new equipment/old systems), including the 

early retirement of existing equipment; and improvements in operational systems in existing 

homes (new equipment/old systems). The program also targeted HVAC contractors and 

technicians; suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors of HVAC equipment; new-home builders; 

and remodeling contractors. 

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

program. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Motors & Drives 

Envelope 

Delivery Mechanism: Each PA administered the program in its service territory. Delivery was 

through a common vendor selected through a common RFP. Whenever possible, there was 

coordination among the related gas PA’s initiatives and energy-efficiency service providers. To 

this end, the COOL SMART and Gas Networks’ High Efficiency Heating and Hot Water 

programs worked to procure a single, joint circuit rider to support both programs in the field. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 19 of 164

Program initiatives were also piggybacked onto the residential new construction and MassSAVE 

programs: 

 

● Participating residential new construction program builders and their HVAC 

contractors were referred to the COOL SMART Program for training and QIV. 

Whenever appropriate, these training were jointly provided with GasNetworks 

● MassSAVE participants were referred to COOL SMART for HVAC measures using 

COOL SMART literature, which is part of the standard MassSAVE information 

package. 

● Independent inspectors performed quality control follow-up inspections on up to 10 

percent of installations to verify equipment installation and performance. 

● The program continued to use equipment distributors to process rebates, sell highefficiency 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 

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011). 

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

Equipment. 

 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 20 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 640,525 522,990 -18%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants hhlds 803 909 13%

Program Cost / Participant $ 798 575 -28%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 6,568 5,382 -18% 5,382 0% -18%

Annualized MWh 374 305 -18% 305 0% -18%

Average Measure Life yrs 17.6 17.6 0% 17.6 0% 0%

Demand

Lifetime kW 4,284 5,984 40% 5,984 0% 40%

Annualized

Summer kW 266 348 30% 348 0% 30%

Winter kW 48 176 270% 176 0% 270%

Average Measure Life yrs 16.1 17.2 17.2

NEB (Lifetime) $ (127,672) 49,842 139% 49,842 0% 139%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 1,131,262 1,400,725 24%

TRC Costs $ 674,832 616,987 -9%

Net Benefits $ 456,431 783,738 72%

BCR n/a 1.68 2.27 35%

Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Table II.A.5: Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment

Performance Category Units

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

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

measure mix relative to the plan. Annual and lifetime energy savings were not significantly 

lower than planned. However, lifetime demand savings, summer demand savings and winter 

demand savings were all significantly higher than planned. The primary reason for this change 

was that participants had a greater interest in air conditioning equipment (as compared heating 

equipment and to air-conditioning and heating services) than planned. In general, air 

conditioning equipment has lower energy savings as compared to heating equipment, but higher 

demand savings. A greater interest in mini split heat pumps than planned is also contributing to 

the significant increase in summer demand savings and winter demand savings as the demand 

savings for this measure are relatively high compared to other measures offered by the program. 

Also, interest in ECM furnaces was significantly lower, as was planned. However, the installed 

ECM furnaces generated oil and propane savings that were not assumed in the plan. This 

accounts for the significant increase in non-electric benefits as compared to the plan. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program. As a result, there is no change 

in the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 21 of 164

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low-Income Evaluation - Brushless Fan 

Motors: The objectives of the study were to determine the following: program processes, 

implementation strengths, and areas for improvements; program tracking data 

sufficiency; contractor practices, perceptions, and participation barriers; customer 

behavior, motivations, awareness, and satisfaction; program outreach and recruitment 

efficacy; and participants’ potential changes in fan use, from pre- to post-installation. 

The results of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

2. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for Residential Programs – Suggested 

Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this study was to develop approaches for 

consideration by the PAs for estimating net program impacts for the Massachusetts PA’s 

residential programs. The results of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is no difference 

between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding significant variances from the 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section above applies. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, Net Benefits and BCR is due to significantly higher 

demand savings and higher non-electric benefits versus plan. 

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 non-low-income sector. 

Targeted Customers: This program targeted residential facilities with five or more dwelling 

units. 

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

the program. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Refrigeration 

Hot Water 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 22 of 164

Envelope 

End Use Behavior 

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered cooperatively by the gas and electric PAs. 

The Multi-Family Market Integrator, implemented in July 2010, was responsible for facilitating 

the delivery of program services as well as acting as the conduit through which participant 

questions and concerns were directed to ensure that participants were not required to directly 

contact multiple parties during the project lifecycle. 

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

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011). 

Table II.A.6. provides information on the performance of the Multi-Family Retrofit program. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 443,571 37,519 -92%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants units 400 48 -88%

Program Cost / Participant $ 1,109 782 -30%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 4,425 491 -89% 491 0% -89%

Annualized MWh 609 70 -89% 70 0% -89%

Average Measure Life yrs 7.3 7.1 -3% 7.1 0% -3%

Demand

Lifetime kW 686 31 -95% 31 0% -95%

Annualized

Summer kW 63 4 -93% 4 0% -93%

Winter kW 103 17 -83% 17 0% -83%

Average Measure Life yrs 11.0 7.1 7.1

NEB (Lifetime) $ 1,349,576 3,621 -100% 3,621 0% -100%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 1,920,590 64,853 -97%

TRC Costs $ 472,849 37,519 -92%

Net Benefits $ 1,447,741 27,334 -98%

BCR n/a 4.06 1.73 -57%

Table II.A.6: Multi-Family Retrofit

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 23 of 164

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

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

significant variances in costs and benefits, the program remains cost-effective. 

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

While condominiums are defined as Residential Multi-Family for the purpose of program 

implementation, the owners view their property as single family and desire products and services 

that are offered to single family customers within the MassSAVE program. Additionally, there 

are significant barriers for condominium owners to navigate as in many cases they need to 

involve the condominium association in the decision making process in order to implement a 

majority of the weatherization measures. In an effort to serve interested customers, the Cape 

Light Compact provided services through its MassSAVE Program. These participants, along 

with any costs and savings associated with their projects, are reported within the MassSAVE 

program. This explains much of the variance in costs and benefits from plan. 

Also, delays in vendor selection and finalization of the program design prevented all PAs from 

rolling out this program until mid-year (June 2010). Furthermore, the Cape Light Compact 

anticipated more units in the effort to serve all fuels, but the program design finalized in 2010 

determined that gas heated customers would be served by the gas PA. All of these factors drove 

lower than anticipated participation, and as a result the Cape Light Compact could not spend its 

Residential Multi-Family program budget. As the Cape Light Compact could not spend its 

budget, it did not generate the savings and benefits that were planned for this program. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program. As a result, there is no 

variance in the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for Residential Programs – Suggested 

Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this study was to develop approaches for 

consideration by the PAs for estimating net program impacts for the Massachusetts PA’s 

residential programs. The results of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 24 of 164

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is no difference 

between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and the Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding significant variances from the 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section above applies. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR is due to 

significantly lower participation than planned. 

d. MassSAVE

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the MassSAVE 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 upgrades. 

Targeted Customers: The customers targeted by the program were all non-low-income 

residential customers living in single-family houses or one- to four-unit multi-family buildings, 

regardless of heating fuel, who were committed to making their homes more energy efficient. 

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

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Refrigeration 

Hot Water 

End Use Behavior 

Envelope 

Solar Hot Water 

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered by each PA in its service territory and 

coordinated statewide through the Residential Management Committee (“RMC”). The RMC 

actively managed and steered the statewide MassSAVE program. Program vendors, selected 

through a competitive bidding process, delivered this program. 

In order to increase the number of energy efficiency contractors, the program offered an 

incentive/rebate to contractors who installed retrofit weatherization measures such as insulation 

and air sealing. 

Customers were required to have a site visit, conducted by the PA’s vendor, to identify and 

prioritize all cost effective energy efficiency upgrades in order to receive incentives or a program 

rebate. All insulation work, whether performed by an authorized independent contractor or a 

vendor’s subcontractor, was inspected for quality control by the PA’s vendor when the work was 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 25 of 164

completed. This ensured that, either through an authorized installer or the PA’s vendor, 

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

In addition, and consistent with the Green Communities Act, the HEAT Loan program provided 

qualified customers with zero percent interest loans up to $15,000 with terms up to seven years. 

The RMC members worked together towards a “best practices” approach to provide a more 

coordinated statewide training as a means to ensure correct installation techniques for the 

Residential Conservation Services (“RCS”)/MassSAVE Program. 

Contractors must maintain a high level of customer satisfaction to continue in the program. 

RMC applied a “best practices” approach to make quality control an integral part of the 

RCS/MassSAVE Program. The PAs issued an RFP and selected a third-party Quality Control 

(“QC”) vendor responsible for performing QC inspections of program implementation vendors, 

subcontractors, and 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 

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011). 

Table II.A.7. provides information on the performance of the MassSAVE program. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 26 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 5,516,024 3,626,015 -34%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants hhlds 3,900 3,803 -2%

Program Cost / Participant $ 1,414 953 -33%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 43,462 31,542 -27% 32,936 4% -24%

Annualized MWh 4,063 3,909 -4% 3,917 0% -4%

Average Measure Life yrs 10.7 8.1 -25% 8.4 4% -21%

Demand

Lifetime kW 28,997 4,391 -85% 5,251 20% -82%

Annualized

Summer kW 1,522 359 -76% 391 9% -74%

Winter kW 740 959 30% 955 0% 29%

Average Measure Life yrs 19.0 12.2 13.4

NEB (Lifetime) $ 16,857,554 7,299,161 -57% 8,499,399 16% -50%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 25,346,901 12,846,893 -49%

TRC Costs $ 6,334,839 4,279,697 -32%

Net Benefits $ 19,012,063 8,567,196 -55%

BCR n/a 4.00 3.00 -25%

Units Planned 

Value

Table II.A.7: MassSAVE

Performance Category

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

In the first half of 2010, the Cape Light Compact experienced lower than anticipated costs, 

savings and benefits due to lower customer participation stemming from unfavorable economic 

conditions. As a result, in October 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed its 2010 Mid-Year 

Revisions (D.P.U. 10-106) notifying the Department that it was likely that the MassSAVE 

program would be 20% or more under budget and savings for the year. The Cape Light Compact 

committed to conduct aggressive customer outreach through the remainder of the year in order to 

spur customers to participate in this program. 

In the latter half of 2010, during the preparation of the Cape Light Compact’s 2010 Mid-Year 

Revision filing and through the end of the year, a significant statewide decision to change the 

program design re-focused the Cape Light Compact’s attention to creating and implementing a 

market model. By this time, customer interest in this program had ramped up significantly due 

to seasonal increases that are seen on a yearly basis. However, due to the uncertainty regarding 

the direction and outcome of program design changes, the Cape Light Compact was compelled 

to manage the risk involved in the program changes. As a result, the Cape Light Compact 

directed its vendor not to hire more staff until the program design issues were settled and 

therefore, was not able to serve all of the customer interest in this program. 

In the Department’s Order approving the Cape Light Compact’s 2010 Mid-Year Revisions, the 

Department asked the Cape Light Compact to document its outreach efforts and discuss the 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 27 of 164

impact of these efforts on customer participation in its 2010 Annual Report.5 Due to the program 

design changes that required consideration after the Cape Light Compact filed its 2010 Mid-Year 

Revisions, the Cape Light Compact did not conduct any additional outreach efforts as planned. 

As a result, customer participation was not impacted by any additional outreach efforts in 2010. 

Additionally, as a part of the 2010 Mid-Year Revision filing, the Cape Light Compact committed 

to carry over any unspent MassSAVE program funds from 2010 to its 2011 residential sector 

budget and report such carry-over in this 2010 Annual Report.6

 While roughly $1,890,000 of the 

approved MassSAVE budget was not spent in 20107, revenues were also lower-than-planned. 

Due to the under-collection in the Residential sector8

, the Cape Light Compact will not be 

carrying over any of the unexpended 2010 budget in MassSAVE to 2011. 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned 

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

participation was not the key driver of significant variances as thought at the time of the 2010 

Mid-Year Revisions filing. Lower than anticipated program costs per participant drove lower 

than anticipated program costs. As mentioned above, customer interest ramped up in the latter 

half of 2010. However, the projects did not achieve the same depth as anticipated, likely due to 

economic conditions. In the absence of significant upcoming changes to program design, the 

Cape Light Compact could have directed its implementation to hire more staff to serve the 

additional customer interest, completely spend the budget and achieve the savings. However, as 

explained above, the likelihood of significant program design changes required that the Cape 

Light Compact act prudently and manage the program demand using existing vendor resources. 

Since the costs and savings experienced similar variances from the plan, the program remains 

cost-effective. 

As a result of less comprehensive projects, the Cape Light Compact did not spend its program 

budget, and therefore it did not generate the savings and benefits that were planned for this 

program. The significant variance in lifetime energy savings and average measure life is due to 

the shift to lighting, domestic hot water instant savings measures (such as low flow showerheads, 

faucet aerators and pipe and tank wraps) and programmable thermostat measures from 

refrigerators, weatherization measures and heating system replacements. In this way, the Cape 

Light Compact was able to meet its annualized energy savings goal while not exhausting the 

total budget. Summer and lifetime demand savings were particularly impacted by the shift away 

 

5 Order in the Cape Light Compact’s Petition to the Department of Public Utilities, for approval of a 

Modification to its Three-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan Budget for Program Year 2010. D.P.U. 10-

106. January 10, 2011 at page 13.

6 Order in the Cape Light Compact’s Petition to the Department of Public Utilities, for approval of a 

Modification to its Three-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan Budget for Program Year 2010. D.P.U. 10-

106. January 10, 2011 at page 4.

7 Please note that this is greater than the $1,103,271 difference between the modified and planned 2010 

budgets assumed in Table 1: Program Budgets on Page 10 of the January 28, 2011 DPU order in Docket 

10-106.

8 NSTAR 2011 EERF Filing, Docket 11-40, filed April 28, 2011, Exhibit CLC-CLV-1 (Cape Light Compact 

2011 Residential Monthly EERF Deferral), Page 3 of 3, Column A, Line 13.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 28 of 164

from measures with higher summer coincidence factors such as refrigerators and toward 

measures with lower summer coincidence factors such as lighting. Non-electric benefits were 

particularly impacted by the shift away from measures with non-electric benefits, such as 

weatherization measures and heating system replacements and toward measures with electric 

benefits such as lighting. Winter demand savings actually increased significantly as a result of 

the shift in measure mix to measures with higher winter coincidence (such as programmable 

thermostats and domestic hot water instant savings measures) from measures with lower winter 

coincidence. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

The following impact evaluation studies apply to this program. 

1. 2010 Net-to-Gross Findings: Home Energy Assessment: This study evaluated the freeridership and spillover rates for all customers participating in the MassSAVE program. 

The study supplied updated impact factors for many measures, including: 

o Free ridership rates for CFLs, refrigerators, air sealing, insulation, 

programmable thermostats, heating system replacements and water heater 

replacements; 

o Participant spillover rates for CFLs and insulation; and 

o A non-participant spillover rate for insulation. 

The implementation of these study results drove a significant increase in lifetime demand 

savings. This is due primarily to the increase in non-participant spillover for the 

insulation measure. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

2. Non-Electric Impact (NEI) Findings: This memo reviews the non-electric impacts 

claimed for the MassSAVE program. Non-electric impacts include the gas, oil, and 

propane savings claimed through the measures installed through the electric program. 

The memo recommends that PAs use vendor estimated data to calculate non-electric 

impacts. As the Cape Light Compact already uses vendor data to calculate its nonelectric impacts, no change is necessary. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low Income Evaluation: Mass Save: This 

study assessed program processes with a particular focus on identifying similarities and 

differences in the perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, 

and customers regarding program goals, design and implementation across the PAs. The 

process evaluation has no impact on the evaluated results. This study is discussed in 

more detail in Section III. 

2. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for Residential Programs – Suggested 

Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this study was to develop approaches for 

consideration by the PAs for estimating net program impacts for the Massachusetts PAs’ 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 29 of 164

residential programs. This study has no impact on the evaluated results. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there is an impact evaluation study that applies to this program, there is a significant 

difference between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End 

Results % Change from Planned. This difference is due to the impact of the 2010 Net-to-Gross 

Findings: Home Energy Assessment on the Evaluated Results Value. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR is due to the fact 

that projects were less comprehensive than estimated in the plan. 

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 controls. 

Targeted Customers: This program targeted all residential customers. 

Definition of Program Participant: Estimated number of unique households served by the 

program.9

Targeted End-Uses: Lighting 

Delivery Mechanism: A manufacturer/retailer outreach contractor recruited and trained retailers 

to participate in the program; placed point-of-purchase materials and rebate coupons in 

participating retail stores; oversaw the Negotiated Cooperative Promotions (“NCP”) process; and 

acted as a liaison for PAs, 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 PAs for program tracking and evaluation purposes. 

An Internet/mail-order sales channel contractor developed and distributed the catalog; purchased 

and stocked products offered through the catalog and the www.estarlights.com 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. 

 

9 Per the methodology used to estimate participants for this program for the Three-Year Plan, production is 

divided by assumptions on the average number of bulbs installed per participant per measure to get to 

participants. The participants per measure are then summed to get to the total participants for the program.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 30 of 164

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011). 

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

program. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 1,159,453 817,217 -30%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants est. hhlds 30,429 19,033 -37%

Program Cost / Participant $ 38 43 13%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 33,672 24,669 -27% 23,051 -7% -32%

Annualized MWh 4,199 3,075 -27% 2,844 -8% -32%

Average Measure Life yrs 8.0 8.0 0% 8.1 1% 1%

Demand

Lifetime kW 3,596 2,658 -26% 2,488 -6% -31%

Annualized

Summer kW 444 326 -26% 302 -7% -32%

Winter kW 904 664 -26% 615 -7% -32%

Average Measure Life yrs 8.1 8.1 8.2

NEB (Lifetime) $ 274,056 200,979 -27% 186,096 -7% -32%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 4,566,401 3,121,448 -32%

TRC Costs $ 1,401,781 820,905 -41%

Net Benefits $ 3,164,620 2,300,543 -27%

BCR n/a 3.26 3.80 17%

Table II.A.8: ENERGY STAR Lighting

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

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

costs and savings experienced similar variances from the plan, the program remains costeffective. 

The lack of available shelf space for specialty bulbs was a major impediment to achieving 

planned cost, savings and benefits goals in 2010. Per its plan, the Cape Light Compact 

attempted to expand the variety of specialty bulbs for retailers to offer. However, retailers did 

not have the available shelf space for these specialty bulbs. As a result, the quantities for 

specialty bulbs are significantly lower than planned. In summary, as a result of lower than 

anticipated participation, the Cape Light Compact could not spend its program budget, and 

therefore it did not generate the savings and benefits that were planned for this program. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 31 of 164

The Cape Light Compact notes that some of the variance in savings and benefits metrics was 

offset by a correction to planning assumptions that was made in the preliminary and evaluated 

results. The Cape Light Compact changed in-service rates from 80% and 50% respectively for 

specialty and hard-to-reach bulbs after confirming that other PAs did not have in-service rates for 

specialty bulbs and hard-to-reach bulbs. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

The following impact evaluation study applies to this program. 

1. The Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program: 2010 Annual Report: The study 

supplied updated net-to-gross ratios for standard CFLs and specialty CFLs. Due to the 

fact that the evaluation results for the hard to reach lighting component were 

inconclusive, a net-to-gross ratio for hard-to-reach CFLs was negotiated and agreed to by 

the EEAC Consultants and the PAs. The implementation of these study results did not 

result in any significant change in the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary 

because increased savings and benefits for standard CFL measures partially offset 

decreased savings and benefits for specialty and hard-to-reach CFL measures. This study 

is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for Residential Programs – Suggested 

Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this study was to develop approaches for 

consideration by the PAs for estimating net program impacts for the Massachusetts PA’s 

residential programs. This study has no impact on the evaluated results. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there is an impact evaluation study that applies to this program, there is a difference 

between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned. This difference is due to the impact of the The Massachusetts ENERGY 

STAR® Program: 2010 Annual Report on the Evaluated Results Value. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Costs and Net Benefits is due to lower specialty 

bulb purchases than assumed in the plan. 

f. ENERGY STAR® Appliances

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

energy-efficient ENERGY STAR® qualified consumer products, encourage consumers to 

purchase qualified appliances and consumer electronics, promote higher efficiency standards for 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 32 of 164

products, and to help customers reduce energy bills by replacing or recycling inefficient 

products. 

Targeted Customers: This program targeted all residential customers. 

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

program. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning 

Motors & Drives 

Refrigeration 

End Use Behavior 

Process 

Delivery Mechanism: 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 Negotiated Cooperative Program (“NCP”) process for 

televisions; and acted as a liaison for PAs, manufacturers, and retailers. 

A rebate fulfillment contractor collected rebate forms from consumers, data and payment 

requests from manufacturers and retailers; processed rebates and NCPs, and provided 

documentation to the PAs for program tracking and evaluation purposes. 

For advanced power strips, an Internet/mail-order sales channel contractor developed and 

distributed the catalog; purchased and stocked products offered through the catalog and the 

www.estarlights.com 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 

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

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

program. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 33 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 253,545 386,404 52%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants hhlds 6,243 4,247 -32%

Program Cost / Participant $ 41 91 124%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 5,452 8,638 58% 8,181 -5% 50%

Annualized MWh 663 960 45% 903 -6% 36%

Average Measure Life yrs 8.2 9.0 9% 9.1 1% 10%

Demand

Lifetime kW 1,209 1,029 -15% 1,029 0% -15%

Annualized

Summer kW 143 107 -25% 107 0% -25%

Winter kW 140 122 -13% 122 0% -13%

Average Measure Life yrs 8.5 9.6 9.6

NEB (Lifetime) $ 0 0 0% 0 0% 0%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 787,448 1,045,762 33%

TRC Costs $ 319,340 433,119 36%

Net Benefits $ 468,109 612,642 31%

BCR n/a 2.47 2.41 -2%

Table II.A.9: ENERGY STAR Appliances

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

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

higher than anticipated interest in refrigerator and TV rebates. Refrigerators represented 

approximately one-fifth of the measures in the plan, but two-thirds of the measures actually 

installed. TVs represented approximately 5 percent of the measures in the plan, but 

approximately 15 percent of the measures actually installed. The level of interest in TVs is 

substantial, considering there was only one retailer in Cape Light Compact territory participating 

in the program and the measure launched in October 2010. 

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

conditioners and smart strips to refrigerators. Refrigerators have a higher incentive ($50) as 

compared to room air conditioners ($35) and smart strips ($10). Also, program planning and 

administration (“PP&A”) and Marketing costs were higher than planned as additional resources 

were needed to aggressively expand the number of products offered. Despite the fact that the 

total program costs exceeded planned costs, the program did not serve as many participants as 

planned due to the fact that the total program costs were significantly higher per participant. 

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

anticipated interest in refrigerators and TVs. Summer demand savings were significantly lower 

than planned due to the shift from room air conditioners to refrigerators. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 34 of 164

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

The following impact evaluation study applies to this program. 

1. The Massachusetts Appliance Turn-in Program Impact Evaluation: The study supplied 

updated gross savings for refrigerator recycling and freezer recycling. The 

implementation of these study results did not result in any significant change in 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. While the decrease in savings and 

benefits for refrigerator recycling and freezer recycling were significant at the measure 

level, these measures represented a relatively small proportion of the total measures 

installed by this program in 2010. Consequently, the impact of the reduction in the 

savings for refrigerator and freezer recycling measures is diluted by the fact that there 

was no change in savings for the rest of the measures implemented by this program. This 

study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for Residential Programs – Suggested 

Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this study was to develop approaches for 

consideration by the PAs for estimating net program impacts for the Massachusetts PA’s 

residential programs. This study has no impact on the evaluated results. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there is an impact evaluation study that applies to this program, there is a difference 

between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and the Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned. This difference is due to the impact of the Massachusetts Appliance 

Turn-in Program Impact Evaluation on the Evaluated Results Value. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Costs and Net Benefits is due to greater-thananticipated interest in measures that generally have greater cost and greater savings. 

3. 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 such final actual data 

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

a. Deep Energy Retrofit

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The Deep Energy Retrofit pilot was 

implemented to investigate the potential for energy savings of at least 50 percent of total on-site 

energy use through deep retrofits of existing residential buildings and to identify incremental 

savings and how to reduce the costs and challenges associated with deep retrofits. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 35 of 164

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. 

Targeted Customers: The pilot targeted home-owners, property owners, and property managers 

considering renovations and willing to invest in extensive carbon reductions. In addition, the 

pilot targeted advanced building remodelers, architects, designers, trade allies, and others 

involved in renovation or restoration of residential buildings. 

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

completed project. In order to be reported as a participant, the project must be completed during 

the program year. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Hot Water 

Envelope 

End Use Behavior 

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

contractors performing the work was handled through technical specialist contractor, program 

manager and organizations under contract and/or utilizing DOE Building America funds. 

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 is 

included in this Annual Report. 

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

Table II.A.10. provides information on the performance of the Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 36 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 83,333 26,659 -68%

Participants hhlds n/a 1 n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a 26,659 n/a

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

TRC Costs $ 83,333 26,659 -68%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table II.A.10: Deep Energy Retrofit

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

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

due to lower participation than anticipated. The Cape Light Compact planned for six participants 

in 2010.10 Although, the Cape Light compact did have a lot of interest in this pilot in 2010, 

homeowners did not seem to fully understand that this was a major undertaking with significant 

planning, financing, and construction components. As a result, longer lead times for planning, 

high upfront participant costs, and general customer unwillingness to commit to a comprehensive 

Deep Energy Retrofit project contributed to the fact that only one project was completed in 2010. 

There are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this pilot program. As there was no impact 

evaluation conducted on this pilot, there are no evaluated savings or benefits to report. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

 

10 Cape Light Compact D.P.U. 09-119. Response to AG Third Set of Information Requests. November 30, 

2009. AG 3-1. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 37 of 164

1. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low Income Evaluation – Deep Energy 

Retrofit: The overarching goal of the 2010 Deep Energy Retrofit pilot evaluation was to 

provide the PAs/implementers with actionable findings and recommendations aimed at 

increasing customer and contractor participation, as well as refining pilot program’s 

delivery. As the investigations progressed, effort focused on identifying information to 

aid in formulating a consensus about the pilot’s mission and goals, rather than fine-tuning 

delivery mechanisms. The Cape Light Compact anticipates using the lessons learned to 

move toward evaluating cost-effective prescriptive paths for deeper measures within 

homes. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

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. 

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. Initial results are included in the process 

evaluation included in this Annual Report. 

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

existing home. 

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

completed project. In order to be reported as a participant, the project must be completed during 

the program year. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Hot Water 

Envelope 

Delivery Mechanism: The PAs, 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 RCS program (for the existing 

portion) to provide a comprehensive whole-house approach. Each home in the program had a 

HERS analysis performed in order to better understand the existing structure. Recommendations 

were provided to the homeowner for the existing portion and the new addition by the marketbased rater in the program. 

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 38 of 164

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal was Measured: An evaluation of the pilot is 

currently in process. 

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

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

Major Renovation – Major Renovation Statewide Pilot. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 257,547 43,992 -83%

Participants hhlds n/a 2 n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a 21,996 n/a

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

TRC Costs $ 257,547 43,992 -83%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table II.A.11: Residential New Construction & Major Renovation - Major Renovation Statewide Pilot

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

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

due to lower participation than anticipated. The Cape Light Compact planned for 110 

participants11 and had 2 project completions. 

 

11 Cape Light Compact D.P.U. 09-119. Response to AG Third Set of Information Requests. November 30, 

2009. AG 3-2.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 39 of 164

The Cape Light Compact clearly did not have enough interest and participation in 2010 to draw 

conclusions as to why participation was significantly lower than planned. However, it seems that 

the renovation and new construction markets for new, efficient additions are both currently 

significantly smaller than expected which is greatly impacting participation. There are several 

reasons for the recent reduction in renovation market opportunity. EPA’s Lead Renovation, 

Repair and Painting Rule12 (which went into effect on April 22, 2010) likely slowed the 

renovation rate as the rule led to an increase in renovation costs. Also, the economy slowed the 

renovation rate as many homeowners do not currently have the funds to add an addition and are 

postponing projects. Also, it seems that the requirement that projects include an addition of 500 

sq. ft. or more is a barrier to participation. There are few renovation projects on Cape Cod that 

can currently meet this requirement, likely due to the contraction in the new construction market 

that occurred in conjunction with the recession. Lastly, the fact that many homes in the Cape 

Light Compact’s service territory are seasonal use and vacation rental properties is a major 

impediment to implementation of this pilot. Several projects that the Cape Light Compact 

analyzed involved conversion of unconditioned space into conditioned space for occasional use 

as a guest room, which was not a cost-effective use of funds. 

There is no completed impact evaluation study that applies to this pilot program. There are no 

evaluated savings or benefits to report as the evaluation of this pilot has been extended in order 

to include enough projects at the statewide level to generate a statistically significant sample. 

There is also no non-impact evaluation study that applies to this pilot program. 

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, through an incentive design that encourages such action, and achieve 

deeper savings in the multi-family new construction 4-8 story category. 

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. 

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

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: 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, the Cape Light Compact 

has not developed a participant definition for this pilot program. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Hot Water 

 

12 Details on this rule can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 40 of 164

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Motors & Drives 

Envelope 

Delivery Mechanism: The PAs and the statewide new construction program lead vender 

delivered this pilot. 

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

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal was Measured: A final evaluation has not been 

completed. 

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

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

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

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

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

Participants hhlds n/a n/a n/a

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

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

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

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table II.A.12: Residential New Construction - Multi-Family (4-8 story) Statewide Pilot

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 41 of 164

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

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

have enough Multi-Family (4- to 8-story) homes in its service territory to be able to participate in 

this pilot. Therefore, no budget was allocated to this pilot in the plan, and there are no results 

from 2010 to report. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Process Evaluation of the Four to 

Eight Story Multi-Family New Construction Pilot Interim Findings: This report presents 

preliminary findings from interviews with the two Sponsors of the Pilot, and two 

individuals representing the three projects that completed in 2010. The objective of the 

interviews was to address several process evaluation issues such as the Pilot’s goals and 

objectives, the process of signing up and completing verification, outreach and the types 

of projects served, the measures covered, the measures installed, barriers to energy 

efficient multi-family new construction, and satisfaction. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

d. Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The PAs worked with lighting 

designers and build/design teams to identify creative ways to approach energy savings through 

proper lighting design on a portfolio level. 

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. 

Targeted Customers: The target audience for this pilot included homebuilders, contractors, 

architects/designers, trade allies, HERS raters, homebuyers, realtors, developers, low-income and 

affordable housing developers, and consumers in the market for new homes and or major 

renovations. 

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

completed project. In order to be reported as a participant, the project must be completed during 

the program year. 

Targeted End-Uses: Lighting 

Delivery Mechanism: The PAs, along with the JMC, included this pilot as an offering under the 

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program. 

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: None. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 42 of 164

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal was Measured: A final evaluation of this pilot 

has not been completed. 

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

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

Lighting Design Statewide Pilot. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 22,222 11,264 -49%

Participants hhlds n/a 0 n/a

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

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

TRC Costs $ 22,222 11,264 -49%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table II.A.13: Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

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

due to lower participation than anticipated. The Cape Light Compact planned for 10 

participants13 and had no project completions in 2010.14

 

13 Cape Light Compact D.P.U. 09-119. Response to AG Third Set of Information Requests. November 30, 

2009. AG 3-5.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 43 of 164

The Cape Light Compact clearly did not have enough interest and participation in 2010 to draw 

conclusions as to why participation was significantly lower than planned. However, it seems that 

lighting design is already being addressed as a part of the more comprehensive Residential New 

Construction & Major Renovation program. As a result, the opportunity is smaller than 

expected. 

There is no completed impact evaluation study that applies to this pilot program. As this pilot is 

currently undergoing evaluation, there are no evaluated savings or benefits to report. 

 

There are no process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this program. 

e. Residential New Construction - V3 ENERGY STAR® Homes 

Statewide Pilot

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

study many of the new specifications of Version 3 of the federal ENERGY STAR® Homes 

program anticipated to go into effect in 2011. 

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. 

Targeted Customers: The target audience for this pilot included homebuilders, contractors, 

architects/designers, trade allies, HERS raters, homebuyers, realtors, developers, low-income and 

affordable housing developers, code officials, and consumers in the market for new homes and or 

major renovations. 

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

completed project. In order to be reported as a participant, the project must be completed during 

the program year. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Envelope 

Hot Water 

Delivery Mechanism: The PAs, along with the JMC, included this pilot as an offering under the 

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program. 

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

 

14 The Cape Light Compact reports costs as they are incurred. However, the Cape Light Compact only 

reports participants, savings and benefits once projects are complete. Since two projects began in 2010 but 

were not completed during the program year, the total program costs are shown but the participants are not 

shown.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 44 of 164

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal was Measured: A final evaluation of the pilot is 

currently in process. 

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

Table II.A.14. provides information on the performance of the Residential New Construction V3 

- ENERGY STAR® Homes Statewide Pilot. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 0 0 0%

Participants hhlds n/a 0 n/a

Expense/Customer $ n/a n/a n/a

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

TRC Costs $ 0 0 0%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table II.A.14: Residential New Construction - V3 Energy Star Homes Statewide Pilot

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Though the Cape Light Compact supported this statewide pilot, it did not actually need to 

allocate any budget to this pilot in 2010. The Cape Light Compact expected the incentive cost 

increase between version 2 and version 3 to be high due to significant differences between the 

two versions. However, once version 3 was finalized the differences between the two versions 

were not significant, and the incentive costs were not significantly different. Since it was 

unlikely that participant response to this version would be significantly different than to version 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 45 of 164

2, the Cape Light Compact determined that version 3 should be an extension of its Residential 

New Construction & Major Renovation program rather than a separate pilot. Also, the costs, 

savings and benefits associated with all version 3 projects are small, as one home was completed 

in 2010. As a result, the Cape Light Compact included the costs, savings and benefits from the 

one home as a part of its Residential New Construction & Major Renovation program. 

The Cape Light Compact did not allocate budget to this pilot in 2011 as shown in its 2011 MidTerm Modifications filed in October 2010. Furthermore, the Cape Light Compact does not 

anticipate allocating budget to this pilot in 2012 as shown in its original Three-Year Plan filing. 

There is no impact evaluation study that applies to this pilot program. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Version 3 Pilot 

Evaluation: The focus of this report is on lessons learned from the Massachusetts New 

Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Version 3 Pilot (“Pilot”) and issues the program 

will face going forward to keep existing builders in the program, as well as recruit new 

builders, as ENERGY STAR® Version 3 requirements take effect. Version 3 Guidelines 

for ENERGY STAR® Homes become effective for all new homes, regardless of permit 

dates, starting January 1, 2012. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

f. Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot (Non-Statewide)

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: This pilot was designed to study 

the reliability and energy savings of heat pump water heaters. 

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. 

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

heaters. 

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

by the pilot program. 

Targeted End-Uses: Hot Water 

Delivery Mechanism: The PAs worked with a third party evaluation team that installed the 

measure and is monitoring usage. 

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

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal was Measured: An evaluation is on-going. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 46 of 164

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

Table II.A.15. provides information on the performance of the Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from 

Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 11,111 9,022 -19%

Participants hhlds n/a 2 n/a

Program Cost / Participant $ n/a 4,511 n/a

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

TRC Costs $ 11,111 9,022 -19%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Table II.A.15: Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot

Performance Category Units

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

The Cape Light Compact’s plan tracked with actuals as two participants were planned15 and two 

units were installed in 2010 in customers’ homes. Due to the fact that the evaluated cost per 

participant was similar to planned costs, total program costs are not significantly different than 

planned. 

There is no completed impact evaluation study that applies to this pilot program. Savings and 

benefits are not available as this pilot is currently being evaluated. 

 

15 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 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 47 of 164

There are no process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this program. 

g. Power Monitor Pilot (Cape Light Compact-specific)

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

conducted Phase I of this pilot, in an effort to gain insight to behavioral aspects of energy use. 

The Compact identified 91 participants on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard and installed an inhome energy monitoring system in each participant’s home. The monitoring system enables the 

participant to view their electricity consumption in real time, displaying energy usage down to 

the minute. Participants had access to an online dashboard, which offered participants feedback 

on their energy consumption and demand, savings metrics in kWh, dollars, and CO2 emissions 

and opportunities to learn about and sign up for energy saving activities (e.g., unplugging 

chargers when not in use). Participants were also part of a social networking system with other 

pilot members. 

In March of 2010, an independent third party evaluation was completed of Phase I that was 

included in the Cape Light Compact’s 2009 Annual Report. The results of the evaluation 

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

pilot and significant energy savings. On average, customers saved 9.3 percent, controlling for 

temperature differences and for other Cape Light Compact program activity. This is equivalent 

to 2.9 kWh of saved electricity per day. 

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

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

independent third party and discussed primarily participant’s thoughts and patterns of interaction 

with the monitoring system and their feedback regarding suggestions on changes or features they 

would like to see in the energy monitoring system. Findings from these interviews provided 

insight into how and why participants are motivated to stay engaged with the system over longer 

periods of time and provide further evidence to the evaluation’s conclusions. 

As a result of the findings in the report and follow up interviews, the Compact extended the pilot 

by offering Phase II in 2011. Phase II of the pilot includes both residential and commercial 

participants. The purpose of Phase II and its associated evaluation is to provide the basis for 

determining whether to transition the Pilot into a Program. The evaluation of Phase II will 

further evaluate the savings associated with the pilot, as well as the persistence of the energy 

savings identified in Phase I. 

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. Once the evaluation of the pilot is 

completed, the pilot may be offered as a program in the future. 

Targeted Customers: Phase I of this Pilot targeted year-round residential customers. Phase II 

of this Pilot targets year-round residential customers, as well as a few small commercial 

customers. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 48 of 164

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

pilot hardware was installed. 

Targeted End-Uses: The Pilot targets all residential and commercial end-uses through either 

motivating customers to change their behavior to save energy or to take energy saving actions. 

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

delivered this Pilot. 

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

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal was Measured: An evaluation of the Pilot’s first 

phase has been completed. The evaluation of the Pilot’s second phase is in process. 

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011). 

Table II.A.16. provides information on the performance of the Power Monitor Pilot. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 49 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 233,333 74,496 -68%

Participants hhlds n/a 91 n/a

Expense/Customer $ n/a 819 n/a

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

TRC Costs $ 233,333 74,496 -68%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Evaluated Results

Table II.A.16: Power Monitor Pilot

Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results

Performance Category Units

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

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

due to lower Phase II incentive costs in 2010 than anticipated. Phase II did not launch until 2010 

was nearly over as the Cape Light Compact decided to leverage the study results from Phase I to 

inform Phase II. As a result, most of the costs for Phase II will occur in 2011 rather than 2010, 

as originally planned. 

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 in the summer of 2012. 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. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

 

1. Findings from In-Depth Interviews with Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot Participants: 

The purpose of the study was to supplement findings from the first evaluation of the Pilot 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 50 of 164

that was completed in Spring 2010, and inform the Pilot’s future expansion. The results 

of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

h. Home Automation Pilot (Cape Light Compact-specific)

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The Cape Light Compact’s 

Residential Home Automation Pilot is designed to promote energy savings through the use of 

automation tools that will give homeowners the ability to remotely control their homes’ energy 

usage while they are gone for an extended period of time. 

Why Implemented on Pilot Basis rather than as a Full Program: This initiative was offered 

as a pilot to determine if the initiative is cost-effective. This pilot was not launched during the 

program year due to unforeseen circumstances and changes in home automation during 2010. 

During the planning stage, the Cape Light Compact identified a potential partner with a low-cost 

home automation installation product that could help to test the energy savings potential of home 

automation. However, the Cape Light Compact discovered that while the technologies did exist, 

they did not meet the basic requirements for the pilot, as they did not have features that the Cape 

Light Compact was interested in trying out with customers. 

Targeted Customers: This pilot program was developed in response to the needs of seasonal 

and second home-owners in the Compact’s market. 

Definition of Pilot Program Participant: N/A 

Targeted End-Uses: N/A 

Delivery Mechanism: N/A 

Significant Differences in Actual Program Design from Approved Program Design: N/A 

How Achievement of the Pilot’s Stated Goal was Measured: N/A 

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011). 

Table II.A.17. provides information on the performance of the Home Automation Pilot. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 51 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 10,800 0 -100%

Participants hhlds n/a 0 n/a

Expense/Customer $ n/a n/a n/a

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Demand

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

Annualized kW

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

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

Average Measure Life yrs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NEB (Lifetime) $ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cost-Effectiveness

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

TRC Costs $ 10,800 0 -100%

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

BCR n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table II.A.17: Home Automation Pilot

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned, Evaluated Results % Change from 

Preliminary, and Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

While the Cape Light Compact originally budgeted $10,800 for this pilot, this pilot was not 

launched during the program year due to unforeseen circumstances that occurred over the course 

of the year. During the planning stage, the Cape Light Compact identified a potential partner 

with a low-cost home automation installation product that could help to test the energy savings 

potential of home automation. However, the Cape Light Compact discovered that while the 

technology did exist, the product did not meet the basic requirements for the pilot, as it did not 

have the features that the Cape Light Compact was interested in trying out with customers. As a 

result, the Cape Light Compact did not sign a contract with that partner and continued to search 

for a partner that would meet the pilot requirements. 

There is no impact evaluation study that applies to this pilot program. 

There are no process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this program. 

i. 2010 Energy Education Activities

The Cape Light 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 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 52 of 164

education programs. As a unique energy efficiency administrator and municipal aggregator, the 

Compact strives to support the community in efforts to encourage the development of deeper and 

broader knowledge of energy efficiency technology and practices, moving towards an energyliterate society. 

Toward this goal, this past year saw the Cape Light Compact’s Energy Education Program 

substantially increase its outreach within the school population through its innovative programs 

(please see the table in Appendix E.5 for more detail). Highlights of these programs included: 

 

● Over 100 education based presentations, field trips and all-school Energy Carnivals: 

students learn the basic lessons of energy efficiency, energy forms and energy sources 

in a first-hand, fun and engaging way. Over 5,000 students and teachers were 

reached. 

● A Standards-based graduate level course for teachers to introduce and reinforce 

energy education concepts for the classroom. 

● Informal science educator workshops for science and nature center staff. 

● We were proud to have four of our schools recognized by the National Energy 

Education Development Project (“NEED”) for their outstanding work in energy 

education outreach to their communities: 

o Sandwich High School – National Senior Level School of the Year 

o Eastham Elementary School – National Elementary School of the Year 

Finalist 

o Cape Cod Lighthouse Charter School – State Middle School of the Year 

o Nauset Regional High School – State Senior Level Rookie of the Year 

Our greatest successes were seen with the “kids as teachers” model where high school and 

middle school students were trained and studied to present information on energy efficiency, 

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

evidenced in repeat school programs from year to year, schools have moved towards adopting 

energy education into their yearly scope and sequence of classroom activities and thus continue 

to reach more individuals. 

The Cape Light Compact continues its collaboration with the NEED of Manassas, VA, a 501 

(C)3 non-profit educational organization affiliated with the Department of Energy in Washington 

DC. Using a model for science-based facts, the Cape Light Compact and NEED created 

curriculum materials to align with the MA 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 2010 the Cape Light Compact implemented the following low-income programs16: 

 

16 The Cape Light Compact did not offer any pilot programs in the low-income sector during 2010.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 53 of 164

● Low-Income Residential New Construction 

● Low-Income 1-4 Family Retrofit 

● Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit 

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

Tables II.B.4 through II.B.6 provide detailed information on the performance of each lowincome program. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 2,088,750 1,826,691 -13%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Savings & Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 16,195 8,164 -50% 8,164 0% -50%

Annualized MWh 1,416 628 -56% 628 0% -56%

Demand

Lifetime kW 1,856 852 -54% 852 0% -54%

Annualized

Summer kW 164 63 -62% 63 0% -62%

Winter kW 308 125 -60% 125 0% -60%

NEB (Lifetime) $ 3,967,799 3,350,053 -16% 3,350,053 0% -16%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 5,922,383 4,301,936 -27%

TRC Costs $ 2,088,750 1,828,369 -12%

Net Benefits $ 3,833,633 2,473,567 -35%

BCR n/a 2.84 2.35 -17%

Evaluated Results

Table II.B.1: Low-Income Sector Summary

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

Within the Low-Income sector, the following programs are contributing to the variance between 

planned and evaluated values: 

● Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit (for TRC Benefits and Net Benefits): Please 

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

for this program. 

● 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 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 54 of 164

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are no impact evaluation studies that apply to the Low-Income sector programs. As a 

result, there is no change in the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluation studies that apply to the Low-Income sector programs, there 

is no difference between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary YearEnd Results % Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding significant 

variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section above applies. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 55 of 164

End Uses Units 

(lifetime)

Preliminary

Year-End 

Results

Evaluated 

Results

% Change from

Preliminary to 

Evaluated

Lighting

Energy MWh 2,296 2,296 0%

Demand kW 212 212 0%

NEB $ 76,517 76,517 0%

Heating, Ventillation & Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Energy MWh 1,033 1,033 0%

Demand kW 76 76 0%

NEB $ 742,982 742,982 0%

Refrigeration

Energy MWh 4,032 4,032 0%

Demand kW 530 530 0%

NEB $ 133,311 133,311 0%

Hot Water

Energy MWh 6 6 0%

Demand kW 0 0 0%

NEB $ 56,873 56,873 0%

End Use Behavior

Energy MWh 333 333 0%

Demand kW 32 32 0%

NEB $ 42,723 42,723 0%

Envelope

Energy MWh 465 465 0%

Demand kW 2 2 0%

NEB $ 2,297,647 2,297,647 0%

Total

Energy MWh 8,164 8,164 0%

Demand kW 852 852 0%

NEB $ 3,350,053 3,350,053 0%

Table II.B.2: Low-Income Sector Summary of End Uses
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 56 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned

Low-Income Residential New Construction

TRC Benefits $ 28,702 134,686 369%

TRC Costs $ 28,666 100,180 249%

Net Benefits $ 35 34,506 97450%

BCR n/a 1.00 1.34 34%

Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ 4,842,758 3,806,534 -21%

TRC Costs $ 1,626,844 1,503,465 -8%

Net Benefits $ 3,215,914 2,303,069 -28%

BCR n/a 2.98 2.53 -15%

Low-Income MultiFamily Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ 1,050,923 360,717 -66%

TRC Costs $ 406,465 202,626 -50%

Net Benefits $ 644,458 158,091 -75%

BCR n/a 2.59 1.78 -31%

Hard-to-Measure Initiatives

TRC Costs $ 26,774 22,099 -17%

TOTAL

TRC Benefits $ 5,922,383 4,301,936 -27%

TRC Costs $ 2,088,750 1,828,369 -12%

Net Benefits $ 3,833,633 2,473,567 -35%

BCR n/a 2.84 2.35 -17%

Table II.B.3: Low-Income Program Summary

Program/

Performance Category Units Planned 

Value

Evaluated Results

2. Low-Income Programs

a. Low-Income Residential New Construction

Purpose/Goal: The purpose of the Low-Income New Construction program was to encourage 

the construction of energy-efficient homes, and drive the market to one in which new homes are 

moving towards net-zero energy. 

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program included homebuilders, contractors, 

architects/designers, trade allies, HERS raters, homebuyers, realtors, developers, low income and 

affordable housing developers, code officials, and consumers in the market for new homes and or 

major renovations. 

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

program. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 57 of 164

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Refrigeration 

Hot water 

Delivery Mechanism: The program is administered each PA in its service territory and 

coordinated regionally through the JMC. 

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

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

Green Affordable Housing Initiative (Cape Light Compact-specific component of the LowIncome Residential New Construction program)

In 2006, the Compact received a $1.5 million grant from the Massachusetts Technology 

Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust’s Green Affordable Housing Initiative, to be used for the 

development of affordable housing utilizing green design. With this grant money, the Compact 

assisted builders in the development of 12 Low-Income affordable housing units on Cape Cod 

and Martha’s Vineyard to be built to LEED-H® standards and to include the installation of 

renewable energy systems. The Green Affordable Housing Initiative was implemented from 

2008 – 2010. 

Table II.B.4. provides information on the performance of Low-Income Residential New 

Construction. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 58 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 28,666 100,180 249%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants hhlds 8 24 200%

Program Cost / Participant $ 3,583 4,174 16%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 100 787 686% 787 0% 686%

Annualized MWh 11 41 284% 41 0% 284%

Average Measure Life yrs 9.3 19.0 105% 19.0 0% 105%

Demand

Lifetime kW 25 85 241% 85 0% 241%

Annualized

Summer kW 1 4 181% 4 0% 181%

Winter kW 3 10 202% 10 0% 202%

Average Measure Life yrs 17.3 21.0 21.0

NEB (Lifetime) $ 14,250 46,290 225% 46,290 0% 225%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 28,702 134,686 369%

TRC Costs $ 28,666 100,180 249%

Net Benefits $ 35 34,506 97450%

BCR n/a 1.00 1.34 34%

Performance Category Units

Table II.B.4: Low-Income Residential New Construction

Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

This program generated higher than expected costs but also achieved commensurately higher 

energy and demand savings due to 1) greater affordable home completions than anticipated and 

2) the fact that the homes in the program were built to higher performance standards than 

anticipated. As higher program costs were coupled with higher program savings, this program is 

cost-effective. 

2010 was a unique year for the Cape Light Compact’s Low-Income Residential New 

Construction & Major Renovation program. The Cape Light Compact’s 2010 plan assumed that 

the economic downturn would result in lower participation. However, the continuation of 

federal and state support for affordable new construction enabled more affordable homes to be 

built than planned in 2010. Since evaluated participants were significantly higher than planned 

participants, evaluated total program costs were significantly higher than planned. 

Additionally, the homes were built to higher efficiency level than planned because of the 

Compact’s administration of the Green Affordable Homes Initiative for with the Massachusetts 

Clean Energy Center grant funds. The plan assumed that most of the affordable homes would be 

built to either the LEED for Homes Certified or LEED Silver standard. However, most of the 

affordable homes were built to the LEED Platinum standard, the highest level of LEED-H 

achievement. This contributed to significantly higher evaluated lifetime energy savings, annual 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 59 of 164

energy savings, lifetime demand savings, summer demand savings and winter demand savings 

and non-electric benefits, as compared to planned. The significantly higher evaluated average 

measure life as compared to plan is due to the achievement of the higher performance standards. 

These performance standards required greater focus on the building shell, which drove 

significantly higher savings with significantly longer lifetimes. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program. As a result, there is no change 

in the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Mystery Shopping: This study 

provided insight into the current marketing strategies of real estate agents listing 

ENERGY STAR® homes, and the effect of program-sponsored trainings on these 

marketing strategies. The results of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

2. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program, 2011Baseline Phase 1:

Completion of Planning: This study describes the planning process for the 2011 Baseline 

Study and the work done to develop a sample of eligible homes. The results of this study 

did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in 

Section III. 

3. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Estimated Maximum 

Potential Savings from Enhanced Compliance with the IECC 2009 Residential Building 

Code in Massachusetts: This study estimated the maximum potential savings for the 

years 2011, 2012, and 2013 that might be achieved through promoting compliance with 

the newly-adopted IECC 2009 energy code for four measures—wall insulation, basement 

insulation, proper insulation of ducts in unconditioned spaces, and fifty percent high 

efficacy lamp requirement—in order to provide needed guidance to the PAs on the 

implementation and evaluation costs that might be justified. The results of this study did 

not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section 

III. 

4. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Process Evaluation of the Four to 

Eight Story Multi-Family New Construction Pilot Interim Findings: This report presents 

preliminary findings from interviews with the two Sponsors of the Pilot, and two 

individuals representing the three projects that completed in 2010. The objective of the 

interviews was to address several process evaluation issues such as the Pilot’s goals and 

objectives, the process of signing up and completing verification, outreach and the types 

of projects served, the measures covered, the measures installed, barriers to energy 

efficient multi-family new construction, and satisfaction. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

5. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Major Renovations Pilot 

Evaluation: Preliminary Report on Non-Participant Interviews: This report presents 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 60 of 164

preliminary findings from interviews with seven homeowners and one builder who had 

projects eligible to participate in the pilot and considered enrolling in the pilot, but 

decided not to enroll. The objective of the interviews was to identify how these potential 

participants learned about the pilot, why they decided not to enroll in the pilot and to get 

their suggestions on how to make participation in the pilot a more user-friendly 

experience for homeowners. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

6. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Version 3 Pilot 

Evaluation: The focus of this report is on lessons learned from the Massachusetts New 

Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Version 3 Pilot (“Pilot”) and issues the program 

will face going forward to keep existing builders in the program, as well as recruit new 

builders, as ENERGY STAR® Version 3 requirements take effect. Version 3 Guidelines 

for ENERGY STAR® Homes become effective for all new homes, regardless of permit 

dates, starting January 1, 2012. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is no difference 

between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding significant variances from the 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section above applies. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR is due to higher 

participation and the achievement of higher performance standards versus what was assumed in 

the plan. 

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 

education and the installation of electric and gas energy efficiency measures to achieve deeper 

and broader energy savings. 

Targeted Customers: This program targeted residential electric customers using oil, propane, 

electric and other non-gas fuels living in one- to four-unit dwellings who are at or below sixty 

percent (60%) of the state median income level. 

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

program. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Refrigeration 

Hot water 

End Use Behavior 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 61 of 164

Envelope 

Solar Hot Water 

Delivery Mechanism: PAs, when warranted, used a lead vendor to administer the program. The 

PAs worked closely with their lead vendor and/or respective Network agencies on all aspects of 

the program design and implementation. 

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 

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

Table II.B.5. provides information on the performance of Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 1,626,844 1,503,465 -8%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants hhlds 1,115 805 -28%

Program Cost / Participant $ 1,459 1,868 28%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 13,069 6,990 -47% 6,990 0% -47%

Annualized MWh 1,144 542 -53% 542 0% -53%

Average Measure Life yrs 11.4 12.9 13% 12.9 0% 13%

Demand

Lifetime kW 1,635 753 -54% 753 0% -54%

Annualized

Summer kW 144 57 -61% 57 0% -61%

Winter kW 256 108 -58% 108 0% -58%

Average Measure Life yrs 11.3 13.3 13.3

NEB (Lifetime) $ 3,248,428 2,988,029 -8% 2,988,029 0% -8%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 4,842,758 3,806,534 -21%

TRC Costs $ 1,626,844 1,503,465 -8%

Net Benefits $ 3,215,914 2,303,069 -28%

BCR n/a 2.98 2.53 -15%

Performance Category

Table II.B.5: Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit

Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

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 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 62 of 164

course of multiple years. As a result, fewer participants were served with the program budget17

as compared to plan. 

The significant decline in lifetime energy savings, annual energy savings, lifetime demand 

savings, summer demand savings and winter demand savings relative to plan is due to the use of 

a deemed savings value for weatherization measures from the plan in order to calculate the 

evaluated savings for this program. The Cape Light Compact’s implementation vendor for this 

program is not currently capable of calculating gross savings. Therefore, the Cape Light 

Compact relies on the deemed savings values to plan and report savings for all measures in this 

program. The deemed savings for all measures except weatherization are reasonable. However, 

the weatherization deemed savings value is understated, given that the program has changed over 

time to allow higher incentives in order to treat each unit more comprehensively and generate 

greater savings per unit. Since most of the Cape Light Compact’s evaluated savings for this 

program come from weatherization measures, the savings values for this program are 

understated. Furthermore, the current deemed savings value for weatherization leads the 

implementation vendor to focus on lighting and appliances rather than weatherization measures 

in order to achieve savings goals for this program. This is contrary to best practices for any 

comprehensive energy efficiency program and needs to be rectified. The Cape Light Compact 

plans to address this issue in its 2012 Mid-Term Modifications by requesting a change in the 

deemed savings value for weatherization measures in the 2012 TRM – Plan Version. 

Despite the fact that similar program costs generated significantly lower program savings, this 

program remained cost-effective. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program. As a result, there is no change 

in the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Final Report for Low Income Program – Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and 

Low Income Evaluation: This study focused on assessing program processes and 

identifying similarities and differences between the perspectives and assumptions of 

program staff, implementation staff, and customers regarding program goals, design, and 

implementation. The study also reviewed the process by which program data are 

collected, managed, and reported, including an assessment of the quality and consistency 

of the program data across PAs. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

 

17 Though the difference between the evaluated and planned total program costs is not significant, the Cape 

Light Compact notes that any difference between the evaluated and planned total program costs is due to 

lower evaluation, measurement and verification costs than planned and lower sales, technical assistance and 

training costs than originally estimated by the vendor.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 63 of 164

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is no difference 

between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding significant variances from the 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section above applies. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits and Net Benefits is due to understated weatherization 

savings in the report, relative to the plan. 

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 the dwellings of: 1) residential customers living 

in facilities (with five or more dwelling units) at or below 60 percent of state median income or 

2) eligible income-eligible residents living in multi-family non-institutional facilities (with five 

or more units) owned or operated by a non-profit entity or a public housing authority. 

Targeted Customers: Residential customers on the low-income rate or individuals living in 

non-institutional dwellings owned or operated by non-profit entities or public housing authorities 

with five or more dwelling units who are at or below 60 percent of median income level as well 

as landlords and property managers of these buildings were targeted by this program. 

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

the program. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

Refrigeration 

Hot water 

End Use Behavior 

Envelope 

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered cooperatively by the gas and electric PAs 

in conjunction with interested stakeholders. 

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 

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 64 of 164

Table II.B.6. provides information on the performance of Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 406,465 200,948 -51%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants units 194 125 -36%

Program Cost / Participant $ 2,095 1,608 -23%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 3,026 388 -87% 388 0% -87%

Annualized MWh 261 45 -83% 45 0% -83%

Average Measure Life yrs 11.6 8.7 -25% 8.7 0% -25%

Demand

Lifetime kW 196 14 -93% 14 0% -93%

Annualized

Summer kW 18 2 -88% 2 0% -88%

Winter kW 48 7 -86% 7 0% -86%

Average Measure Life yrs 10.6 6.2 6.2

NEB (Lifetime) $ 705,121 315,733 -55% 315,733 0% -55%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 1,050,923 360,717 -66%

TRC Costs $ 406,465 202,626 -50%

Net Benefits $ 644,458 158,091 -75%

BCR n/a 2.59 1.78 -31%

Evaluated Results

Table II.B.6: Low-Income MultiFamily Retrofit

Preliminary Year-End Results

Performance Category Planned 

Value Units

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

This program experienced significant negative variances for all cost, savings and benefits metrics 

relative to plan. Although there were higher variances for savings than costs, the program 

remains cost-effective. 

In the three-year plan, the implementation vendor had several challenges, including an influx of 

ARRA funding, a new focus on Multi-Family programs (where Single-Family has been the 

primary focus), and increased program funding. In order to better affect the Low Income MultiFamily program, the implementation vendor hired a Multi-Family assessor who has recently 

come up to speed. Additionally, the Cape Light Compact anticipated more units in the effort to 

serve all fuels, but it could not serve gas customers in the Multi-Family Sector due to changes in 

program design in 2010. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program. As a result, there is no 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 65 of 164

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Final Report for Low Income Program – Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and 

Low Income Evaluation: This study focused on assessing program processes and 

identifying similarities and differences between the perspectives and assumptions of 

program staff, implementation staff, and customers regarding program goals, design, and 

implementation. The study also reviewed the process by which program data are 

collected, managed, and reported, including an assessment of the quality and consistency 

of the program data across PAs. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is no difference 

between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % 

Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding significant variances from the 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section above applies. 

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR is due to a lag in 

the ramp up of the Low-Income implementation vendor, who could not meet cost, savings or 

benefit goals for this program in 2010. 

C. Commercial & Industrial Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2010 the Cape Light Compact implemented the following C&I programs18: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation 

● C&I Large Retrofit 

● C&I Small Retrofit 

Tables II.C.1 through II.C.3 provide summary information on the performance of the commercial 

& industrial programs at the sector, end use, and program levels, respectively. 

Tables II.C.4 through II.C.6 provide detailed information on the performance of each 

commercial & industrial program. 

 

18 The Cape Light Compact did not offer any pilot programs in the commercial and industrial sector during 

2010.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 66 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 7,098,577 5,315,961 -25%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Savings & Benefits

Energy

Lifetime MWh 190,815 92,166 -52% 82,565 -10% -57%

Annualized MWh 14,730 6,973 -53% 6,378 -9% -57%

Demand

Lifetime kW 50,809 21,525 -58% 21,159 -2% -58%

Annualized

Summer kW 3,960 1,540 -61% 1,512 -2% -62%

Winter kW 2,307 775 -66% 799 3% -65%

NEB (Lifetime) $ 465,860 2,737,478 488% 2,737,478 0% 488%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 27,855,987 14,471,777 -48%

TRC Costs $ 8,374,704 5,983,719 -29%

Net Benefits $ 19,481,283 8,488,059 -56%

BCR n/a 3.33 2.42 -27%

Evaluated Results

Table II.C.1: C&I Sector Summary

Performance 

Category Units Planned 

Value

Preliminary Year-End Results

The Cape Light Compact has a history of significant variances between plan and actual costs, 

savings and benefits for its C&I programs. As a smaller Massachusetts PA, small absolute 

changes in total program costs, savings and benefits result in significant variances. As a result, 

relatively small changes in the timing or scale and scope of a few projects can add up to a 

significant variance in total program costs, savings and benefits. Also, the small number of 

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

savings and benefits for this program particularly challenging. 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

Within the C&I sector, the following programs are contributing to the variance between planned 

and evaluated values: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net 

Benefits and BCR): Please reference section II.C.a for a more detailed discussion of 

the cause of the variances for this program. 

● C&I Large Retrofit (for TRC Benefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR): Please 

reference section II.C.b for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances 

for this program. 

● C&I Small Retrofit (for TRC Costs, TRC Benefits and Net Benefits): Please 

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

for this program. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 67 of 164

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

Impact evaluation studies apply to the following C&I sector programs: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation 

● C&I Large Retrofit 

● C&I Small Retrofit 

However, the combined effect of the impact evaluation studies at the sector level is not 

significant, as evidenced by the fact that the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary is not 

significant. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there is no significant effect from the implementation of the impact evaluation studies, 

there is little difference between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary 

Year-End Results % Change from Planned. As a result, all of the discussion regarding 

significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned section 

above applies. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 68 of 164

End Uses Units 

(lifetime)

Preliminary 

Year-End 

Results

Evaluated 

Results

% Change from

Preliminary to 

Evaluated

Lighting

Energy MWh 52,855 54,536 3%

Demand kW 12,697 12,380 -2%

NEB $ 1,474,834 1,474,834 0%

Heating, Ventillation & Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Energy MWh 19,878 13,556 -32%

Demand kW 5,433 5,264 -3%

NEB $ 997,827 997,827 0%

Motors & Drives

Energy MWh 14,280 9,763 -32%

Demand kW 2,919 3,038 4%

NEB $ 0 0 0%

Refrigeration

Energy MWh 4,576 4,467 -2%

Demand kW 179 179 0%

NEB $ 0 0 0%

Hot Water

Energy MWh 7 3 -61%

Demand kW 0 0 0%

NEB $ 74,523 74,523 0%

Envelope

Energy MWh 569 240 -58%

Demand kW 298 298 0%

NEB $ 190,294 190,294 0%

Total

Energy MWh 92,166 82,565 -10%

Demand kW 21,525 21,159 -2%

NEB $ 2,737,478 2,737,478 0%

Table II.C.2: C&I Sector Summary of End Uses
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 69 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned

C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

TRC Benefits $ 6,608,366 2,033,334 -69%

TRC Costs $ 1,201,698 754,061 -37%

Net Benefits $ 5,406,669 1,279,273 -76%

BCR n/a 5.50 2.70 -51%

C&I Large Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ 9,035,693 3,584,193 -60%

TRC Costs $ 2,290,512 1,710,016 -25%

Net Benefits $ 6,745,181 1,874,177 -72%

BCR n/a 3.94 2.10 -47%

C&I Small Retrofit

TRC Benefits $ 12,211,928 8,854,250 -27%

TRC Costs $ 4,786,787 3,480,661 -27%

Net Benefits $ 7,425,141 5,373,589 -28%

BCR n/a 2.55 2.54 0%

Hard-to-Measure Initiatives

TRC Costs $ 95,708 38,981 -59%

TOTAL

TRC Benefits $ 27,855,987 14,471,777 -48%

TRC Costs $ 8,374,704 5,983,719 -29%

Net Benefits $ 19,481,283 8,488,059 -56%

BCR n/a 3.33 2.42 -27%

Table II.C.3: C&I Program Summary

Program/

Performance 

Category

Units Planned 

Value

Evaluated Results

2. C&I Programs

a. C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

Purpose/Goal: The C&I New Construction & Major Renovation program was designed to 

optimize the efficiency of equipment, building design and systems in new construction and 

renovation of commercial, industrial, institutional and government facilities. Focusing on 

offering a comprehensive set of electric and gas efficiency options specific to the needs unique to 

each customer, the program also targeted the brief window of opportunity to install premium 

grade replacements when equipment fails or is near the end of its useful life. In doing so, the 

PAs worked to ensure that the best practices propagated by the program are ultimately built into 

the evolution of better building requirements. 

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program was all time-dependent gas and 

electric energy efficiency opportunities in the C&I sector – commercial, industrial, institutional, 

and government customers. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 70 of 164

Definition of Program Participant: A count of the number of unique sites where a project was 

completed during the program year. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning 

Motors & Drives 

Refrigeration 

Hot Water 

Compressed Air 

Process 

Envelope 

Combined Heat & Power 

Delivery Mechanism: The PAs worked together to market and implement the program as a 

unitary statewide effort to maximize the acquisition of potential energy savings (gas and electric) 

in the ongoing market for new facilities and replacement equipment in the Commonwealth. 

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

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

2010 plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On 

August 13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and 

pilots (referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 

10, 2011. 

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

Renovation. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 71 of 164

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 905,004 729,220 -19%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants sites 58 75 29%

Program Cost / Participant $ 15,604 9,723 -38%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 43,218 17,936 -58% 6,363 -65% -85%

Annualized MWh 2,917 1,155 -60% 407 -65% -86%

Average Measure Life yrs 14.8 15.5 5% 15.6 1% 5%

Demand

Lifetime kW 11,251 8,187 -27% 8,018 -2% -29%

Annualized

Summer kW 763 516 -32% 505 -2% -34%

Winter kW 527 175 -67% 175 0% -67%

Average Measure Life yrs 14.7 15.9 15.9 

NEB (Lifetime) $ 519,847 345,314 -34% 345,314 0% -34%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 6,608,366 2,033,334 -69%

TRC Costs $ 1,201,698 754,061 -37%

Net Benefits $ 5,406,669 1,279,273 -76%

BCR n/a 5.50 2.70 -51%

Table II.C.4: C&I New Construction and Major Renovation

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results Planned 

Value Performance Category Units

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

Despite the fact that there were more participants than anticipated, the cost per participant was 

significantly lower than anticipated. There are two explanations for this change. 

● First, the current economic climate makes it especially difficult to plan for C&I New 

Construction and Major Renovation projects. While the Cape Cod and Martha’s 

Vineyard new construction industry is holding steady with many new starts in 

progress, some project scopes were scaled back between planning and 

implementation phases. 

● Second, the Cool Choice program, which is a component of the C&I New 

Construction and Major Renovation program, was well subscribed by customers. 

Cool Choice incentives per customer are substantially lower as compared to other 

new construction projects. 

Also, lifetime and annual energy savings were significantly lower than planned. There are 

several reasons for this change. 

● First, savings did not meet the target because the full budget was not spent. 

● Second, there was a shift in measure mix from lighting measures to heating, 

ventilation and air conditioning and motors and drives measures. Lighting typically 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 72 of 164

has a lower cost per kWh saved whereas heating, ventilation and air conditioning and 

motors and drives typically have a higher cost per kWh saved. 

● Third, there was an increase in cost per kWh of energy saved across many measures. 

For example, with some projects, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning end use 

experienced a significant increase in cost per kWh of energy saved relative to the plan 

yet were still cost-effective and achieved deeper savings for customers. 

Lifetime demand savings, summer demand savings and winter demand savings were 

significantly lower than planned due to the shift in measure mix. Lifetime demand savings and 

summer demand savings were impacted to a lesser extent than winter demand savings due to the 

shift in measure mix from lighting measures to heating, ventilation and air conditioning 

measures, which have higher summer coincidence factors. 

Non-electric benefits were also significantly lower than plan. This is due to the shift in measure 

mix from lighting measures, which contribute the majority of non-electric benefits in the form of 

non-resource benefits for this program. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are five impact evaluation studies that apply to this program including the following: 

1. HBL Market Effects Study Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization - 

Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs’ Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation:

This study estimated the energy savings associated with the changes to a high bay 

lighting market in Massachusetts and assessed the attribution of these changes (i.e. 

market effects) to the PAs’ energy efficiency programs. Specifically, the study supplied 

high bay lighting participant spillover rates that were weighted with non-high bay 

lighting participant spillover rates to calculate participant spillover rates that were applied 

to custom and prescriptive lighting measures. The net effect of this study is to decrease 

both energy and demand savings for this program. This study is discussed in more detail 

in Section III. 

2. Impact Evaluation of 2009 Custom HVAC Installations: The study supplied energy, 

summer on-peak, and winter on-peak realization rates that were applied to custom HVAC 

measures. The net effect of this study is to increase energy savings and decrease both 

summer and winter demand savings for this program. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

3. National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Unitil, and Cape Light 

Compact 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-ridership and 

Spillover Study: The study supplied free-ridership and non-participant spillover rates that 

were applied to custom and prescriptive measures within all end uses, as well as 

participant spillover rates that were applied to custom and prescriptive measures within 

all end uses except lighting. The results of this study vary for each end-use category 

within the program. The net effect of these results is to decrease program savings. This 

study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 73 of 164

4. C&I Unitary HVAC Load Shape Project: The study supplied energy realization rates and 

summer coincidence factors by region that the Cape Light Compact used to calculate 

Cape Light Compact-specific energy realization rates and summer coincidence factors 

that were applied to unitary HVAC measures. The net effect of this study is to increase 

energy savings and decrease summer demand savings for this program. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

5. Impact Evaluation of 2008 and 2009 Custom CDA Installations: The study supplied 

realization rates for annual kWh, summer on-peak kW and winter on-peak kW reductions 

for Custom projects in the Comprehensive end-use category. As the Cape Light Compact 

did not have any Custom CDA installations in 2010, this study had no impact on results. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

The results from the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-Ridership and 

Spillover Study drove the high negative Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary for 

lifetime and annual energy savings. The primary reason for this is that free ridership rates for all 

end uses increased significantly as a result of this study, whereas the changes from other studies 

were not as significant. While participant spillover decreased for all lighting measures due to the 

implementation of the HBL Market Effects Study, this negative impact on energy savings was 

small relative to the negative impact of the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs 

Free-ridership and Spillover Study on energy savings. 

The following is a list of some positive impacts on energy savings from the studies that affected 

this program. Demand savings and NEBS were not significantly impacted by the studies. 

However, these impacts were not significant enough to offset the significant negative impacts of 

the free ridership rates in the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-Ridership 

and Spillover Study on energy savings. 

● Participant spillover rates increased across most end uses and non-participant 

spillover rates increased for a few end uses as a result of the 2010 Commercial and 

Industrial Electric Programs Free-ridership and Spillover Study. 

● Energy realization rates increased for custom HVAC measures as a result of the 

Impact Evaluation of 2009 Custom HVAC Installations Study. 

● Energy realization rates increased for unitary HVAC measures as a result of the C&I 

Unitary HVAC Load Shape Project Study. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. FINAL Commercial New Construction Customer Quantitative Profile Project 1A New 

Construction Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market 

Characterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough 

detail that the program planners and administrators can use the information for improving 

program implementation.” The principal objectives of the Commercial New 

Construction Customer Quantitative Profile are to: develop a comprehensive 

characterization of the large C&I new construction market in Massachusetts, in terms of 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 74 of 164

building type, size, ownership, geographic location, chain or franchise status, and energy 

use; assess how the trends for large C&I projects have changed over the past 15 years; 

and characterize the presence of the PAs new construction projects in the market in terms 

of the number of projects that participated in them and the portion of floor space and 

energy use they represent in key commercial market segments. This study is discussed in 

more detail in Section III. 

2. Supply Chain Profile Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization: The 

overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the 

attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and 

administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” The 

principal research objectives of the New Construction Supply Chain Profile are to: 

characterize the design, engineering, and construction management firms involved with 

recent large commercial construction projects in Massachusetts; characterize the design 

and specification practices with regard to energy efficiency; assess changes in design and 

specification practices as a result of contact with the program; and assess awareness and 

participation in new construction programs offered by the PA’s. This study is discussed 

in more detail in Section III. 

3. Final Report Project 1B Chain & Franchise Market Characterization: The overarching 

objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a 

specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can 

use the information for improving program implementation.” The principal research 

objectives of the Chain & Franchise (“C&F”) Market Characterization are: characterize 

the C&F market in Massachusetts, including estimates of size and key segments (big box, 

retail, restaurant, etc); identify the key decision-maker at C&F customers and the major 

barriers to the adoption of energy efficiency measures; understand the decision-making 

process, in particular free-ridership, regarding energy efficiency at C&F businesses in 

Massachusetts and in comparable non-program states; assess the current level of program 

participation and methods to increase participation; and identify the opportunities for 

increased energy efficiency through on-site inventories of building shell characteristics, 

end use technologies, and missed opportunities. This study is discussed in more detail in 

Section III. 

4. Final Report Project 1C Combined Heat & Power Market Characterization: The 

overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the 

attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and 

administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” The 

principal research objectives of the Combined Heat & Power (“CHP”) Market 

Characterization are: characterize the CHP market including key players and market 

segments; understand the decision making processes used by potential CHP customers 

including reasons customers elect to install CHP, selection of specific types or 

configurations of CHP, and the factors most influencing decisions to purchase CHP 

systems; identify the current mix of CHP technologies including the CHP systems types 

deployed, installed and operating costs of the technologies, and identify anticipated 

changes in the CHP market or improvements in the technologies; identify barriers 

impacting entry for customers including the key factors that dissuade potential customers 

from evaluating CHP technologies or have led customers who evaluated CHP 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 75 of 164

technologies to decide not to install it; estimate CHP opportunities by key market 

segments and provide PAs with a list of customers likely suitable for CHP. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

5. Project 7 General Process Evaluation Final Report: The objective of this process 

evaluation was to look at ways to improve the design and delivery of Massachusetts C&I 

energy efficiency programs that would be applicable to multiple programs. Issues that 

the PAs and the EEAC were particularly interested in included how to increase program 

participation levels, how to obtain deeper energy savings from energy efficiency projects, 

how to improve the integration of electric and gas energy efficiency programs, and how 

to increase the general uniformity of program delivery across the state. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

6. Cross Cutting C&I Free-Ridership and Spillover Methodology Study Final Report: The 

focus of this study was on the general methods for estimating what would have happened 

absent C&I programs in Massachusetts. The net program effect is the observed effect, 

less the estimate of what would have happened absent the program. The objectives of 

this study were to develop a standardized methodology for situations where C&I endusers are able to report on program impacts via self-report methods, and to provide a 

decision framework and guidelines for when the standardized self-report methodology is 

appropriate and when other methods need to be used (e.g., upstream programs). This 

study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

7. Project 6B Comprehensive Design Approach Process Evaluation: This process 

evaluation had two research objectives. The first was to examine whether the 

Comprehensive Design Approach (“CDA”) tracks that are being delivered by National 

Grid, Western Massachusetts Electric Company (“WMECo”) and NSTAR are meeting 

their primary goals. These primary goals are to: 1) maximize energy and demand 

reduction in new construction projects; and 2) influence energy efficiency best practices 

in the commercial design sector. The second research objective was to conduct a 

comparative study of the Advanced Buildings (“AB”) track. This study compares the AB 

tracks delivered by the Massachusetts PAs to those delivered in Maine and Vermont. 

The AB track is similar to CDA but it targets smaller buildings within the commercial 

new construction market and aims to simplify and expedite the participation process by 

using standardized incentive and savings assumptions. In order for customers to receive 

monetary incentives through the AB track, they must incorporate a series of thirteen Core 

Performance requirements into their building designs. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is a difference between 

the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % Change 

from Planned. 

Energy savings were equally impacted by the increase in cost per energy saved as by impact 

evaluation study results. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Preliminary Year-End Results 

% Change from Planned is similar to the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 76 of 164

Demand savings and NEBS were mostly impacted by shifts in measure mix. This is 

demonstrated by the fact that most of the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned is from the 

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned. 

Overall, TRC Benefits, Net Benefits were significantly impacted by increases in cost per energy 

savings, changes in measure mix, and the effect of impact evaluation studies. Variances in TRC 

Costs relative to plan were not as high, but still significant due to scaled back project scopes. 

Variances in benefits were substantially higher than variances in costs, but the program remained 

cost-effective due to the fact that the planned BCR for this program was relatively high. 

b. C&I Large Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The C&I Large Retrofit program focused on comprehensive gas and electric 

energy efficiency opportunities associated with mechanical, electrical, and thermal systems in 

existing commercial, industrial, governmental and institutional buildings. Through this program, 

technical assistance and incentives were provided to encourage retrofitting of equipment that 

continued to function, but was outdated and inefficient, and could be replaced with a premium 

efficient product. In addition, this program helped participants identify specific peak load 

management opportunities and assisted occupants in improving their ongoing operation and 

maintenance practices. 

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program was all non-residential customers - 

commercial, industrial, governmental, and institutional. 

 

Definition of Program Participant: A count of the number of unique sites where a project was 

completed during the program year. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning 

Motors & Drives 

Refrigeration 

Hot Water 

Compressed Air 

Process 

Envelope 

Combined Heat & Power 

Delivery Mechanism: PA staff, trade allies and project administrators performed most sales, 

marketing, program administration, and implementation functions while outside contractors were 

retained for technical review of applications, on-site energy analysis, technical and design 

assistance for comprehensive projects, project commissioning services, and the actual measure 

installations, including turn-key services. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 77 of 164

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

Docket/Exhibit where Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 2010 

plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On August 

13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and pilots 

(referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 

2011. 

Table II.C.5. provides information on the performance of C&I Large Retrofit. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 1,807,995 1,575,123 -13%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants sites 56 28 -50%

Program Cost / Participant $ 32,286 56,254 74%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 61,108 25,765 -58% 21,865 -15% -64%

Annualized MWh 4,769 1,902 -60% 1,623 -15% -66%

Average Measure Life yrs 12.8 13.5 6% 13.5 -1% 5%

Demand

Lifetime kW 18,277 3,333 -82% 3,385 2% -81%

Annualized

Summer kW 1,476 241 -84% 244 1% -83%

Winter kW 906 200 -78% 209 4% -77%

Average Measure Life kW 12.4 13.8 13.9 

NEB (Lifetime) yrs (33,390) 764,450 2389% 764,450 0% 2389%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 9,035,693 3,584,193 -60%

TRC Costs $ 2,290,512 1,710,016 -25%

Net Benefits $ 6,745,181 1,874,177 -72%

BCR n/a 3.94 2.10 -47%

Performance Category

Preliminary Year-End Results

Units

Table II.C.5: C&I Large Retrofit

Planned 

Value

Evaluated Results

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

This program provided significantly higher incentives per participant than planned due to the fact 

that customers served in 2010 participated in previous years. Participants were more 

comfortable with the process due to their previous experience with the program. Therefore, the 

projects had a larger scope than the projects from previous years and more incentive dollars were 

spent per project than planned. Also, as is typical for multi-year projects that are common in this 

program, many of the low cost measures are implemented in the first year of the project as these 

generate quick customer payback. As a result, subsequent years of the project have higher costs 

because the types of measures installed in subsequent years often cost more to implement. 

Lastly, the program had a greater proportion of government projects than planned. Since 

government projects are eligible for higher incentives, costs per participant increased relative to 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 78 of 164

plan. As a result, fewer participants were served using a budget that was not significantly 

different from planned. 

Program savings were also significantly lower than plan. There are a few reasons for this change. 

● First, there was an increase in cost per kWh of energy saved across most government 

end uses, specifically in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning end use which 

contributed nearly half of the government savings. Among the customers served this 

year, the measures within each end use with a low cost per kWh of energy saved have 

already been addressed. Additional projects for these same customers addressed 

measures with a higher cost per kWh of saved energy. 

● Second, there was a shift in measure mix from lighting to heating, ventilation and air 

conditioning, and motors and drives. Among the customers served this year, the 

measures with a low cost per kWh of energy saved such as lighting, have already 

been addressed. Additional projects for these same customers addressed measures 

with a higher cost per kWh of saved energy, such as heating, ventilation and air 

conditioning and motors and drives. As a result, the program generated significantly 

lower evaluated savings as compared to plan using a budget that was not significantly 

different from planned. 

In contrast, non-electric benefits were significantly higher than plan. This is due to the fact that 

there were significant therm savings that were not anticipated in the plan. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are five impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, including the following: 

1. HBL Market Effects Study Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization - 

Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs’ Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation:

This study estimated the energy savings associated with the changes to a high bay 

lighting market in Massachusetts and assessed the attribution of these changes (i.e. 

market effects) to the PAs’ energy efficiency programs. Specifically, the study supplied 

high bay lighting participant spillover rates that were weighted with non-high bay 

lighting participant spillover rates to calculate participant spillover rates that were applied 

to custom and prescriptive lighting measures. The net effect of this study is to increase 

both energy and demand savings for this program. This study is discussed in more detail 

in Section III. 

2. Impact Evaluation of 2009 Custom HVAC Installations: The study supplied energy, 

summer on-peak, and winter on-peak realization rates that were applied to custom HVAC 

measures. The net effect of this study is to increase energy savings and decrease both 

summer and winter demand savings for this program. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

3. National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Unitil, and Cape Light 

Compact 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-Ridership and 

Spillover Study: The study supplied free-ridership and non-participant spillover rates that 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 79 of 164

were applied to custom and prescriptive measures within all end uses, as well as 

participant spillover rates that were applied to custom and prescriptive measures within 

all end uses except lighting. The results of this study vary for each end-use category 

within the program. The net effect of these results is to decrease program savings. This 

study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

4. C&I Lighting Load Shape Project: This was a regional study facilitated by the NEEP 

EM&V Forum building upon a 2007 study done for the New England State Program 

Working Group to develop Commercial and Industrial lighting load shapes and 

coincidence. The study supplied summer and winter coincidence factors for custom and 

prescriptive, non-control lighting measures. The net effect of this study was to 

slightly decrease summer demand savings and slightly increase winter demand savings. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

5. Impact Evaluation of 2008 and 2009 Custom CDA Installations: The study supplied 

realization rates for annual kWh, summer on-peak kW and winter on-peak kW reductions 

for Custom projects in the Comprehensive end-use category. As the Cape Light Compact 

did not have any Custom CDA installations in 2010, this study had no impact on results. 

This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

The combined impact of the studies listed above did not have a significant impact on energy 

savings, demand savings or non-electric savings for this program. This is primarily due to the 

fact that the free ridership impacts from the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs 

Free-Ridership and Spillover Study were not as pronounced as for the C&I New Construction 

and Major Renovation program. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. FINAL Commercial New Construction Customer Quantitative Profile Project 1A New 

Construction Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market 

Characterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough 

detail that the program planners and administrators can use the information for improving 

program implementation.” The principal objectives of the Commercial New 

Construction Customer Quantitative Profile are to: develop a comprehensive 

characterization of the large C&I new construction market in Massachusetts, in terms of 

building type, size, ownership, geographic location, chain or franchise status, and energy 

use; assess how the trends for large C&I projects have changed over the past 15 years; 

and characterize the presence of the PAs new construction projects in the market in terms 

of the number of projects that participated in them and the portion of floor space and 

energy use they represent in key commercial market segments. This study is discussed in 

more detail in Section III. 

2. Supply Chain Profile Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization: The 

overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the 

attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and 

administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” The 

principal research objectives of the New Construction Supply Chain Profile are to: 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 80 of 164

characterize the design, engineering, and construction management firms involved with 

recent large commercial construction projects in Massachusetts; characterize the design 

and specification practices with regard to energy efficiency; assess changes in design and 

specification practices as a result of contact with the program; and assess awareness and 

participation in new construction programs offered by the PA’s. This study is discussed 

in more detail in Section III. 

3. Final Report Project 1B Chain & Franchise Market Characterization: The overarching 

objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a 

specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can 

use the information for improving program implementation.” The principal research 

objectives of the Chain & Franchise (“C&F”) Market Characterization are: characterize 

the C&F market in Massachusetts, including estimates of size and key segments (big box, 

retail, restaurant, etc); identify the key decision-maker at C&F customers and the major 

barriers to the adoption of energy efficiency measures; understand the decision-making 

process, in particular free-ridership, regarding energy efficiency at C&F businesses in 

Massachusetts and in comparable non-program states; assess the current level of program 

participation and methods to increase participation; and identify the opportunities for 

increased energy efficiency through on-site inventories of building shell characteristics, 

end use technologies, and missed opportunities. This study is discussed in more detail in 

Section III. 

4. Final Report Project 1C Combined Heat & Power Market Characterization: The 

overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the 

attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and 

administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” The 

principal research objectives of the Combined Heat & Power (“CHP”) Market 

Characterization are: characterize the CHP market including key players and market 

segments; understand the decision making processes used by potential CHP customers 

including reasons customers elect to install CHP, selection of specific types or 

configurations of CHP, and the factors most influencing decisions to purchase CHP 

systems; identify the current mix of CHP technologies including the CHP systems types 

deployed, installed and operating costs of the technologies, and identify anticipated 

changes in the CHP market or improvements in the technologies; identify barriers 

impacting entry for customers including the key factors that dissuade potential customers 

from evaluating CHP technologies or have led customers who evaluated CHP 

technologies to decide not to install it; estimate CHP opportunities by key market 

segments and provide PAs with a list of customers likely suitable for CHP. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

5. Project 7 General Process Evaluation Final Report: The objective of this process 

evaluation was to look at ways to improve the design and delivery of Massachusetts C&I 

energy efficiency programs that would be applicable to multiple programs. Issues that 

the PAs and the EEAC were particularly interested in included how to increase program 

participation levels, how to obtain deeper energy savings from energy efficiency projects, 

how to improve the integration of electric and gas energy efficiency programs, and how 

to increase the general uniformity of program delivery across the state. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 81 of 164

6. Cross Cutting C&I Free-Ridership and Spillover Methodology Study Final Report: The 

focus of this study was on the general methods for estimating what would have happened 

absent C&I programs in Massachusetts. The net program effect is the observed effect, 

less the estimate of what would have happened absent the program. The objectives of 

this study were to develop a standardized methodology for situations where C&I endusers are able to report on program impacts via self-report methods, and to provide a 

decision framework and guidelines for when the standardized self-report methodology is 

appropriate and when other methods need to be used (e.g., upstream programs). This 

study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

7. Project 6B Comprehensive Design Approach Process Evaluation: This process 

evaluation had two research objectives. The first was to examine whether the 

Comprehensive Design Approach (“CDA”) tracks that are being delivered by National 

Grid, Western Massachusetts Electric Company (“WMECo”) and NSTAR are meeting 

their primary goals. These primary goals are to: 1) maximize energy and demand 

reduction in new construction projects; and 2) influence energy efficiency best practices 

in the commercial design sector. The second research objective was to conduct a 

comparative study of the Advanced Buildings (“AB”) track. This study compares the AB 

tracks delivered by the Massachusetts PAs to those delivered in Maine and Vermont. 

The AB track is similar to CDA but it targets smaller buildings within the commercial 

new construction market and aims to simplify and expedite the participation process by 

using standardized incentive and savings assumptions. In order for customers to receive 

monetary incentives through the AB track, they must incorporate a series of thirteen Core 

Performance requirements into their building designs. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

8. Project 7 General Process Evaluation Final Report: The objective of this process 

evaluation was to look at ways to improve the design and delivery of Massachusetts C&I 

energy efficiency programs that would be applicable to multiple programs. Issues that 

the PAs and the EEAC were particularly interested in included how to increase program 

participation levels, how to obtain deeper energy savings from energy efficiency projects, 

how to improve the integration of electric and gas energy efficiency programs, and how 

to increase the general uniformity of program delivery across the state. This study is 

discussed in more detail in Section III. 

9. Industry Practices and Policies on Energy Efficiency Program Rebate/Incentives: This is 

a high-level scoping study of statewide energy efficiency program incentive and rebate 

levels, the purpose of which was to help inform the policy debate for statewide programs 

in Massachusetts and to support fourth quarter 2010 programmatic planning. This study 

is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is a difference between 

the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % Change 

from Planned. However, the effect of impact evaluation studies is not significant. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 82 of 164

Energy savings, demand savings, and non-electric benefits were impacted to a far greater extent 

by a higher cost of saved energy than planned and different measure mix than by impact 

evaluation study results. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Preliminary Year-End Results 

% Change from Planned is much higher than the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 

Overall, TRC Benefits and Net Benefits were significantly impacted by increases in cost per 

energy savings and changes in measure mix. Variances in TRC Costs relative to plan were not 

as high, but still significant. Even though significantly lower savings were generated from a 

budget that was not significantly different from the plan, the program remained cost-effective. 

c. C&I Small Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The primary objective of the C&I Small Retrofit Program was to provide costeffective, comprehensive electric and gas retrofit services to business customers on a turnkey 

basis using the same delivery model throughout the Commonwealth. 

Targeted Customers: While 2010 stood as a transition year, all PAs moved toward targeting 

direct install retrofit business customers below 300kW. 

Definition of Program Participant: A count of the number of unique sites where a project was 

completed during the program year. 

Targeted End-Uses: 

Lighting 

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning 

Motors & Drives 

Refrigeration 

Hot Water 

Compressed Air 

Process 

Envelope 

Combined Heat & Power 

Delivery Mechanism: Vendors were selected through a competitive bidding process to 

implement the program. These vendors marketed the program, performed facility audits, and 

offered recommendations to customers while completing audit forms and questionnaires. In 

addition the same vendors purchased materials, installed measures, inputted data into a database, 

and prepared progress reports for the PAs on a regular basis. 

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

Docket/Exhibit where Program is Discussed and Approved: The Cape Light Compact’s 2010 

plan was originally approved in the January 28, 2010 DPU order in Docket 09-119. On August 

13, 2010, the Cape Light Compact filed updates to certain of its 2010 programs and pilots 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 83 of 164

(referred to as its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 

2011. 

All Fuels Comprehensive Retrofit Program (Cape Light Compact-specific component of the C&I 

Small Retrofit program)

In 2010, the Compact expanded its small commercial and industrial retrofit program to include 

cost-effective thermal measures designed to save oil, propane and other unregulated fuels. These 

cost-effective measures mirrored those technologies identified as gas measures including, but not 

limited to: programmable thermostats, pre-rinse spray valves, pipe insulation, insulation, air 

sealing, EMS, hood controls and other custom measures, as deemed appropriate. 

Table II.C.6. provides information on the performance of C&I Small Retrofit. 

Value % Change from 

Planned Value % Change from Preliminary

% Change 

from Planned

Expenses

Total Program Costs $ 4,289,871 2,972,638 -31%

Performance Incentive $ 0 0 0%

Participants sites 527 429 -19%

Program Cost / Participant $ 8,140 6,929 -15%

Savings & Benefits

 Energy

Lifetime MWh 86,489 48,465 -44% 54,336 12% -37%

Annualized MWh 7,044 3,916 -44% 4,347 11% -38%

Average Measure Life yrs 12.3 12.4 1% 12.5 1% 2%

Demand

Lifetime kW 21,281 10,005 -53% 9,755 -2% -54%

Annualized

Summer kW 1,720 783 -54% 764 -2% -56%

Winter kW 873 401 -54% 415 4% -52%

Average Measure Life yrs 12.4 12.8 12.8 

NEB (Lifetime) $ (20,597) 1,627,714 8002% 1,627,714 0% 8002%

Cost-Effectiveness

TRC Benefits $ 12,211,928 8,854,250 -27%

TRC Costs $ 4,786,787 3,480,661 -27%

Net Benefits $ 7,425,141 5,373,589 -28%

BCR n/a 2.55 2.54 0%

Table II.C.6: C&I Small Retrofit

Preliminary Year-End Results Evaluated Results Planned 

Value Performance Category Units

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

This program did not spend its budget because there were fewer participants than anticipated and 

the cost per participant was lower than anticipated. It took more time than anticipated to launch 

the statewide marketing efforts, which resulted in a gap between actual participation and planned 

participation. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 84 of 164

Energy savings were significantly lower than planned. As energy savings were significantly 

lower than planned, summer and winter demand savings were also significantly lower than 

planned. There were several reasons for this change. 

● First, savings did not meet the target because the full budget was not spent. 

● Second, there was a shift in measure mix from lighting and refrigeration measures to 

heating, ventilation and air conditioning and motors and drives measures. Lighting 

and refrigeration typically have a lower cost per kWh saved whereas heating, 

ventilation and air conditioning and motors and drives typically have a higher cost per 

kWh saved. 

● Third, similar to C&I Large Retrofit, there was an increase in cost per kWh of energy 

saved across many measures. For example, for government projects, all end uses 

experienced a significant increase in cost per kWh of energy saved relative to the 

plan. Also, government and non-government heating, ventilation and air conditioning 

projects experienced a significant increase in cost per kWh of energy saved relative to 

plan. 

● Lastly, some motors and drives measures were installed which were not planned. 

These measures have a higher cost per kWh of energy saved relative to other 

measures. 

In contrast, non-electric benefits were significantly higher than plan. This is due to the success 

of the All Fuels Comprehensive Retrofit Program, which was well-subscribed. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are four impact evaluation studies that apply to this program including the following: 

1. HBL Market Effects Study Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization - 

Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs’ Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation:

This study estimated the energy savings associated with the changes to a high bay 

lighting market in Massachusetts and assessed the attribution of these changes (i.e. 

market effects) to the PAs’ energy efficiency programs. Specifically, the study supplied 

high bay lighting participant spillover rates that were weighted with all lighting 

participant spillover rates to calculate participant spillover rates that were applied to 

custom and prescriptive lighting measures. The net effect of this study is to increase both 

energy and demand savings for this program. This study is discussed in more detail in 

Section III. 

2. National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Unitil, and Cape Light 

Compact 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-ridership and 

Spillover Study: The study supplied free-ridership and non-participant spillover rates that 

were applied to custom and prescriptive measures within all end uses, as well as 

participant spillover rates that were applied to custom and prescriptive measures within 

all end uses except lighting. The results of this study vary for each end-use category 

within the program. The net effect of these results is to decrease program savings. This 

study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 85 of 164

3. Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts Small Commercial Direct 

Install Program: The study supplied energy realization rates and winter coincidence 

factors for all non-control prescriptive lighting measures. The net effect of this study is 

to increase energy savings and winter demand savings. This study is discussed in more 

detail in Section III. 

4. C&I Lighting Load Shape Project: This was a regional study facilitated by the NEEP 

EM&V Forum building upon a 2007 study done for the New England State Program 

Working Group to develop Commercial and Industrial lighting load shapes and 

coincidence. The study supplied summer coincidence factors for custom and 

prescriptive, non-control lighting measures. The net effect of this study was to slightly 

decrease summer demand savings. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

The combined impact of the studies listed above did not have a significant impact on energy 

savings, demand savings or non-electric benefits for this program. This is primarily due to the 

fact that the free ridership impacts from the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs 

Free-ridership and Spillover Study were not as pronounced as for the C&I New Construction and 

Major Renovation program. Also, energy realization rates increased for all prescriptive noncontrol lighting measures due to the Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts 

Small Commercial Direct Install Program Study. The participant spillover rate also increased for 

all custom and prescriptive lighting measures due to the HBL Market Effects Study. Both of 

these studies had a positive impact on program level savings. 

The following are the process, market characterization and baseline studies that apply to this 

program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results. 

1. Massachusetts Non-Residential Small Business Direct Install Program: Multi-Tier 

Structure Assessment 2010 Process Evaluation: The main objective of the Multi-Tier 

Program Structure Assessment is to document progress towards statewide integration of 

the C&I Direct Install programs during 2010, and to gauge customer interest in different 

program design options such as varying incentive levels, zero interest financing, and onbill financing options. The assessment is also designed to gather information related to 

program satisfaction and awareness. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

2. Cross Cutting C&I Free-Ridership and Spillover Methodology Study Final Report: The 

focus of this study was on the general methods for estimating what would have happened 

absent C&I programs in Massachusetts. The net program effect is the observed effect, 

less the estimate of what would have happened absent the program. The objectives of 

this study were to develop a standardized methodology for situations where C&I endusers are able to report on program impacts via self-report methods, and to provide a 

decision framework and guidelines for when the standardized self-report methodology is 

appropriate and when other methods need to be used (e.g., upstream programs). This 

study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

3. Industry Practices and Policies on Energy Efficiency Program Rebate/Incentives: This is 

a high-level scoping study of statewide energy efficiency program incentive and rebate 

levels, the purpose of which was to help inform the policy debate for statewide programs 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 86 of 164

in Massachusetts and to support fourth quarter 2010 programmatic planning. This study 

is discussed in more detail in Section III. 

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are impact evaluation studies that apply to this program, there is a difference between 

the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % Change 

from Planned. However, the effect of impact evaluation studies is not significant. 

Energy and demand savings and NEBS were impacted to a far greater extent by changes in 

measure mix and a higher cost of saved energy than planned than by impact evaluation study 

results. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from 

Planned is much higher than the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary. 

Overall, TRC Benefits and Net Benefits were significantly impacted by increases in cost per 

energy savings and changes in measure mix. Variances in TRC Costs relative to plan were also 

significant due to lower than anticipated participation and cost per participant. As both benefits 

and cost declined commensurately relative to the plan, the program remained cost-effective with 

a BCR that did not change. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 87 of 164

III. EVALUATION MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES

The purpose of this section is to provide detailed information on the EM&V studies included in 

the Annual Report for each sector. 

A. Summary

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

Reports. 

Studies

Location of Complete 

Study in Annual 

Report

Docket & Exhibit 

Approving Planned 

Evaluation Studies

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Residential Program Studies

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR 

Estimated Maximum Potential Savings from Enhanced 

Code Compliance with the IECC 2009 Residential 

Building Code in Massachusetts 

App. C, Study 1

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR 

Mystery Shopping App. C, Study 2

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY 

STAR Program 2011 Baseline Phase 1: Completion of 

Planning

App. C, Study 3

Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and LowIncome Evaluation - Brushless Fan Motors App. C, Study 4

Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low 

Income Evaluation: Mass Save App. C, Study 5

2010 Net to Gross Findings: Home Energy 

Assessment App. C, Study 6

Non-Electric Impact (NEI) Findings for the 2010 Mass 

Save Home Energy Services (Mass Save) program App. C, Study 7

Massachusetts ENERGY STAR Lighting Program: 

2010 Annual Report App. C, Study 8

Massachusetts Appliance Turn-in Program Evaluation 

Integrated Report Findings App. C, Study 9

Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for 

Residential Programs – Suggested Approaches (Final) App. C, Study 10

Estimated Net-To-Gross (NTG) Factors for the 

Massachusetts Program Administrators (PAs) 2010 

Residential New Construction Programs, Residential 

HEHE and Multi-Family Gas Programs, and 

Commercial and Industrial Gas Programs 

App. C, Study 11

HEHE Process and Impact Evaluation App. C, Study 12

Table III.A: Evaluation Studies in Annual Report

All Studies are 

pending approval of 

the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 

2010); some studies 

were initiated prior 

to the MTM filing

All Studies are 

implemented as 

described in the as 

yet unapproved 

2011 MTM (filed 

Oct. 2010)
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 88 of 164

Studies

Location of Complete 

Study in Annual 

Report

Docket & Exhibit 

Approving Planned 

Evaluation Studies

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Residential Pilot Studies

Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low 

Income Evaluation – Deep Energy Retrofit App. C, Study 13

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR 

Process Evaluation of the Four to Eight Story MultiFamily New Construction Pilot Interim Findings 

App. C, Study 14

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY 

STAR Program Major Renovations Pilot Evaluation: 

Preliminary Report on Non-Participant Interviews 

App. C, Study 15

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY 

STAR Program Version 3 Pilot Evaluation App. C, Study 16

Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Process 

Evaluation App. C, Study 17

Low-Income Program Studies

Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low 

Income Evaluation: Low Income App. C, Study 18

All Studies are 

pending approval of 

the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 

2010); some studies 

were initiated prior 

to the MTM filing

All Studies are 

implemented as 

described in the as 

yet unapproved 

2011 MTM (filed 

Oct. 2010)

Table III.A: Evaluation Studies in Annual Report (cont'd)

All Studies are 

pending approval of 

the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 

2010); some studies 

were initiated prior 

to the MTM filing

All Studies are 

implemented as 

described in the as 

yet unapproved 

2011 MTM (filed 

Oct. 2010)
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 89 of 164

Studies

Location of Complete 

Study in Annual 

Report

Docket & Exhibit 

Approving Planned 

Evaluation Studies

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Commercial & Industrial Program Studies

Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the 

Massachusetts Small Commercial Direct Install 

Program 

App. C, Study 19

Massachusetts Non-Residential Small Business Direct 

Install Program: Multi-Tier Structure Assessment 2010 

Process Evaluation 

App. C, Study 20

Final Report HBL Market Effects Study Project 1A 

New Construction Market Characterization App. C, Study 21

FINAL Commercial New Construction Customer 

Quantitative Profile Project 1A New Construction 

Market Characterization 

App. C, Study 22

Supply Chain Profile Project 1A New Construction 

Market Characterization App. C, Study 23

Final Report Project 1B Chain & Franchise Market 

Characterization App. C, Study 24

Impact Evaluation of 2009 Custom HVAC Installations App. C, Study 25

Final Report Project 1C Combined Heat &Power 

Market Characterization App. C, Study 26

Project 6B Comprehensive Design Approach Process 

Evaluation App. C, Study 27

Impact Evaluation of 2008 and 2009 Custom CDA 

Installations App. C, Study 28

Project 7 General Process Evaluation Final Report App. C, Study 29

2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs 

Free-ridership and Spillover Final Report App. C, Study 30

C&I Lighting Measure Life and Persistence Project App. C, Study 31

C&I Lighting Loadshape App. C, Study 32

C&I Unitary HVAC Loadshape Project Final Report App. C, Study 33

Cross Cutting C&I Free Ridership and Spillover 

Methodology Study Final Report App. C, Study 34

Prescriptive Condensing Boiler Impact Evaluation 

Project 5 Prescriptive Gas App. C, Study 35

All Studies are 

implemented as 

described in the as 

yet unapproved 

2011 MTM (filed 

Oct. 2010)

Table III.A: Evaluation Studies in Annual Report (cont'd)

All Studies are 

pending approval of 

the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 

2010); some studies 

were initiated prior 

to the MTM filing
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 90 of 164

Studies

Location of Complete 

Study in Annual 

Report

Docket & Exhibit 

Approving Planned 

Evaluation Studies

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Special & Cross-Sector Studies

Industry Practices and Policies on Energy Efficient 

Program Rebate/Incentives App. C, Study 36

Community Based Partnership Interim Process 

Evaluation App. C, Study 37

Cape Light Compact-Specific Studies

Findings from In-Depth Interviews with Smart Energy 

Monitoring Pilot Participants App. C, Study 38

All Studies are 

pending approval of 

the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 

2010); some studies 

were initiated prior 

to the MTM filing

All Studies are 

implemented as 

described in the as 

yet unapproved 

2011 MTM (filed 

Oct. 2010)

All Studies are 

implemented as 

described in the as 

yet unapproved 

Table III.A: Evaluation Studies in Annual Report (cont'd)

All Studies are 

pending approval of 

the 2011 MTM, 

D.P.U. 10-147, 

B. Residential Program Studies

1. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Estimated Potential 

Savings from Enhanced Code Compliance with the IECC 2009 

Residential Building Code in Massachusetts (Study 1) 

Type of Study: Other 

Objective of the Study: The objective of this study was to estimate the potential savings for the 

years 2011, 2012, and 2013 that may be achieved through promoting compliance with the newlyadopted International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”) 2009 energy code for four measures 

(wall insulation, basement insulation, proper insulation of ducts in unconditioned spaces, and 

fifty percent high efficacy lamp requirement) in order to provide needed guidance to the PAs on 

the implementation and evaluation costs that may be justified. Compliance enhancement efforts 

would focus on PAs’ trainings of builders, subcontractors, and code officials as the potential 

savings presented in the report focus on homes that do not participate in the Massachusetts New 

Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric & Gas) 

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric & Gas)
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 91 of 164

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations from this study as 

the main purpose was to derive potential savings from code enhancement efforts for the 

measures mentioned above. 

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 1. 

2. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Mystery Shopping 

(Study 2) 

Type of Study: Other 

Objective of the Study: This report presents the findings of ten mystery shopping visits to 

ENERGY STAR® homes conducted in the summer of 2010. The results presented provide 

insight into the current marketing strategies of agents listing ENERGY STAR® homes, and the 

effect of program-sponsored trainings on these marketing strategies. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric & Gas) 

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric & Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 Continue Be a Star with ENERGY STAR trainings. There was a noticeable difference in 

the knowledge of agents who had attended the training compared to those who had not. 

The agents who had attended training seemed to understand and market more aspects of 

their ENERGY STAR listings, and generally spent more time discussing the energy 

efficiency features of the home. 

2 Expand trainings to include builders. Builders are well versed in their homes’ specific 

energy efficiency measures and the benefits of those measures, but that knowledge often 

was not passed on to the developments’ sales representatives. Builders might benefit 

from training that provides guidance on how to train their own sales representatives to 

fully market the benefits of ENERGY STAR homes. 

3 Focus a portion of trainings on the HERS index and HERS ratings. All ENERGY 

STAR homes are not created equal, and agents should take advantage of the increased 

marketability of homes with low HERS ratings. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 92 of 164

4 Encourage agents to attend all of the inspection stages of an ENERGY STAR home.

This will ensure that agents have a better understanding of both the components (e.g., 

insulation and duct work) of an ENERGY STAR home, and the thoroughness of the 

certification process. In addition, by attending the various inspection stages, agents are 

likely to gain a better understanding of the technical terms (e.g., blower door and duct 

blaster) that are associated with ENERGY STAR homes. 

5 Encourage agents to walk through an ENERGY STAR brochure or fact sheet with 

potential homebuyers. This simple step will guide potential buyers through the benefits 

of ENERGY STAR qualified homes, providing technical reference where needed, and it 

will ensure that the major bullet points of ENERGY STAR homes are covered during 

every showing. 

6 Encourage agents to build on consumers’ preexisting knowledge of ENERGY STAR for 

appliances and electronics, emphasizing the value of the ENERGY STAR brand name.

Agents might have better success marketing these homes by emphasizing to buyers that 

the ENERGY STAR label for homes is just an extension of the ENERGY STAR label 

they already know and trust, found on appliances, heating and cooling equipment, 

lighting and electronic products in their homes. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Recommendations are based on 

findings from ten mystery shopping visits to ENERGY STAR® homes, conducted in the 

summer of 2010. Four of the real estate and sales agents visited had recently attended a 

program- sponsored Be a Star with ENERGY STAR® training session (these were the only 

attendees that had suitable homes for sale at the time of the visits). All ten agents visited were 

ranked on a scale of zero to ten, where zero was “not at all willing or knowledgeable” and ten 

was “extremely willing or knowledgeable” in the following four areas: knowledge of energy 

efficiency, knowledge of ENERGY STAR® certification, willingness to use energy efficiency as 

a selling point, and willingness to use ENERGY STAR® certification as a selling point. 

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

Why: All recommendations above have been adopted and are being incorporated into the 

program through continuation and enhancement of various training efforts. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 2. 

3. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program 2011 

Baseline Phase 1: Completion of Planning (Study 3) 

Type of Study: Baseline 

Objective of the Study: This report describes the planning process for the 2011 Baseline Study 

and the work done to develop a sample of eligible homes to recruit from; on-site inspections will 

be conducted in the summer of 2011. This study will include on-site inspections of 100 nonENERGY STAR® homes built to meet the new IECC 2009 code, which became mandatory in 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 93 of 164

Massachusetts on July 1, 2010. The results of this study will be used to update the baseline or 

User Defined Reference Home used in calculating Program savings and to assess building code 

compliance at the beginning of a code cycle. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric & Gas) 

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric & Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations from this study as 

the main purpose was to document the planning process of the Baseline study. 

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 3. 

4. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low-Income Evaluation -

Brushless Fan Motors (Study 4)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The report presents the results of the process evaluation of the 

Brushless Fan Motor (“BFM”) component of the 2010 COOL SMART program. The objectives 

of the study were to determine the following: program processes, implementation strengths, and 

areas for improvements; program tracking data sufficiency; contractor practices, perceptions, and 

participation barriers; customer behavior, motivations, awareness, and satisfaction; program 

outreach and recruitment efficacy; and participants’ potential changes in fan use, from pre- to 

post-installation. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential Cooling and Heating Equipment (Electric) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 Consider including a unique participation identifier (such as an ID number), BFM 

manufacturer and model numbers (which would prove helpful for verification purposes); 

and add a parameter to capture numbers of motors incented per home (which would help 

indicate if contractors are paid for more than two motors per home). 

2 Explore options for making program participation more cost-effective for contractors. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 94 of 164

For example, consider allowing contractors to bill customers for parts or labor that 

exceed a “typical” installation. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The process evaluation of the BFM 

included: in-depth telephone interviews with PA and implementer staff; qualitative in-depth 

interviews with participating and nonparticipating (in the COOL SMART BFM program 

component) HVAC contractors; and surveys with participating customers. In addition to the 

primary data collection the study reviewed BFM program materials addressing marketing, 

implementation, and the participant database. Based on the information obtained, the Cadmus 

team used its professional judgment and evaluation experience to offer recommendations aimed 

at improving program processes where appropriate. 

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

Why: 

1 To assist with future evaluation needs, the PAs will work with the implementation 

vendors and internal support groups to ensure that all appropriate data is collected. If the 

data is captured early on this could potentially minimize data requests and on-site visits 

to customer homes. 

2 The PAs, together with the implementation vendor and other trade allies, including 

HVAC distributors, will explore market opportunities and implementation 

strategies to enhance contractor participation. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 4. 

5. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low Income Evaluation: 

Mass Save (Study 5)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: For the 2010 process evaluation, the Cadmus team focused on 

assessing program processes and identifying similarities and differences between the 

perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, and customers regarding 

program goals, design, and implementation. The Cadmus team also reviewed the process by 

which program data are collected, managed, and reported, including an assessment of the quality 

and consistency of the program data across PAs. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 95 of 164

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● MassSAVE (Electric & Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 

Due to concerns among all stakeholders, the potential integration of Home Performance 

Contractors (“HPCs”) should occur slowly and in collaboration with PAs, vendors, and 

program contractors. Clear protocols for and expectations regarding program delivery by 

HPCs should be developed and disseminated. 

2 

Consider developing a standard set of tasks and responsibilities assigned to contractors 

installing measures in a customer’s home, uniform across all PA territories. These would 

include how jobs are presented to contractors, contractors’ responsibilities, and reports 

and invoices contractors are expected to submit to vendors upon completion of jobs. 

3 

Explore opportunities to assist customers in addressing health and safety issues, as well as 

knob and tube wiring removal, to further eliminate barriers and improve participation 

rates. The Cadmus team suggests expanding the existing financing options to cover these 

critical pre-participation issues. 

4 

• Develop a standardized identification system for participants, premises, projects, and 

measures. The consistent use of customer and premise identification associated with 

the tracking record will allow tracking of historic program activity and activity in 

other programs. 

• Ensure a minimum set of fields is collected and maintained for future evaluation work 

(see Appendix H). 

• Maintain a data dictionary for all critical program datasets that includes all field 

definitions, value definitions, and the sources of the data. The data dictionaries should 

be provided as part of all data requests, allowing evaluators (or any other third-party) 

to decode field names and data values efficiently. The data dictionaries would also 

ensure internal knowledge of the database is not lost in the event of critical personnel 

turnover. 

• Develop and employ a standardized measure naming convention. The Technical 

Reference Manual (“TRM”) could be used as the basis for standard names. This 

convention would allow for improved evaluability and add transparency to the 

measure-tracking process. The Cadmus team specifically recommends a four-part 

measure naming convention, which includes varying levels of detail for each program 

stakeholder, denoting the measure’s end-use, group, type, and detail. Such a measure 

naming convention would clearly relate each measure in the program tracking data to 

its TRM counterpart. 

5 Revisit customer service and follow-up strategies. Although all vendors reported use of a 

rigorous follow-up procedure, and vendors ensure customer support is readily available 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 96 of 164

when customers call, additional customer service in the form of outreach, regular checkins, and follow-up phone calls could improve participation and satisfaction. 

6 Consider offering incentives to auditors based on implementation percentages or another 

participation goal designed to increase follow-through participation. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The RCS program evaluation 

included PA program manager interviews, program vendor staff interviews, program contractor 

interviews, PA data manager interviews, a data review, and participant interviews. Based on 

information obtained from these stakeholders, the Cadmus team used its professional judgment 

and experience evaluating energy efficiency programs to offer recommendations aimed at 

improving program processes where appropriate. 

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

Why: 

1 

The integration of HPCs began with a small pilot in 2010. In 2011, the introduction of 

additional HPCs is being rolled out using information gained from the 2010 pilot. Clear 

energy assessment, software use and reporting guidelines are in place.

2 The PAs have developed consistent statewide material and installation standards, as well 

as, Energy Assessment standards. 

3 

The PAs are also exploring the opportunity to expand financing to include the mitigation 

of health and safety barriers. This will require regulatory approval and will be addressed 

using proper regulatory avenues. 

4 The PAs are working with the evaluation team to ensure they are better able to aggregate 

and/or compare measure savings in the future, where possible. 

5 The PAs are developing concrete follow up strategies to ensure constant follow up 

communication with customers. Many PA lead vendors have already established follow 

up protocols. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 5. 

6. 2010 Net to Gross Findings: Home Energy Assessment (Study 6) 

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The objective of the study was to develop Net-to-Gross (“NTG”) 

estimates for the Home Energy Services program at the measure level. The Home Energy 

Services program incorporates both Mass Save and the gas Weatherization programs. The 

research was designed to include freeridership, participant spillover and non-participant spillover 

in the analysis. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 97 of 164

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● MassSAVE (Electric & Gas) 

● Weatherization (Gas) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 

2010 Home Energy Services NTG Findings 

Measure Category Measure Participant 

Freeridership 

Participant 

Spillover 

Nonparticipant 

Spillover 

NTG 

CFL Direct Installs CFL 22% 19% 0% 97% 

Direct Installs Air Leak Sealing 7% 0% 0% 93% 

Programmable 

Thermostat 

11% 0% 0% 89% 

Heating System 28% 0% 0% 72% 

Insulation 20% 8% 50% 138% 

Refrigerator 5% 0% 0% 95% 

Incented Measures 

Water Heater 25% 0% 0% 75% 

Overall 18% 7% 23% 112% 

The 2010 Home Energy Services program NTG estimates are based on three combined 

approaches: 

1. Customer Self-Reports. Customer self-reported Free Rider (“FR”) and Participant 

Spillover (“SP”) through surveys of 2010 RCS (electric) and gas Weatherization 

participants. As shown in Table 1, this analysis considered all program measures. A 

survey of 1,200 electric and 400 gas participants informed the analysis. 

2. Statistical Market Share Modeling. Discrete choice modeling of FR and Non Participant 

Spillover (“NPS”) used 400 gas Weatherization participant and 400 nonparticipant 

surveys. This analysis did not include the 1,200 electric participants surveyed in fall 

2010, as the questionnaire used was not designed for these models. The 2010 NTG 

analysis also focused on insulation and duct sealing/duct insulation (collectively referred 

to as insulation), the most important measures in terms of savings. 

3. Trade Ally Research. Interviews with more than 30 insulation contractors focused on 

participant and nonparticipant insulation installations, and attribution of self-reported 

nonparticipant jobs as spillover. 

Final participant FR, PS, NPS, and NTG values are composite estimates (rather than a simple 

average) of the various research methods employed. The estimates were developed using a 

triangulation process, incorporating the Cadmus teams’ experience, professional judgment, and 

understanding of the programs. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 98 of 164

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 Programs: 

NTG = 1 – [participant freeridership] + [participant spillover] + 

[nonparticipant spillover] 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: The results of the study are 

adopted. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 6. 

7. Non-Electric Impact (NEI) Findings for the 2010 Mass Save Home Energy 

Services (Mass Save) program (Study 7)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The study summarized Cadmus’ review of the non-electric impacts 

(“NEIs”) claimed for the 2011 Mass Save Home Energy Services (“Mass Save”) program by the 

PAs. For the purpose of this study, NEIs were defined as program-driven effects on the 

consumption of energy other than electricity, such as natural gas (not claimed by a gas PA), 

water, fuel oil and propane. 

Cadmus’ review consisted of determining the source of the current NEI values and 

independently estimating measure-specific NEIs, using the best available PA program data and 

secondary sources to assess the reasonableness of the current values. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● MassSAVE (Electric Only) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The review consisted of 

determining the source of the current NEI values and independently estimating measure-specific 

NEIs, using the best available PA program data and secondary sources to assess the 

reasonableness of the current values. 

It was determined that the current PA NEI values were generated based on summaries of audit 

tool outputs for each program home. These values were driven by inputs from MassSave 

vendors regarding home characteristics for participants realizing NEIs. These are primarily from 

program homes for which the primary space heating fuel is neither electricity nor natural gas. 

An independent assessment of NEI estimates was conducted and found the current vendorprovided values were reasonable. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 99 of 164

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please see Table 

II.A.7. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: Not 

Applicable. 

If The Results Of The Study Are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: The results of the study 

are adopted.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 7. 

8. Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program: 2010 Annual Report 

(Study 8)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The primary objectives of this impact evaluation was to estimate netto-gross ratios (“NTGR”) for all markdown compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”), including 

separate estimates for spiral and specialty bulbs and bulbs targeted at hard-to-reach (“HTR”) 

customers. The evaluators were also charged with assessing the PAs’ current working definition 

of HTR customers and understanding market segmentation related to HTR customers. The 

evaluators also described the current state of the market for CFLs and other efficient lighting 

technologies, comparing to results from prior years when possible. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Lighting Program (Electric) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The evaluators 

recommend using a 0.43 NTGR for spiral CFLs and 0.60 for specialty CFLs, or 0.47 overall for 

the 2009 and 2010 program years. The evaluators came to this recommendation through the 

results of five different NTGR estimation methods completed for the 2009 and 2010 

Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® lighting program: 1) conjoint study, 2) multistate modeling, 3) 

revealed preference, 4) supplier interviews, and 5) willingness to pay. The evaluators then 

convened a Delphi panel and provided each panelist with the results of these studies as well as 

background information on the history of the Massachusetts ENERGY STAR® lighting program 

and trends in NTG ratios for Massachusetts and other states. The Delphi panel responded to an 

initial request to estimate NTG ratios for spiral, specialty, and overall CFLs, and then had the 

opportunity to revise their estimates after reviewing the responses of their fellow panelist. The 

final NTGR estimates from the Delphi panel serve as the evaluation-recommended NTGR. The 

methods did not provide conclusive evidence to support a recommendation of a NTGR for HTR 

customers. The PAs and EEAC consultants have agreed to use the 0.60 specialty NTGR for 

HTR customers. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 100 of 164

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please see Table 

II.A.8. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: 

Net savings = gross savings * in service rate * NTGR. 

The planning NTGR value will be updated with the evaluated NTGR results. 

Markdown spirals will go from .30 to .43, specialty markdown bulbs change from 

0.8 to 0.6, and HTR markdown bulbs change from 0.7 to 0.6. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: The results of the study are 

adopted. 

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

9. Massachusetts Appliance Turn-in Program Impact Evaluation Final (Study 

9) 

Type of Study: Impact and Process 

Objective of the Study: The Massachusetts Appliance Turn-in program collects and recycles 

working refrigerators and stand-alone freezers that are being used as second units from 

residential customers. 

The primary evaluation activities consisted of a participant survey, a process evaluation, and 

estimation of net program savings impacts derived by applying participant-reported decision 

behavior about program influence and usage patterns to gross savings estimates from studies 

conducted in other areas. These gross and net savings estimates were compared to ex ante 

savings estimates currently used by the PAs. A secondary focus of the evaluation effort included 

an exploration of the secondary market and disposal market that exists for appliances to provide 

insight about how the program functions in the overall appliance market. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances (Electric) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The updated gross and 

impact estimates derived in this study are based on two methodologies. The first methodology 

used unit energy consumption (“UEC”) estimates from the Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers. The second methodology applied Massachusetts’ refrigerator characteristics to 

the DOE-based model utilized by Cadmus in their 2010 evaluation of the California Appliance 

Recycling Program. Under each of the NMR methodologies, UECs were adjusted to account for 

partial use, equipment replacement, and free ridership, values that were derived from the 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 101 of 164

participant survey. While the program targeted secondary units for recycling, three distinct types 

of units were identified in the study—secondary units that were replaced with another unit, 

secondary units that were not replaced, and primary units. The study revealed that each type of 

recycled unit had a different energy savings profile. 

Process related conclusions are based on the participant survey, depth interviews with Sponsors 

and the implementation contractor, and exploration of the secondary market and disposal market 

for appliances outside of the program. 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 Use updated gross and net impact estimates for the program—Overall, the net savings 

estimate for refrigerators is 522 kWh/year and for freezers is 391 kWh/year. The ex ante

estimates used by the Sponsors are 724 kWh. 

2 Weigh the value of removing primary refrigerators—The Sponsors should consider either 

reducing the number of primary fridges removed by the program by reinforcing the 

requirement (e.g., in marketing materials and verification of eligibility) or alternatively, 

opening up the program to include primary fridges. 

3 Consider partnering with major retailers to market and implement the program. Major 

retailers could promote the program in their stores to customers who may be making a 

decision to keep or discard an existing unit. Using retailers would necessitate a shift in 

targeted appliances for the program—the program would be more likely to pick up 

primary refrigerators and nearly dead units. 

4 Target missed appointments—Attempt to reschedule appointments with customers who 

have missed appointments for recycling pickup using post cards, phone calls, and emails. 

The program already offers Saturday pick-ups and choices for pick-up times based on 

schedule and geography, but additional effort should be made to give these customers 

priority for pick-up times that might include Saturdays, early mornings, evenings, next 

day pick-up, or small, one- to two-hour windows for pick-up times. Messaging with 

these customers should reinforce their good decision making for initiating the removal 

and recycling of an appliance through the program. 

5 Adjust goals to reflect demographics of the residential customer base for each Sponsor—

Service areas in NSTAR and Western Massachusetts Electric have a large number of 

apartments and multi-family homes and residents typically do not have areas where they 

can keep second refrigerators, such as basements or garages. Adjusting the goals of the 

program to reflect the pool of single family homes may result in more realistic targets for 

these Sponsors.

6 Educate participants about the program goals—The program should emphasize that the 

primary goal of the program is to save energy and reduce demand on the electric grid by 

removing older, less efficient secondary refrigerators and stand-alone freezers. The 

program helps customers get rid of the appliances before they might do so on their own. 

Reductions in energy bills and the participation incentive are additional bonuses for 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 102 of 164

customers.

7 Continue messaging about the ease of removal through the program—Physical and 

financial barriers may encourage some consumers to keep their secondary appliances, 

and marketing the program to residents faced with these barriers might allow the 

Sponsors to collect additional units that would not otherwise be removed from the grid. 

8 Continue promoting the program through existing channels—The Sponsors’ 

communications network to customers through bill inserts, notations on bills, 

newsletters, and emails should continue to be used to promote the program on a 

continuous basis, or when a quick boost in participation is desired. Promotions through 

schools and community groups and options for rebate donations to these groups help to 

promote the program and provide a community service.

9 Reinforce the idea of saving energy by not using appliances that are not essential and 

buying products with the ENERGY STAR® label—Tell participants how much energy 

and money they saved by getting rid of their inefficient model and will continue to save 

if they do not replace the appliance. If they must replace the appliance, encourage them 

to consider the more efficient ENERGY STAR® labeled units.

10 Sponsors should consider reaching out to Craigslist sellers. Units offered on Craigslist 

are likely to be working units. The average listing price on Craigslist was $230 more 

than the program’s incentive. However, 10% of units were $50 or less, and 23% percent 

were $100 or less, and six postings offered their refrigerator for free. Although those 

with high-value refrigerators may not be dissuaded from selling them on Craigslist, 

sellers with low-priced units may prefer the ease and environmental benefits of the 

program. 

11 Let participants know about the environmental benefits they generated—It should also be 

emphasized that appliances will be recycled in a way that is less harmful to the 

environment than other disposal options. They will not be sold, donated to charity, or 

disposed of in a landfill. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: 

Please see Table II.A.9. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: Not 

Applicable. 

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

Why: 

1 The PAs have adopted the net savings estimates. 

2 The PAs will look into the best approach for handling primary refrigerators in the future. 

3 The PAs have looked into partnering with retailers in the past but have not had much 

success with retailers embracing this program as many/most retailers have pickup/recycling programs of their own in which they charge customers for picking up 

appliances and, therefore, make a profit. The PAs will continue to investigate whether 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 103 of 164

other retailers are willing to partner with us on this program. 

4 JACO (the recycling vendor) currently has a missed appointment procedure where they 

follow up on all missed appointments via multiple phone calls and letters, if necessary. 

The PAs will work with JACO to see if setting a priority pick-up for these customers is 

possible. 

5 Currently, each PA adjusts goals annually after assessing the previous year’s results. 

6 All of the print marketing materials (the primary marketing outlet for this program) refers 

to “saving energy” and the first sentence of the ad’s body copy discusses how an “old 

refrigerator uses up to four times more electricity than a new one.” The PAs will 

highlight this benefit more often where possible. 

7 Marketing materials do mention “We’ll even haul it away for FREE.” There is potential 

to highlight this benefit more prominently and the PAs will look into that, where 

possible. 

8 The PAs will continue to promote the program through existing channels. Some PAs 

have supplemented their program with additional marketing to help lift participation 

(NSTAR purchased billboards, transit advertising and sent out a direct mail piece to 

50,000 customers. NSTAR & NGRID are also purchasing radio advertising). 

9 All of the PA’s advertising currently highlights energy savings more than once by having 

a specific call-out on ads with the savings message in a prominent spot as well as text in 

the ad that states “...you could save up to $150 a year on your electricity usage.” The 

PAs will continue to focus on this energy savings benefit with marketing efforts. 

10 If reaching out to Craigslist sellers could be justified with a higher volume of units on 

the site, then it could be considered. It seems that the majority of listings on Craigslist 

are priced significantly higher than the program’s incentive and this may not be a good 

use of time and money. 

11 Environmental benefits are currently highlighted in most of the PAs marketing materials 

as the ads state, “Plus, recycling that fridge will keep 10 tons of carbon dioxide out of the 

atmosphere, which means a lot more clean air for our future.” The PAs will continue to 

focus on this environmental message with marketing efforts. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 9. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 104 of 164

10. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology Study for Residential Programs 

– Suggested Approaches (Final) (Study 10) 

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The primary objective of this methodology study was to develop 

suggested approaches for consideration by the PAs for estimating net program impacts for the 

Massachusetts PAs’ residential programs by reviewing the revised methodology report for C&I 

programs (2010) and adapting the decision framework and methodology guidelines to programs 

targeted to residential customers. The study team particularly sought to identify residential 

programs for which market-level approaches to measuring net-to-gross effects, rather than 

standard self-report methods, might be appropriate and feasible. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric and Gas) 

● Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment (Electric) 

● Multi-Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas) 

● MassSave (Electric and Gas) 

● Behavior/Feedback Program (Electric and Gas) 

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric) 

● ENERGY STAR® Appliances (Electric) 

● Residential Heating and Water Heating (Gas) 

● Weatherization Program (Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: The study included suggested methodologies for 

PAs to consider in future NTG evaluations for the above programs. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The evaluation team first conducted 

a review of the PAs’ current residential programs, focusing on program elements most relevant 

to methodological decisions regarding the estimation of net effects. As part of the program 

review, the study team reviewed the three-year plans and information collected from the PAs by 

the NMR team and interviewed PA staff about their residential programs. Based on the program 

information garnered from the program review, the Net Savings Scoping Paper, and the decision 

matrix from the C&I report (adapted to the context of the residential programs), the evaluation 

developed suggested approaches for consideration by the PAs for estimating net-to-gross effects 

for each residential program. 

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

Why: In general, the Cape Light Compact adopts results from an evaluation study which are 

supported by the data generated from the study. The Cape Light Compact will incorporate the 

findings of this study into the planning process for future evaluations of Net-to-Gross ratios for 

residential programs. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 10. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 105 of 164

11. Estimated Net-To-Gross (NTG) Factors for the Massachusetts Program 

Administrators (PAs) 2010 Residential New Construction Programs, 

Residential HEHE19 and Multi-Family Gas Programs, and C&I Gas 

Programs (Study 11)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The object of the study was to assist the Massachusetts PAs in 

identifying a reasonable estimated NTG factor for the 2010 Residential New Construction 

programs; C&I programs; Multi-Family Retrofit and Residential High Efficiency Heating and 

Water Heating programs. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas) 

● Residential Heating and Water Heating (Gas) 

● Multi-Family Retrofit (Gas) 

● C&I New Construction & Major Renovation (Gas) 

● C&I Retrofit (Gas) 

● C&I Direct Install (Gas) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 

Program Type Recommended NTGR 

Residential New Construction 1.00 

C&I Gas 

 Custom 0.96 

 Prescriptive 0.83 

Residential HEHE and Multi-family 

 Boiler controls—HEHE NTGR 1.0 (Residential) 

 Boilers—HEHE Spillover: 0 .14 (Residential) 

 Furnace/ECM furnace—HEHE Spillover: 0.19 (Residential) 

 Insulation NTGR 0.8 (Multifamily) 

 Programmable thermostats NTGR 0.88 (Multifamily) 

 0.42 (Residential) 

 Misc water heating equipment NTGR 0.63 (Residential) 

 Water saving devices NTGR 0.77 (Multifamily) 

 Windows NTGR 0.8 (Combined MF & Res) 

The evaluation contractors (Tetra Tech, NMR, and KEMA) reviewed secondary literature 

including program impact evaluations, utility filings, and Market Effects studies to develop the 

 

19 HEHE is an acronym for the Residential High Efficiency Heating and Water Heating Equipment Program.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 106 of 164

above recommendations. Given the short time frame allotted for this work, they focused the 

search for information on a limited number of readily available sources. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Sections II.A.2 and II.C.2 for each of the programs listed above. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: Not 

Applicable. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: The results of the study are 

adopted. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 11. 

12. HEHE Process and Impact Evaluation (Study 12) 

Type of Study: Process and Impact 

Objective of the Study: The objective of the process portion of this study was to assess the 

effectiveness of marketing efforts, program satisfaction and data tracking. The process 

evaluation focused on understanding the program: (1) from program implementation and 

delivery perspectives including program staff, implementation contractors, circuit riders, supply 

houses, rebate processors, and participating and nonparticipating heating and plumbing 

contractors; and (2) from end use customer perspectives including program participants and 

nonparticipants.

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential Heating and Water Heating (Gas) 

Recommendations Derived From The Study: 

1 Drop all current rebates for furnaces, forced hot water boilers, steam boilers, and water 

heaters 

2 Assess the feasibility of working to effect a change in the state standards for forced hot 

water boilers to 90% AFUE 

3 Consider a new program for early replacement of newer, less efficient boilers 

4 Continue to nurture relationship with contractors because of the key role they play in 

customer education and energy-efficient equipment purchase and installation. 

i. The program should evaluate the potential savings from offering an installation 

incentive to contractors for adhering to energy-efficient criteria for equipment 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 107 of 164

sizing, duct testing, and duct sealing. 

ii. The program should educate contractors and participants on correct usage of 

ECM furnace fans, and check settings during verification visits. 

iii. The HEHE program can further increase its value to contractors by helping 

them grow their businesses through energy-efficient installations. Examples of 

approaches that would be attractive to them include offering co-op advertising 

and providing referrals. 

iv. Make greater efforts to reach out to nonparticipating contractors. Approaches 

to doing so could include: 

o Facilitating program participation by older contractors. Examples of 

approaches might be to have exhibits at trade shows that demonstrate 

installations of high-efficiency systems, and if possible, demonstrate 

how the installation practices are simply an extension of what 

techniques they are already familiar with. 

o Increasing the number and frequency of educational offerings. 

5 Conduct a survey of distributors in HEHE states and elsewhere to get a better estimate 

of market-level sales by efficiency level, and the possible long-term spillover both 

within and outside the HEHE states 

How the Study Came To The Recommended Conclusions: The recommendations were based 

on information gathered during the data collection activities for the process evaluation. These 

included in-depth interviews with program staff, program implementer staff, program 

contractors, rebate processing contractors, circuit riders, and supply houses / big box stores; and 

telephone surveys of HEHE program participants from the 2007-08 and 2009 program years, oilto-gas conversion customers including HEHE participants and nonparticipants, general 

population program nonparticipants, participating and nonparticipating contractors, and 

contractors attending the Fall 2009 HEHE Annual Conference. 

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

Why: Not applicable to the Cape Light Compact as the results of this study affect gas PAs only. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 12. 

13. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low Income Evaluation –

Deep Energy Retrofit (Study 13)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The overarching goal of the 2010 Deep Energy Retrofit pilot 

evaluation was to provide the PAs/implementers with actionable findings and recommendations 

aimed at increasing customer and contractor participation, as well as refining pilot program’s 

delivery. As the investigations progressed, effort focused on identifying information to aid in 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 108 of 164

formulating a consensus about the pilot’s mission and goals, rather than fine-tuning delivery 

mechanisms. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot (Electric & Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 Restructure and refocus the pilot. The pilot is primarily focused on completing 

projects. Though pilot performance will clearly fall short of the cost-effective energy 

saving goals, it is still valuable. The Cadmus team recommends restructuring the pilot as 

a research effort with a voluntary board and implementation team (both of which could 

include PA members) and refocusing the research on activities that will lead to a scalable 

program. Resolving some inherent policy issues and establishing a pathway to lowering 

costs and overall cost-effectiveness should be a near term focus of the research effort. 

2 Seek to fill program gaps. Customers, as well as some stakeholders, have identified the 

need for energy efficiency services that fill the gap between basic PA programs (e.g., 

Home Energy Assessment) and comprehensive deep retrofits: Two possible solutions are: 

Partial deep retrofits. Identify a DER track that meets the needs of customers who are 

prepared for a major project but are not willing or able to commit to all the requirements 

of a comprehensive DER project. This could be accomplished by providing incentives for 

deep retrofits of one building system at a time, possibly when normal maintenance would 

take place, such as re-roofing, re-siding, or window replacements. Such partial deep 

retrofits, with much smaller up-front costs, might attract a larger number of homeowners, 

and would greatly reduce the size of an incentive provided to any one customer. 

Deep (but not as deep) retrofits. As reported by several PAs and also in the 

Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020, there is need for a middle ground 

between the level of savings provided by the current relatively low-cost programs and the 

very high savings achieved at a high cost in the pilot homes. Customer re-roofing and residing events present opportunities for additional savings at a relatively low cost. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The process evaluation included 

interviews with 40 of the approximately 120 participating customers (including in process, 

completed and drop-out participants), fifteen contractors, and nine stakeholders. Pilot material 

was reviewed, including marketing material, websites, and project files. Based on the 

information obtained, the Cadmus team used evaluation experience to offer recommendations 

aimed at improving program processes where appropriate. 

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

Why: It is both evident in this report and in practice that deep energy retrofits are extremely 

complex projects and require additional research and cost-effectiveness study for it to be a viable 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 109 of 164

initiative as a stand-alone program or for its complex measures to be incorporated into existing 

programs going forward. The Cape Light Compact supports the idea of further research in this 

area to better quantify incremental costs of these deeper savings measures and to focus on what 

can be done to reduce the costs associated with complex efforts such as this. Future study should 

provide PAs with data on the true incremental costs, as well as quantification of all the program 

benefits (energy, non-energy, and other resources) associated with these projects. 

The Cape Light Compact is fully supportive of filling program gaps by implementing deeper 

measures within programs. However, the Cape Light Compact believes these measures need to 

be deemed cost-effective before they can be mainstreamed through programs such as the Home 

Energy Services program. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 13. 

14. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Process Evaluation of 

the Four to Eight Story Multi-Family New Construction Pilot Interim 

Findings (Study 14)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: This report presents preliminary findings from interviews with the two 

Sponsors of the Pilot, NSTAR and National Grid, the Pilot’s chief project manager, and two 

individuals representing the three projects that completed in 2010. The objective of the 

interviews was to address several process evaluation issues such as the Pilot’s goals and 

objectives, the process of signing up and completing verification, outreach and the types of 

projects served, the measures covered, the measures installed, barriers to energy efficient multifamily new construction, and satisfaction. The limited number of completed projects did not 

allow the report to address particular issues such as free-ridership and providing technical 

assistance for participants to consider the addition of all applicable measures in their projects. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric) 

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations from this study as 

it is an interim report issued until more projects complete the process. 

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 14. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 110 of 164

15. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Major 

Renovations Pilot Evaluation: Preliminary Report on Non-Participant 

Interviews (Study 15) 

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The purpose of the Major Renovations Pilot, introduced in 2009, is to 

address the gap between the Home Energy Assessment Program for existing homes and the 

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program. This report presents preliminary 

findings from interviews with seven homeowners and one builder who had projects eligible to 

participate in the pilot and considered enrolling in the pilot, but decided not to enroll. The 

objective of the interviews was to identify how these potential participants learned about the 

pilot, why they decided not to enroll in the pilot and get their suggestions for how to make 

participation in the pilot more user-friendly for homeowners. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric) 

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations from this report 

as it is an interim report issued while the PAs wait for more projects to complete. 

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 15. 

16. The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Version 

3 Pilot Evaluation (Study 16)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The focus of this report is on lessons learned from the Massachusetts 

New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program Version 3 Pilot (“Pilot”) and issues the program 

will face going forward to keep existing builders in the program, as well as recruit new builders, 

as ENERGY STAR® Version 3 requirements take effect. Version 3 Guidelines for ENERGY 

STAR® become effective for all new homes, regardless of permit dates, starting January 1, 

2012. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 111 of 164

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Residential New Construction & Major Renovation (Electric) 

● Low-Income Residential New Construction (Electric) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 Keep training on code changes and Version 3 requirements separate, to the extent 

possible. Interviewed builders who attended training covering both topics found it 

confusing. 

2 Focus builder training on the new Thermal Enclosure Checklist (“TEC”) section 3 and 

section 5 requirements that are expected to be the most challenging for builders: One 

example is the TEC section 5 requirement that sheetrock be sealed to the top plate at all 

attic/wall interfaces using caulk, foam, or equivalent material. HERS raters say builders 

are trying out different approaches for meeting this requirement. It may require the 

sheetrock crew to come back a second time, which is costly and impacts the 

construction schedule. EnergyCompleteTM from Owens Corning is a spray on gasket 

that can be used at the same time the sheet rock is put up, but the cost is high. 

3 Offer training in a variety of formats and use trainers with hands-on experience: Some 

builders and HVAC contractors prefer classroom training; others prefer more hands-on 

field training. They also like the idea of having webinar presentations or videos of 

training presentations available online to view at their convenience. For all training, 

interviewees stressed the importance of using trainers who have extensive hands-on 

experience. Also, encourage HVAC contractors to take advantage of other available 

training options: Air Conditioning Contractors of America and supply houses offer 

several training options to help contractors interested in being prepared to meet Version 

3 requirements. HVAC contractors could also be encouraged to consider participating 

in the COOL SMART Program, which offers multiple training courses, including 

training to offer ENERGY STAR® Quality Installations. 

4 Include HERS raters in any program sponsored HVAC contractor training: The 

interviewed HVAC contractors and distributor say it would be useful to have a HERS 

rater at trainings to explain exactly what HVAC contractors are expected to do in a 

qualifying home, especially if they are going to guarantee in their contract with the 

builder that the home will meet program requirements. 

5 Review the timeline for moving to an open HERS rater market: Assess the potential 

negative impact on Program participation of asking builders to assume the full cost of 

HERS rater services at the same time that builders interested in meeting Version 3 

requirements will likely need more HERS rater support and need to pay more for 

HVAC contractors able to meet Version 3 requirements. Hitting builders with two cost 

increases at the same time may negatively affect participation. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Recommendations are based on 

findings from in-depth interviews conducted with 17 builders, 11 HERS raters, 10 HVAC 

contractors and one HVAC distributor. Interviewees included all six builders who participated in 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 112 of 164

the Pilot and the HERS raters they worked with, as well as two of the HVAC contractors who 

worked on Pilot homes with ducted HVAC systems. 

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. Version 3 is the latest version of the EPA ENERGY STAR® Homes program. 

Version 3 is an option of the Massachusetts Residential New Construction program for interested 

customers. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 16. 

17. Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Process Evaluation (Study 17)

Type of Study: Process and Impact 

Objective of the Study: This study is the first annual process evaluation of Massachusetts 

behavioral programs under the three-year Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Program Evaluation plan. 

The primary objective of the process portion of the evaluation was to provide preliminary 

insights into the effectiveness of National Grid’s OPower program and the actions that 

residential customers may take to generate energy savings. The secondary objective of this study 

was to create a framework to evaluate all Massachusetts behavior programs in upcoming 

evaluations. Specific research objectives of the process portion of the evaluation include: 

● Assess program characteristics that may lead to greater savings 

● Determine specific actions taken as a result of the Home Energy Report (“HER”) – 

including conservation behaviors and direct measure installations 

● Identify other effects from behavioral program efforts (increased awareness of energy 

efficiency options, changes in attitudes) 

● Develop suggestions for improving the programs to increase savings 

In addition to the process portion, this study is the first annual impact evaluation of 

Massachusetts behavioral programs under the three-year Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Program 

Evaluation plan. The study objective is to examine the National Grid HER program’s ability to 

generate residential electric and gas savings among targeted Massachusetts’ customer 

households. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: This study applies to two National Grid 

program efforts: 

● OPOWER Electric Program 

● OPOWER Gas Program 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 113 of 164

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

Process: The evaluation identified a number of recommendations in three areas: (1) planning 

and policy, (2) program implementation, and (3) monitoring and evaluations. Additional 

analysis supporting the recommendations can be found in “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting 

Behavioral Program Evaluation Volume I” on pages 5-6 and 41-43. 

Recommendations 

1 Planning and Policy 

• The PAs should continue to develop approaches for targeting different 

household types with different messages through the HER program. 

• The PAs should conduct additional research to determine the effective useful 

life and persistence estimates for the HER program. 

• The PAs should determine whether the HER and other behavioral programs 

should aim to channel customers to other rebate and audit programs. 

o If cross-program promotion is desired, two-three months after the 

delivery of the first report may be the most appropriate time to do so. 

2 Program implementation 

• The program should consider developing ways to personalize the experience 

further by providing customers with more household-specific information. 

• More actively promote the website and increase its prominence on the report. 

• Provide more explicit, positive affirmations to participants on the Home Energy 

Report. 

3 Monitoring and Evaluation 

• Program savings forecasts should be developed based on ex post or marketspecific findings from the implementers or evaluation. 

• Continue to employ empirical methods, such as billing analysis using panel data 

or treatment/control experimental design, to gauge the impact of the report on 

energy savings, awareness and attitudes. 

• Continue to incorporate channeling analysis to determine behavioral program 

impacts. 

• Enhance participant surveys to gather information on actions participants and 

non-participants have taken to save energy. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 114 of 164

How the Process Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The process evaluation 

recommendations are based on a number of data collection efforts: 

1. In-depth interviews with PAs. 

2. Telephone surveys with participants and control group members: Telephone survey 

research was conducted with 501 participant and 501 control group households. The 

telephone survey was designed to understand differences in energy efficiency and 

conservation behaviors among participants, compared with control group members, based 

on participant exposure to the Home Energy Report for approximately one year. 

3. In-home ethnographic research: In-home ethnographic research was conducted with 11 

participant households. The in-home ethnographic research was designed to supplement 

insights gained through survey research, and explored participants’ responses to the 

Home Energy Report, changes in behaviors or intentions in direct response to the report, 

and suggestions for report content and delivery. 

Detailed process evaluation research methods and sampling are described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 

of “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Volume I.” Key findings from 

these methods are described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral 

Program Evaluation Volume I.” 

Results of the Impact Study and How the Study Determined those Results: 

OPOWER Electric Program: Electric pilot households averaged 184.1 net annual kWh savings 

per participant in the first program year, and 1.61% kWh savings from 11,433 kWh per 

participant expected consumption in the absence of the program. This equates to a total of 4,575 

MWh savings across households in the pilot cohort. 

OPOWER Gas Program: Gas pilot participants averaged 9.93 net annual therm savings per 

participant in the first program year, and 0.77% therm savings from 1,286 therms per participant 

expected consumption in the absence of the program. The billing analysis found that the average 

reduction in therms was 0.81% and the channeling analysis found that 0.04% of the average 

reduction was due to incremental savings from other programs. This equates to a total of 

248,257 therm savings across all households in the pilot cohort. 

 

Net program savings were determined by conducting billing analysis to estimate annual electric 

and therm savings. Average annual net savings attributable to the behavioral program were 

determined using a linear fixed effects regression analysis of customer billing data that included 

billing data from behavioral program participants (who received the Home Energy Reports), and 

a matched comparison group of residential customers. The billing analysis approach is described 

in Section 4.4 of “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Volume I.” For 

the National Grid gas pilot, a channeling analysis was conducted where net program savings 

determined by billing analysis were adjusted by factoring out deemed savings values counted in 

other National Grid programs. The savings values cited here reflect only those program savings 

directly obtained by the OPower Program, factoring out savings jointly attributable to the 

OPower program and other energy efficiency programs. This adjustment is described in Section 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 115 of 164

4.5 of “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Volume I.” Percent 

savings are determined by calculating average annual net program savings as a proportion of 

energy consumption expected in the absence of the program, described in Section 3.6 of

“Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Volume II.” 

Formulas Necessary To Understand The Impact Of The Study On The Program 

Administrator’s Programs: The TRM for the 2011 Plan contains the algorithms for calculating 

primary energy impacts for the gas and electric programs: 

Where: 

Unit = One participant household 

 kWhBASE = Baseline consumption of kWh 

%SAVE = Energy savings percent per program participant 

MMBtuBASE = Baseline consumption of MMBtu 

The results of this study are used to update the energy savings percent per participant (%SAVE) 

that are used to calculate net unit savings (∆kWh or ∆MMbtu) for OPOWER electric and gas 

programs. Calculation of the impact metric %SAVE is described in Section 3.6 of “Massachusetts 

Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Volume II.” Note that the ex post savings value 

(∆MMbtu) used to calculate percent savings (%SAVE) factors out deemed savings values counted 

in other National Grid programs, as explained above and in Section 4.5 of “Massachusetts CrossCutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Volume I.” 

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

Why: Results of this study do not apply to the Cape Light Compact, as it is not implementing an 

OPOWER pilot. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 17. 

C. Low-Income Studies

1. Final Report for Low Income Program – Massachusetts 2010 Residential 

Retrofit and Low Income Evaluation (Study 18)

Type of Study: Process 

kWh ( ) kWh (%SAVE) ∆ = BASE

MMBtu (MMBtu )(%SAVE) ∆ = BASE
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 116 of 164

Objective of the Study: For the 2010 process evaluation, the Cadmus team focused on 

assessing program processes and identifying similarities and differences between the 

perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, and customers regarding 

program goals, design, and implementation. The Cadmus team also reviewed the process by 

which program data are collected, managed, and reported, including an assessment of the quality 

and consistency of the program data across PAs. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Low-Income 1-4 Family Retrofit (Electric and Gas) 

● Low-Income Multi-family Retrofit (Electric and Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 

To address any concerns related to funding and resource management, PAs and lead 

Community Action Program (“CAP”) agency could increase communication during the 

goal-setting processes, and track spending throughout implementation. 

2 

The PAs should schedule a meeting or series of meetings in coordination with LEAN 

for the express purpose of clearly defining standardization and integration objectives for 

the program. Once the definition of standardization is communicated and agreed upon, 

strategies should be determined for meeting those objectives over a specified time 

period. This will ensure all stakeholders work toward commonly agreed upon 

objectives, and enhance progress toward meeting objectives to be measured. 

3 

The PAs should strongly consider all options for creating a streamlined, independent, 

third-party QA/QC process that serves the needs of the PA-funded program, while 

minimizing participant intrusion. Such a process could reduce existing inefficiencies 

including the potential number of visits to participants’ homes, ensure CAPs do not 

perform quality control on their own projects, free up CAP auditors’ time to reach more 

low income customers, and align this program’s QA/QC process with that proposed for 

the Home Energy Assessment program. This does not necessarily have to be an 

additional QA/QC process, just a streamlined process that is collaborative in nature. 

4 

The PAs should maintain a data dictionary for all critical program datasets that includes 

all field definitions, value definitions, and the sources of the data. The data dictionaries 

should be provided as part of all data requests thereby allowing evaluators (or any other 

third-party) to decode field names and data values efficiently. The data dictionaries 

would also ensure internal knowledge of the database is not lost in the event of critical 

personnel turnover. Once created, draft data dictionaries should be circulated among 

the low income working group to ensure that all PAs are collecting the same data and 

using the same naming conventions whenever possible. If such data dictionaries do not 

exist, the Data Management Working Group established as part of the 2011 Residential 

Retrofit and Low Income evaluation could assist with their creation. 

5 The PAs should ensure the collection and availability of a minimum set of critical data 

fields for current and future evaluation work. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 117 of 164

6 

The PAs should consider mandating that a standard set of critical audit data fields be 

entered into an electronic format and maintained/archived for future internal and 

external use. The PAs should collaborate with the CAPs and the evaluators to identify 

valuable audit information not currently maintained electronically. 

7 

The PAs should also explore the potential of having field technicians use electronic 

hardware (a PDA or laptop) to collect and enter onsite data whenever possible. This 

approach would minimize manual data entry, reduce program administrative costs, and 

improve data quality through the institution of unique keys, foreign key constraints, 

lookup tables, and other database design best practices. 

8 

The PAs should work collaboratively on integration of a common Measure ID system to 

allow tracking of each installed measure from the participant tracking database to the 

BCR input sheet and to the TRM. In addition, PAs should develop and maintain 

standardized ID fields (standardized internally, not across PAs) linking data across 

programs, customers, contractors, and billing data. 

9 

Through a collaborative process with the PAs and the TRM working group, continue to 

develop and employ a standardized measure naming convention for all PAs and CAPs. 

The TRM should be used as a basis to develop standard names and codes. A naming 

convention would allow for faster and more accurate statewide reporting, improve 

evaluability, and add transparency to the measure tracking process. The Cadmus team 

specifically recommends consideration of a four-part measure naming convention that 

includes varying levels of detail for each program stakeholder: denoting the measure’s 

end-use, group, type, and detail. Examples of several common program measures are 

provided in the report. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The Low Income Program 

evaluation included PA program manager interviews, CAP agency staff interviews, PA data 

manager surveys, a data review, and participant interviews. Based on information obtained from 

these stakeholders, the Cadmus team used its professional judgment and experience evaluating 

low income programs to offer recommendations aimed at improving program processes where 

appropriate. 

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

Why: In general, the PAs adopt results from an evaluation study which are supported by the 

data generated from the study. 

The PAs already track spending throughout the implementation. Starting in July 2011, for 2012 

goal setting, PAs and LEAN will start discussions about budgets and savings goals in advance of 

the program year. 

The PAs will use the Best Practice Meetings to clearly define standardization and integration 

objectives for the program and a timeline. 

There is already a new QA/QC process being initiated that would minimize the number of visits 

to customer homes. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 118 of 164

The PAs will explore the potential of having field technicians use electronic hardware to collect 

and enter onsite data. There is some current use of handheld devices for auditors. Due to the 

high cost and since some of the audits requiring the auditors to crawl into small spaces, it may 

not be feasible. 

The PAs are working with the evaluation team to ensure in the future we are better able to 

aggregate and/or compare measure savings where possible. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 18. 

D. C&I Studies

1. Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts Small 

Commercial Direct Install Program (Study 19)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: Provide independent estimates of annual energy savings and peak 

demand impacts for a single type of installed measure: the replacement of lighting fixtures 

without controls. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: Logged operating hours 

and installed measure survey data from 130, 2010 program participant sites throughout 

Massachusetts during the months of December through February were used to calculate summer 

and winter coincidence factors for ISO on-peak and seasonal peak performance hours. The data 

were also used to adjust estimates of energy and demand savings to determine realization rates at 

the statewide level, by PA and for two demand ranges. Information collected on site was 

compared to that in electronic tracking system files to make documentation, technology and 

quantity adjustments, as well as incorporating heating and cooling interactive effects. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to 

Table II.C.6. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The 

results of this study are used to update uncontrolled lighting realization rates for energy (“RRE”), 

summer on-peak demand (“RRSP”) and winter on-peak demand (“RRWP”) savings, and the 

coincidence factor for winter on-peak demand (“CFWP”). Both the Energy Realization Rate and 

the Coincidence factors incorporate HVAC interactive effects. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 119 of 164

The formulas necessary to understand the impacts are described in the TRM. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: This study collected 

operating hour data during winter months. A significant number of sampled sites exhibited 

seasonal variation in operating hours. PAs elected to not adopt the calculated summer 

coincidence factors at this time and are planning a follow on summer metering study to capture 

the seasonal variation. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 19. 

2. Massachusetts Non-Residential Small Business Direct Install Program: 

Multi-Tier Structure Assessment 2010 Process Evaluation (Study 20) 

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The main objective of the Multi-Tier Program Structure Assessment is 

to document progress towards statewide integration of the C&I Direct Install programs during 

2010, and to gauge customer interest in different program design options such as varying 

incentive levels, zero interest financing, and on-bill financing options. The assessment is also 

designed to gather information related to program satisfaction and awareness. In particular, the 

evaluation sought to address the following research questions: 

● What kind of program changes has each PA implemented? How is this process 

going? What are the challenges? How do customers and market actors view these 

changes? 

● How is the integration of electric and gas progressing? What are the challenges? 

What is being done to overcome them? 

● How has the workload of PA program staff and vendors changed as integration and 

standardization of the Small Business Direct Install program has moved forward? 

● What is the level of program awareness and customer satisfaction with the program? 

What are the barriers to participation and what are the most important factors in 

participant decision making around participation? 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric and Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 Use the Direct Install program facility audit as a way to disseminate information about 

other PA C&I programs. In the process, identify for customers the equipment or systems 

that may need replacement in the future.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 120 of 164

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The recommendation presented 

above is based on results from quantitative telephone surveys with participating customers, as 

well as a review of program materials and in-depth interviews with PA program staff and 

vendors. In-depth interviews provided the evaluation team with a comprehensive understanding 

of the audit process while a review of program materials further contributed to knowledge of 

what the program currently provides onsite. The survey with 2009 and 2010 program 

participants allowed the team to assess the degree to which participating customers receive 

information about other PA programs. 

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

Why: PAs began addressing the recommendation from this study in the second half of 2010, 

following an initial focus on integrating electric and gas measures during the first 8 months. An 

audit checklist was developed that program vendors use to note the existence and condition of 

energy consuming equipment outside the standard prescriptive measures offered. PAs and their 

vendors are using the information gathered to inform direct install program participants of other 

C&I programs that can be accessed. 

Future evaluation work during 2011 and 2012 should allow examination of the effectiveness of 

this approach in motivating direct install program participants to undertake additional energy 

efficiency projects by channeling them to other C&I programs. This may be accomplished 

through a combination of additional process interviews and mining of data from PA program 

tracking database systems. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 20. 

3. Final Report HBL Market Effects Study Project 1A New Construction 

Market Characterization (Study 21) 

Type of Study: Market Assessment 

Objective of the Study: The principal research objectives of the High Bay Lighting Market 

Effects Study are: 

1. Estimate the energy savings associated with the changes to a high bay lighting market in 

Massachusetts. 

2. Assess the attribution of these changes (i.e., market effects) to the PAs’ energy efficiency 

programs. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric) 

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric) 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 121 of 164

Recommendations Derived from the Study: The High Bay Lighting (“HBL”) Market Effects 

Study recommendations are provided in the following table. For a more detailed discussion 

please refer to the full report. 

1 Based on the modeled approach and the preponderance of evidence presented in the market 

effects study, KEMA recommends the electric PAs claim untracked spillover energy 

savings associated with Massachusetts HBL measures. KEMA recommends the Scenario 2 

energy savings estimate of 12.4 GWh per year or 39 percent of 2010 program tracked gross 

savings. This value is consistent with the untracked spillover estimate of 34 percent of 

program tracked savings estimated for Wisconsin in the 2010 Wisconsin HBL study. 

Several of the electric PAs are currently claiming low levels of participant and or nonparticipant energy savings for HBL measures. Prior to claiming the untracked spillover 

savings recommended by this report, the PAs must remove participant and or nonparticipant spillover energy savings for HBL measures already being claimed to avoid 

double counting. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The Large C&I Electric Consultant 

(“LCIEC”) team estimated untracked spillover, then assessed the attribution of these savings to 

the PA’s energy efficiency programs based on a comparison of the level of adoption of energy 

efficient high bay lighting in Massachusetts to a comparison area lacking programs promoting 

energy efficient high bay lighting. 

The primary analytic steps include: 

1. Estimate the volume of high bay lighting installed in Massachusetts and the comparison 

area. 

2. Estimate the market share of energy efficient high bay lighting installed in Massachusetts 

and the comparison area. 

3. Assess attribution of untracked spillover to the PA’s energy efficiency programs. 

Primary data collected for this study includes: 

● Surveys with: 

o End Users 

o Lighting Contractors 

● In-depth Interviews with: 

o Program staff 

o Lighting Distributors 

o Lighting Manufacturers 

Additionally, the study used PA program tracking data, engineering data from various 

engineering databases, and survey data from a prior study. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 122 of 164

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 for each of the programs described above. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Savings: 

Following the recommendations of the study, the PAs have applied the 39 percent spillover 

factor resulting from this study to all measures associated with high bay lighting, instead of 

applying any spillover from any other net-to-gross study. 

Each PA uses the results of the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Freeridership and Spillover Study (TetraTech, Study 30) for the spillover value for all non-high bay 

lighting savings in 2010. In order to determine the factor for all lighting measures, the following 

equation is used: 

ALL

HBL HBL OTH OTH

ALL kWh

SO kWh SO kWh SO × + × =

Where: 

 SOALL is the final spillover rate for all lighting measures. 

 SOHBL is the spillover rate of 39 percent resulting from this study for 

High Bay Lighting measures only. 

 kWhHBL is the gross annual kWh savings resulting from High Bay 

Lighting measure installations. 

 SOOTH is the spillover rate for all other Non-High Bay Lighting 

Measures and is specific to each PA. 

 kWhOTH is the gross annual kWh savings resulting from all other NonHigh Bay Lighting measure installations. 

 kWhALL is the total gross annual kWh savings for all Lighting 

measures. 

Each PA, except Unitil, does this calculation for both the C&I New Construction and Major 

Renovation and the C&I Large Retrofit programs, as the spillover rates used for the Non-High 

Bay Lighting measures are specific to each administrator. The calculation is also done for C&I 

Small Business program for WMECo and the Cape Light Compact, as their programs included 

high bay lighting installations and these savings were analyzed as part of this study. None of 

Unitil’s projects in 2010 included High Bay Lighting installations. This calculation is therefore 

unnecessary for Unitil. 

The following table shows this calculation for each PA’s programs: 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 123 of 164

PA 

NSTAR National Grid WMECO Cape Light Compact 

Program 

NC Retrofit NC Retrofit NC Retrofit Small 

Business NC Retrofit 

Small 

Business 

kWhHBL

765,663 4,933,376 3,645,109 19,438,428 534,105 55,859 1,654,904 0 59,015 76,616 

kWhOTH

13,451,54

4 52,632,615 2,723,676 45,575,106 7,423,917 776,427 6,822,148 154,161 

386,35

4 3,398,029 

kWhALL

14,217,20

7 57,565,991 6,368,785 65,013,534 7,958,022 832,286 8,477,052 154,161 

445,36

9 3,474,645 

SOHBL

39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 

SOOTH

2.40% 16.50% 16.00% 2.50% 4.70% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00% 6.40% 

SOALL

(Result) 

4.37% 18.43% 29.16% 13.41% 7.00% 2.62% 10.59% 0.00% 5.17% 7.12% 

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

Why: The PAs have adopted the results of this study. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 21. 

4. FINAL Commercial New Construction Customer Quantitative Profile 

Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization (Study 22) 

Type of Study: Market Assessment 

Objective of the Study: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization 

studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program 

planners and administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” 

The principal research objectives of the Commercial New Construction Customer Quantitative 

Profile are: 

1. Develop a comprehensive characterization of the large C&I new construction market in 

Massachusetts, in terms of building type, size, ownership, geographic location, chain or 

franchise status, and energy use. 

2. Assess how the trends for large C&I projects have changed over the past 15 years. 

3. Characterize the presence of the PAs new construction projects in the market in terms of 

the number of projects that participated in them and the portion of floor space and energy 

use they represent in key commercial market segments. 

 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric and Gas) 

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

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 124 of 164

Recommendations Derived from the Study: None. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The LCIEC team acquired and 

analyzed the entire F. W. Dodge Players Database for non-residential construction projects for 

the State of Massachusetts for the years 1996 through 2009. The Dodge Players database 

contains retrospective information on C&I construction projects that, according to Dodge, have 

begun construction. A sample of new construction projects from the Dodge Database were 

matched with PA billing data and program tracking data to characterize the new construction 

market and assess program penetration. 

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 22. 

5. Supply Chain Profile Project 1A New Construction Market 

Characterization (Study 23) 

Type of Study: Market Assessment 

Objective of the Study: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization 

studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program 

planners and administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” 

The principal research objectives of the New Construction Supply Chain Profile are: 

● Characterize the design, engineering, and construction management firms involved 

with recent large commercial construction projects in Massachusetts. 

● Characterize the design and specification practices with regard to energy efficiency. 

● Assess changes in design and specification practices as a result of contact with the 

program. 

● Assess awareness and participation in new construction programs offered by the PAs. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric and Gas) 

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric and Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: The New Construction Supply Chain Profile 

recommendations are provided in the following table. For a more detailed discussion please 

refer to the full report. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 125 of 164

Recommendation Summaries 

1 Consider alternative incentive approaches such as tiered incentives for higher 

levels of efficiency. Consider expanding financial or technical assistance 

offerings for life cycle cost analysis to demonstrate the longer term value of 

accepting higher first costs. 

2 Improve the value of technical assistance offerings by being consistently 

engaged with project design teams. The impact of the utility intervention is not 

fully realized because information about incentives and alternative technologies 

choice is not delivered on time to design teams. Modeling firms need to quickly 

upgrade models and turnaround results to customers. 

3 Assist architects and engineers in understanding appropriate high performance 

building envelope design strategies for the Massachusetts climate. We suggest a 

two pronged approach to advance high performance envelope design: 1) 

Convene a working group consisting of stakeholders to study the challenges 

associated with high performance building envelope design, and 2) based on 

input from the working group, commission a study of advanced building 

envelope designs beyond what is required by code and provide examples of 

appropriate, high performance designs for Massachusetts. 

4 Continue to build upon educational seminars, similar to Advanced Building 

seminars, to provide education and programmatic support on integrated design 

and whole building performance. 

5 Streamline the application process by reducing the amount of paperwork that is 

required for participation. 

6 Establish contacts within the top 25 architects, design engineers and 

construction management firms. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions 

The New Construction Supply Chain Profile included the follow research activities: 

● Examination of the F. W. Dodge Players Database for non-residential construction 

projects in Massachusetts. 

● In-depth Interviews with: 

o 31 architects, 

o 11 design engineers, and 

o 9 construction engineers. 

Explain Whether or Not the PA Decided To Adopt Recommendations from the Study and 

Why: The PAs accept the results of the study and are considering all recommendations at this 

time. The recommendations resulting from this study are based on solely on interviews with 

market actors in the commercial new construction market and therefore do not necessarily 

provide an objective view of the programs. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 126 of 164

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 23. 

6. Final Report Project 1B Chain & Franchise Market Characterization 

(Study 24) 

Type of Study: Market Assessment 

Objective of the Study: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization 

studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program 

planners and administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” 

The principal research objectives of the Chain & Franchise (“C&F”) Market Characterization 

are: 

1. Characterize the C&F market in Massachusetts, including estimates of size and key 

segments (big box, retail, restaurant, etc). 

2. Identify the key decision-maker at C&F customers and the major barriers to the adoption 

of energy efficiency measures. 

3. Understand the decision-making process, in particular free-ridership, regarding energy 

efficiency at C&F businesses in Massachusetts and in comparable non-program states. 

4. Assess the current level of program participation and methods to increase participation. 

5. Identify the opportunities for increased energy efficiency through on-site inventories of 

building shell characteristics, end use technologies, and missed opportunities. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric and Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: There are no recommendations for program 

changes resulting from the study. 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: This project included the follow 

research activities: 

● Literature Review of existing C&F studies. 

● Re-analysis of interview data from past NSTAR C&I program impact evaluations in 

order to investigate potential differences in free-ridership and spillover rates of C&F 

and non-C&F participants. 

● A Customer Quantitative Profile of the C&F Market. This analysis characterizes the 

size and composition of the population of Massachusetts’ C&F customers. 

● In-depth Interviews with: 

o PA National Account Managers 

o C&F Cape Light Compact managers. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 127 of 164

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

Why: There are no recommendations for program changes resulting from the study. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 24. 

7. Impact Evaluation of 2009 Custom HVAC Installations (Study 25) 

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The objective of this impact evaluation is to provide verification or reestimation of electric energy and demand savings estimates for 29 Custom HVAC projects 

through site-specific inspection, monitoring, and analysis. The results of this study are the final 

realization rates for Custom HVAC energy efficiency measures. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric) 

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The final Custom 

HVAC realization rates are calculated using statistical weightings of the results of the (29) 

studied Custom HVAC applications. This calculation is explained in detail in Section 3 of the 

“Impact Evaluation of 2009 Custom HVAC Installations” report. 

The final Custom HVAC realization rates (“RRs”) are calculated individually for National Grid 

and NSTAR, and at the statewide level. Site level RRs are determined through site inspection, 

data collection and engineering analysis. Analysis methods include spreadsheet and building 

simulation modeling. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 for each of the programs listed above. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The results of 

this study are used to update the realization rates for energy (“RRE”), summer on-peak demand 

(“RRSP”), and winter on-peak demand (“RRWP”) savings for the “HVAC” end-use within 

Custom Measures. 

The formulas necessary to understand the impacts are described in the TRM. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: All results have been 

adopted by the PAs. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 25. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 128 of 164

8. Final Report Project 1C Combined Heat &Power Market Characterization 

(Study 26) 

Type of Study: Market Assessment 

Objective of the Study: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization 

studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program 

planners and administrators can use the information for improving program implementation.” 

The principal research objectives of the Combined Heat & Power (“CHP”) Market 

Characterization are: 

1. Characterize the CHP market including key players and market segments. 

2. Understand the decision making processes used by potential CHP customers including 

reasons customers elect to install CHP, selection of specific types or configurations of 

CHP, and the factors most influencing decisions to purchase CHP systems. 

3. Identify the current mix of CHP technologies including the CHP systems types deployed, 

installed and operating costs of the technologies, and identify anticipated changes in the 

CHP market or improvements in the technologies. 

4. Identify barriers impacting entry for customers including the key factors that dissuade 

potential customers from evaluating CHP technologies or have led customers who 

evaluated CHP technologies to decide not to install it. 

5. Estimate CHP opportunities by key market segments and provide PAs with a list of 

customers likely suitable for CHP. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: The CHP Market Characterization’s six shortterm recommendations are provided in the following table. For a more detailed discussion 

please refer to the full report. 

 

1 Determine realistically achievable targets. Energy-saving goals of the Program are tied 

to the time it takes to sell, install and commission CHP systems. The PAs can help insure 

the Program achieves these goals by taking into account the project development 

timeframes and establishing a “pipeline” approach that associates the different market 

segments to the anticipated timeframes.

2 Outreach to large sites. The PAs should identify and reach out to high-value large sites 

using the Account Executive (“AE”) teams from the different utilities. 

3 Focused outreach for under 300 kW. For sites 60 – 300 kW, the PAs should work with 

partners to promote the incentive program. The PAs role with these customers is to build 

the credibility of CHP technology and act as the role of energy advisor by providing 

customers with an integrated solution of energy efficiency measures including CHP 

systems.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 129 of 164

4 Training Using Webinars. The evaluation team understands that planning for webinar 

training sessions is currently underway via the PA Implementers’ CHP Working Group. 

The evaluation team supports this endeavor and recommends training session in several 

areas.

5 Program Stability-Coordination. The program should consider increased coordination 

with other CHP initiatives (i.e. Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards requirements) to 

leverage overlapping requirements for cost-effective execution of both programs. Specific 

areas of consideration include the development of consistent metering approaches.

6 Partners to collaborate. The program should consider collaborations with existing 

groups such as trade groups, vendor associations, and customer groups with the goal of 

leveraging existing mass marketing efforts.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: The CHP Market Characterization 

included the follow research activities: 

● Literature Review of existing major CHP support programs in the U.S. 

● In-depth Interviews with: 

o CHP Program staff, 

o 10 CHP vendors, 

o 10 current users of CHP, and 

o 10 potential users of CHP. 

● Quantitative Market Assessment based on gas billing data. This task identified highvalue CHP opportunities, in terms of number of customers, business types, and 

equipment size category in the service territories served by the PAs. 

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

Why: The PAs have accepted the results of the study and are considering all recommendations 

for adoption. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 26. 

9. Project 6B Comprehensive Design Approach Process Evaluation (Study 

27) 

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: This process evaluation had two research objectives. The first was to 

examine whether the Comprehensive Design Approach (“CDA”) tracks that are being delivered 

by National Grid, Western Massachusetts Electric Company (“WMECo”) and NSTAR are 

meeting their primary goals. These primary goals are to: 1) maximize energy and demand 

reduction in new construction projects; and 2) influence energy efficiency best practices in the 

commercial design sector. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 130 of 164

CDA is a track within the custom C&I New Construction and Major Renovation programs 

offered by these PAs. It is an integrated approach that is ideally initiated at the beginning of the 

building design stage in order to ensure that cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities are 

incorporated such that energy use reduction of twenty percent or more is achieved relative to the 

requirements of state building code. The CDA track also offers financial incentives that are 

usually larger than those offered by prescriptive or the traditional custom new construction 

programs. 

The second research objective was to conduct a comparative study of the Advanced Buildings 

(“AB”) track. This study compares the AB tracks delivered by the Massachusetts PAs to those 

delivered in Maine and Vermont. The AB track is similar to CDA but it targets smaller buildings 

within the commercial new construction market and aims to simplify and expedite the 

participation process by using standardized incentive and savings assumptions. In order for 

customers to receive monetary incentives through the AB track, they must incorporate a series of 

thirteen Core Performance requirements into their building designs. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study: The following are two different sets of 

recommendations, one for the CDA track and one for the AB track. 

Recommendation Summaries for CDA Track 

1 Reduce the costs associated with the energy modeling study required for the CDA or 

alter the payment arrangement so that it is less burdensome on the customer 

upfront. Although technical study costs are split between the PA and the customer, it is 

still an upfront cost that is incurred by the customer that would not necessarily be faced if 

a non-comprehensive program track were used. A possible solution would be for the PA 

to initially absorb the cost of the study, and then deduct the amount from the final 

incentive offer. This would relieve the customer of the burden of facing an upfront cost to 

participating in CDA.

2 Use a variety of marketing methods to inform customers of the CDA track, including 

printed materials and communication via AEs. In the process, make sure to inform 

customers of the relative benefits of CDA over competing approaches that may be 

simpler to use, but result in smaller long-term energy savings and offer lower 

incentives. These marketing methods are needed to address key barriers to using the 

CDA track include a lack of customer awareness about the CDA track and competition 

with alternative energy efficiency programs that may be simpler or faster to use.

3 Since AEs are usually the first to hear about new construction projects, the Sponsors 

should ensure that they are well informed about the CDA track so that they can 

explain the program requirements and benefits to customers when they are first in 

contact about a potentially qualifying project. AEs are in a unique position to guide 

customers with appropriate projects towards the use of the CDA track since they interact 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 131 of 164

most directly with potential participants in the C&I sector.

4 Incorporate the tracking of project leads into a database so that program staff and 

AEs can learn about potentially qualifying CDA track projects in time for this 

approach to be used. AEs do look to new construction databases such as Reed Connect 

and Dodge, but a centralized repository of information does not exist. This type of 

database would assist AEs in the identification and monitoring of potential CDA 

participants and would potentially increase participation in this track.

5 By focusing on educating potential design team members about the CDA through 

workshops and “lunch and learn” events, in addition to informing customers via 

AEs, PAs are more likely to have their customers learn of CDA track benefits. 

According to the new construction PA program managers, customers usually hear about 

the CDA from AEs. Doing more outreach to the design community could increase the 

pool of CDA projects.

6 The PAs should increase their distribution of marketing materials to its customers 

and potential design team members to more effectively market the CDA track. It 

would be worthwhile to invest in the development of CDA-specific brochures to mail out 

to potential participants, architects, and engineers so they are aware of the track prior to 

developing building plans.

7 Create a database, or annual report, of past program participants to document all 

information about their CDA project. This will allow AEs to actively follow up with 

these participants on a regular basis to make sure that they do not miss an opportunity to 

use the CDA track for future projects. If a database is created, it can also be used to track 

inquiries made by customers about new construction program approaches so that these 

customers can be actively marketed to as well.

8 Divide the rebate payment up into milestone payments over the course of the 

project. This recommendation was based on feedback from participants who said it 

would be beneficial to receive more of the incentive payments upfront, as they could be 

used to help finance construction costs and would be especially useful given the current 

state of the economy.

9 Rather than assuming the CDA will provide the largest incentives to customers, the 

PAs should evaluate the total incentives customers would be eligible to receive under 

each of the approaches. During interviews with CDA non-participants, the evaluation 

team did find two cases where incentives were actually larger under the alternative 

program tracks (e.g., AB track and a combination of the prescriptive and custom tracks) 

than they were under CDA.

10 Target CDA marketing towards the market segments that have historically used and 

benefited from the CDA as a way to increase participation in this track. Certain 

market sectors -- such as schools, universities, hospitals, supermarkets, and 

biotech/pharmaceutical companies -- participate in the CDA track more than others. 

Brochures describing projects specific to these sectors could be created and distributed to 

potential participants as a way to show how customers in the same lines of business 

benefited from addressing energy efficiency in a comprehensive manner.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 132 of 164

11 Designate a project champion to ensure clear communications among the various 

projects involved in a CDA project. This would be especially useful during the 

construction phases to minimize the chance that contractors would make an unwarranted 

equipment substitution.

12 Streamline the processes related to the implementation and delivery of the CDA 

track. The CDA processes were acknowledged to have improved over time, yet there 

were multiple observations indicating that they still need to be further streamlined. A key 

complaint was the time required to get the PA’s review and approval for a design plan and 

application. Some projects did not participate because necessary approvals could not be 

obtained in time to meet the project schedule.

13 PAs should offer more diverse applications of systems and technology opportunities 

through the CDA track. Fuel switching and the inclusion of renewable fuels were 

recommended applications. This provides customers with a variety of implementation 

possibilities and ensures incentives are not limited to a certain set of technologies. 

14 Improve CDA tracking systems: The process evaluation had a number of 

recommendations for improving the CDA data tracking systems including storing 

electronic copies of project documentation, making CDA reporting more specific, 

allowing more accessible tracking of measure-level information, expanding the scope of 

data tracking, addressing the need for data-entry support, and incorporating the tracking 

of project leads.

Recommendation Summaries for AB Track 

1 Foster personal relationships with design teams and customers: An effective 

implementation plan leverages the strong awareness among the design community 

to expand awareness at the customer level. A vital component of this strategy is an 

established rapport between the design community and specific individuals at the 

program office. The evaluation team recommends the intimate approach used by 

Efficiency Maine in which they assign 1-2 persons to a given project. This allows 

the program staff to develop personal relationships with program participants and 

encourages more proactive communications. 

2 Take advantage of green marketing opportunities: An effective implementation 

plan takes advantage of the favorable environment of “green building.” Efficiency 

Vermont, for example, supports the construction of Advanced Buildings with press 

releases, letters of recognition and NBI certification plaques. These elements of 

green advertising are particularly attractive to institutional customers, such as 

universities, who place significant value upon their public image. In 

Massachusetts, however, none of these green marketing strategies were observed 

among the implementation activities.

3 Emphasize importance of long-term savings: While there is no remedy for the 

downturn in new construction, it is possible to mitigate the budgetary concerns of 

customers. A successful program design may benefit from shifting the emphasis 

from incentives to long-term savings.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 133 of 164

4 Maintain interest with follow-up communications: It is important for program 

staff to take a proactive approach in maintaining customer and design team interest. 

Program staff can’t afford to wait for the owner or design firm to call when the 

critical steps are being made. Staff has to stay on top of the project and do its own 

duty to ensure that the owners and design team are staying on track.

5 Improve lead tracking: A cohesive system of documenting and monitoring the 

status of program leads is important to the success of program implementation. For 

example, Efficiency Maine employs Efficiency Reporting & Tracking, an online 

database, to track project leads, contact and status descriptors. Among the PAs 

program staff did not use such a method of tracking prospective customers. In the 

case of National Grid and NSTAR, information such as customers contacted, 

outreach efforts, and lead status are not linked to their respective tracking system, 

InDemand or eTrack. According to program managers, the progress and status of 

project leads is documented in a spreadsheet, which is typically not shared among 

various levels of staff.

6 Minimize customer burden: One of the greatest deterrents to program 

participation has been apprehension regarding the application process. Therefore 

an effective implementation strategy should make it well known to customers and 

design firms that staff will be available to assist in filling out application forms and 

understanding program requirements. The Efficiency Maine staff said they made 

ease-of-use a selling point for potential customers.

7 Take advantage of American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) continuing 

education requirements: An excellent method of engaging the design community 

is to take advantage of the AIA continuing education requirements. In order to 

attract design firms, some implementers offer Advanced Buildings seminars paired 

with continuing education courses valid for credit towards the continuing education 

requirement. Under the current MassSAVE platform, attendees may earn four AIA 

Learning Units but are required to pay $199 per session. PAs should consider 

waiving this fee in order to increase participation among harder-to-reach firms.

8 Anticipate advancements in code and standard practice: The New Buildings 

Institute (“NBI”) – which develops rules for the AB track -- has not been diligent in 

maintaining AB requirements that exceed building code to a satisfactory degree. 

The PAs have been active in pushing NBI to keep their product ahead of the model 

codes. The PA should continue to push NBI to maintain program requirements 

well ahead of recent code developments and standard building practices.

9 Present the AB track as a learning opportunity for design firms: One 

interviewee suggested that the architects and engineers who work on AB projects 

are not necessarily of the same caliber as those who work on CDA projects. The 

program can advertise the expertise brought by experienced program staff as a 

means of attracting design teams to working with the program. 

10 Discuss ideas with design team before presenting them to the customer: The 

actions of program staff have shown that it is best to work out any suggestions or 

changes to the design plan prior to engaging the customer in significant decisions 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 134 of 164

regarding energy efficiency measures. Such consideration is useful in maintaining 

the support and cooperation of the involved design firms. 

11 Maintain “soft cap” on building size: Program staff has been receptive towards 

accommodating a wide range of buildings types, regardless of whether or not the 

building exceeds stipulated size guidelines. The AB track is offered as an option 

even for those building greater than 100,000 square feet so that customers are never 

reluctantly pushed towards the CDA track as the result of size requirements. It is 

the responsibility of NBI to issue some guiding principles regarding how such 

offers or exceptions should be framed.

12 Investigate “box” retail stores as a potential customer segment: It is 

recommended that NBI examine the designs of various large retailers with respect 

to code requirements to identify any buildings that are performing below their 

potential efficiency. If certain big box stores are not using an efficient building 

design, program staff should investigate the contributing factors and explore 

opportunities for program participation. Program implementers can exploit these 

inefficient building designs and possibly tap into a new customer segment.

13 Consider the benefits of a common platform: Under the MassSAVE initiative, 

the PAs have already taken the first steps in creating such a platform. It is unlikely, 

however, that various implementers will come to a consensus because there are 

obvious difficulties in making uniform the AB platform. While it is assumed that 

the MassSAVE platform is working with the PAs to attain uniformity in 

implementation, design and marketing, the evaluation team feels that this objective 

is worth restating in the specific context of program branding.

How the Study came to the Recommended Conclusions: Both the CDA and AB process 

evaluations relied primarily on in-depth interviews for their program findings. These evaluations 

completed 58 in-depth interviews with: 

● Participating and non-participating customers; 

● Participating design teams; 

● PA C&I new construction program managers and staff; 

● PA AEs; 

● PA technical staff; 

● Technical assistance consultants; and 

● AB program managers and staff in Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont and other AB 

program actors. 

The evaluations also reviewed 24 new construction projects for a case study analysis. Finally the 

evaluators also reviewed program tracking databases, program marketing materials, and other 

program documents. 

Explain Whether 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 program design and 

operations. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 135 of 164

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 27. 

10. Impact Evaluation of 2008 and 2009 Custom CDA Installations (Study 28)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The objective of this impact evaluation is to provide verification or reestimation of electric energy and demand savings estimates for five Custom CDA projects 

through site-specific inspection, monitoring, and analysis. The results of this study are the final 

realization rates for Custom Comprehensive energy efficiency measures. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The final realization rates 

are calculated using statistical weightings of the results of the five studied Custom CDA 

applications. This calculation is explained in detail in Section 3 of the “Impact Evaluation of 

2008 and 2009 Custom CDA Installations” report. 

Site level RRs are determined through site inspection, data collection and engineering analysis. 

Analysis methods included building simulation modeling. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 for each of the programs listed above 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The 

results of this study are used to update the realization rates for energy (“RRE”), summer on-peak 

demand (“RRSP”), and winter on-peak demand (“RRWP”) savings for the “Comprehensive” 

end-use within Custom Measures. 

The formulas necessary to understand the impacts are described in the TRM. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: All results have been 

adopted by the PAs. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 28. 

11. Project 7 General Process Evaluation Final Report (Study 29)

Type of Study: Process 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 136 of 164

Objective of the Study: The objective of this process evaluation was to look at ways to 

improve the design and delivery of Massachusetts C&I energy efficiency programs that would be 

applicable to multiple programs. Issues that the PAs and the EEAC were particularly interested 

in included how to increase program participation levels, how to obtain deeper energy savings 

from energy efficiency projects, how to improve the integration of electric and gas energy 

efficiency programs, and how to increase the general uniformity of program delivery across the 

state. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric and Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

1 Increase AE and technical advisor staffing levels: Interviewees with nearly all the PAs 

cited the need for additional staff to help achieve the expanded program savings goals. 

Adding AEs will allow more face-to-face meetings with customers, which should yield 

more projects. Adding technical staff will speed up the project technical analysis process 

(which was too slow according to some interviewees) and will help make up for the lack 

of technical knowledge among some AEs. 

2 Increase program incentive levels and limits: Many interviewees recommended 

increasing incentives in order to recruit more projects and achieve deeper savings. 

Raising the limit on the cumulative incentive allowed per project would help C&I 

customers overcome barriers to participation related to lack of capital. Raising the 

maximum $/unit (kWh or therms) will encourage customers to install longer-payback 

measures which are critical to achieving the expanded program savings goals. 

3 Offer turnkey financing: Nearly all program staff and AEs cited the lack of capital as 

the primary barrier preventing customers from moving forward with projects. A turnkey 

financing program to provide financing for eligible efficiency projects would help C&I 

customers overcome the important lack-of-capital barrier. In 2011 the PAs are preparing 

to launch several prescriptive loan products for C&I customers that would buy down the 

interest rate to 0%. 

4 Improve the design of marketing materials: The AEs recommended that program 

marketing materials be easier to understand and make greater use of case studies and 

testimonials. 

5 Organize AEs by industry sector: At least for the larger PAs, it may be more 

productive to organize all AEs by industry sector (e.g., vs. by geography). If AEs are 

only responsible for understanding a few select industries, this should improve their level 

of technical and business knowledge for those industries. 

6 Tie AE performance to program energy savings: PAs should consider tying AE 

bonuses to the level of savings achieved by the projects completed by their customers. 

Although some PAs currently do consider energy efficiency programs in AE 

performance assessments, it is not tied to a specific energy savings goal. Only one third 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 137 of 164

of the AEs reported that the current performance structure clearly motivates them.

7 Systematize the process for making requests for technical assistance: A common 

complaint among AEs was that technical staff members did not reply promptly to their 

requests for technical assistance. AEs suggested establishing a central email inbox that 

technical staff can access and respond to questions. It would also be useful to develop 

clear guidelines for responding to most technical requests within a certain timeframe so 

that AEs can notify their customers when to expect a response.

8 Help large C&I customers establish long-term commitments to energy efficiency: At 

least one PA is developing multi-year non-binding commitments with the corporate 

management of their large C&I customers to establish specific energy-saving goals. An 

efficiency plan should lead to longer-term consistent budgeting for energy projects and 

draw the attention of higher-level management.

 

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: These conclusions and 

recommendations are primarily based on 28 in-depth interviews with C&I program staff, AEs, 

and utility technical staff. These interviews were conducted in September and October 2010 and 

included representatives from seven different PAs. 

Explain Why Or Why Not The Program Administrator Decided To Adopt 

Recommendations From The Study: The PAs have reviewed the recommendations resulting 

from this study. As stated in recommendation three, the PAs are now offering financing 

mechanisms to help address our customer’s capital constraints. All other recommendations are 

being considered for adoption by the PAs at this time. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 29. 

12. 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-Ridership and 

Spillover Study (Study 30) 

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The primary objective of the 2010 program year free-ridership and 

spillover study was to quantifying the net impacts of the commercial and industrial electric 

energy efficiency programs by estimating the extent of program free-ridership, early participant 

“like” and “unlike” spillover, and non-participant “like” spillover. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric) 

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric) 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 138 of 164

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The study produced 

free-ridership, participant spillover and non-participant spillover rates for each PA by end use. 

The methodology used for this year’s study follows the standardized methodology developed in 

2010 and 2011 for the Massachusetts PAs for use in situations where end-users are able to report 

on program impacts via self-report methods. This study used telephone surveys with samples of 

2010 program participants in each of the PAs’ C&I electric programs and with design 

professionals and equipment vendors involved in these 2010 installations. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 for each of the programs listed above. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The 

results of this study are used to calculate the net savings associated with programs listed above. 

The formulas necessary to understand the impacts are described in the TRM. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: Not Applicable. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 30. 

13. C&I Lighting Measure Life and Persistence Project (Study 31)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: To determine measure lives of five categories of lighting measures 

installed over a ten year period from 199 to 2009 using statistical analysis techniques. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation 

● C&I Large Retrofit 

● C&I Small Retrofit

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: This study determined 

the measure life of each of five categories of C&I lighting by estimating their mean retention 

times, defined as the time at which half the units of the measure installed during a program year 

are not retained. Data for the survival analysis was collected during on-site visits to 224 projects 

in New England and New York. Estimates from the survival analysis were also compared with 

research of secondary sources. Measure lives for each category were also estimated for two 

other strata of interest, self-reported operating hours and building type. All results are presented 

with a two-tailed error range at the 80% confidence interval. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 for each of the programs listed above. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 139 of 164

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The 

results of this study were compared with existing values used by PAs. Existing values come 

from a 2005 Massachusetts study, updated in 2007 for the State Program Working Group, a 

group of New England electric energy efficiency PAs and state regulators. Measure lives 

developed from these two studies were based on secondary research of manufacturer literature 

and surveys of energy efficiency programs in other states. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: The Massachusetts PAs 

have not yet determined how to apply the results of this study going forward. Application of the 

results requires consensus on the types of measures in each category that will be affected, 

differences between new construction versus retrofit installations and necessary changes to 

tracking system databases. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 31. 

14. C&I Lighting Loadshape (Study 32)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: A regional study conducted by the Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnership’s EM&V Forum building upon a 2007 study done for the New England State 

Program Working Group to develop Commercial and Industrial lighting loadshapes and 

coincidence factors. 

● C&I New Construction (Electric) 

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: Through the use of data 

from lighting logger studies conducted by various PAs in New England and New York since 

2000 that covered 775 projects and utilized 3,780 loggers, Summer and Winter Coincidence 

factors for Commercial and Industrial lighting were derived. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 for each of the programs listed above. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The 

results of this study are used to update the coincidence factors for summer on-peak demand 

(“CFSP”), and winter on-peak demand (“CFWP”) savings for non-controlled lighting measures 

for the Large C&I New Construction and Retrofit programs, and the summer on-peak demand 

(“CFSP”) for the C&I Small Retrofit programs. The Coincidence factors incorporate HVAC 

interactive effects. 

The results of this study were presented for three weather zones; NE-Mass Weather (representing 

NEMA and SEMA Load zones), NE-North Weather (representing New Hampshire and Maine), 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 140 of 164

and NE-South Coastal (representing Rhode Island and Connecticut). The Massachusetts PAs 

used the results from the NE-Mass Weather zone and NE-North Weather zone (this zone was 

used as the best representation of western Massachusetts weather). The results across these two 

weather zones were exactly the same to two significant digits. 

The formulas necessary to understand the impacts are described in the TRM. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: A separate study conducted 

in 2010 by the Non-Residential Small Retrofit research area determined winter on-peak 

(“CFWP”) coincidence factors for the C&I Small Retrofit program. Results from that study, 

where metering was conducted during the on-peak winter months, have been adopted instead of 

the values produced by this study. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 32. 

15. C&I Unitary HVAC Loadshape Project Final Report (Study 33)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The primary goal of this project was to develop weather normalized 

8,760 (representing every hour of the year) cooling end-use load shapes representative of hourly 

savings for the target population of efficient unitary HVAC equipment promoted by efficiency 

programs in New England, New York and mid-Atlantic regions. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric) 

 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The results of the study 

are hourly weather normalized load shape profiles for different weather regions in the northeast. 

These profiles are then used to calculate the Equivalent Full Load Hours for the equipment and 

the coincidence factors for the ISO New England summer peak periods. 

Results were determined through four to five months of direct on-site energy metering at 511 

individual units from May through October 2010. Metering data and weather for the period was 

then processed to develop an hourly annual load shape normalized to a typical meteorological 

year. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 for each of the programs listed above. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the Program 

Administrator’s Programs: The formulas necessary to understand the impacts are described in 

the TRM. Gross energy and demand savings use the following four formulas. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 141 of 164

For units with cooling capacities less than 65 kBtu/h (for National Grid): 

( ) ( ) Cool

BASE EE

EFLH

SEER SEER

kWh kBtu h ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆ = − 1 1 /

( ) ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆ = −

BASE EE SEER SEER

kW kBtu h 1 1 /

For units with cooling capacities equal to or greater than 65 kBtu/h (all 

PA’s): 

( ) ( ) Cool

BASE EE

EFLH

EER EER

kWh kBtu h ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆ = − 1 1 /

( ) ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆ = − EERBASE EEREE

kW kBtu h 1 1 /

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: All results of the study 

have been adopted by the PAs as follows: 

Cape Light Compact - This study represents the best available information regarding 

installations in the Cape Light Compact’s territory for this end use. The Cape Light Compact 

has used the results of the study to create realization rates on energy and demand for the 

measures studied. These realization rates will apply to results for the 2010 and 2011 program 

years. For program years starting in 2012, the equivalent full load hours and coincidence factors 

determined through this study will be used to calculate gross savings for installations in the Cape 

Light Compact’s service territory. 

To calculate gross energy savings in 2010, Cape Light Compact used an equivalent full load 

hours of 777 for all installations. The results of this study are equivalent full load hour 

estimations encompassing all installations in the three load zones within Massachusetts. Cape 

Light Compact exists entirely within the SEMA load zone and therefore used only the results 

from this zone to calculate all realization rates. This calculation is shown in the following table.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 142 of 164

Load Zone 

Cape Light 

Compact Load 

Zone Weight 

NEEP Result 

EFLH 

NEEP Result 

ISO-NE On-Peak Summer 

Coincidence Factor 

(1-5PM, WDNH, Jun-Aug) 

SEMA 1.0000 1,172 0.448 

NEMA 0.0000 1,172 0.448 

WCMA 0.0000 719 0.332 

Cape Light 

Compact Results 1,172 0.448 

Gross Estimate 777 0.820 

Realization Rate 150.08% 54.63% 

Net Savings for each installation, before Freeridership and Spillover adjustment, is therefore 

calculated as. 

∆kWh= ( ) kBtu/ h (∆kW)(777)(150.08%)

∆kW Summer= (kBtu/ h)(∆kW)(0.820)(54.63%)

See the TRM for further discussion of this measure and details on the equations used. 

National Grid - This study represents the best available information regarding installations in 

National Grid’s territory for this end use. National Grid has used the results of the study to 

create realization rates on energy and demand for the measures studied. These realization rates 

will apply to results for the 2010 and 2011 program years. For program years starting in 2012, 

the equivalent full load hours and coincidence factors determined through this study will be used 

to calculate gross savings for installations in National Grid’s service territory. 

To calculate gross energy savings in 2010, National Grid used an equivalent full load hours of 

777 for all installations. The results of this study are equivalent full load hour estimations 

encompassing all installations in the three load zones within Massachusetts. National Grid has 

chosen to use its load zone peak demands to consolidate the three zones into one National Grid 

specific value. This calculation was also done for the summer coincidence factor. This 

calculation is shown in the following table.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 143 of 164

Load Zone 

National Grid 

Load Zone 

Weight 

NEEP Result 

EFLH 

NEEP Result 

ISO-NE On-Peak Summer 

Coincidence Factor 

(1-5PM, WDNH, Jun-Aug) 

SEMA 0.3234 1,172 0.448 

NEMA 0.2378 1,172 0.448 

WCMA 0.4388 719 0.332 

National Grid 

Results 973 0.397 

Gross Estimate 777 0.441 

Realization Rate 125.23% 89.94% 

Net Savings for each installation, before Freeridership and Spillover adjustment, is therefore 

calculated as. 

∆kWh= ( ) kBtu/ h (∆kW)(777)(125.23%)

∆kW Summer= (kBtu/ h)(∆kW)(0.441)(89.%)

See the TRM for further discussion of this measure and details on the equations used. 

NSTAR - This study represents the best available information regarding installations in 

NSTAR’s territory for this end use. NSTAR has used the results of the study to create 

realization rates on energy and demand for the measures studied. These realization rates will be 

applied to results for the 2010 program year. For program year 2011 and beyond, the equivalent 

full load hours and coincidence factors determined through this study will be used to calculate 

gross savings for installations in NSTAR’s service territory. 

To calculate gross energy savings in 2010, NSTAR used several equivalent full load hour values, 

depending on the type of installation. The results of this study are equivalent full load hour 

estimations encompassing all installations in the three load zones within Massachusetts. 

NSTAR’s service territory is contained within the NEMA and SEMA load zones. The 

realization rate developed for 2010, as indicated in the table below, is based on an analysis of 

savings for all 2010 unitary HVAC equipment measures in the company’s tracking system.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 144 of 164

Load Zone 

NSTAR 2010 

Gross kWh 

Savings 

NSTAR 

Load Zone 

Weight 

NEEP 

Result 

EFLH 

NEEP Result 

ISO-NE On-Peak Summer 

Coincidence Factor 

(1-5PM, WDNH, Jun-Aug) 

SEMA 1 1,172 0.448 

NEMA 1 1,172 0.448 

WCMA 0 719 0.332 

NSTAR Results 1172 0.448 

Gross Savings 1,885,314 

Incremental 

Savings Based 

On New EFLH 

340,223 

 

Realization 

Rate 

118% 

 54.6% 

Unitil - This study represents the best available information regarding installations in Unitil’s 

territory for this end use. Unitil has used the results of the study to create realization rates on 

energy and demand for the measures studied. These realization rates will apply to results for the 

2010 and 2011 program years. For program years starting in 2012, the equivalent full load hours 

and coincidence factors determined through this study will be used to calculate gross savings for 

installations in Unitil’s service territory. 

To calculate gross energy savings in 2010, Unitil used an equivalent full load hours of 777 for all 

installations. The results of the NEEP study are equivalent full load hour estimations 

encompassing all installations in the three load zones within Massachusetts. Unitil exists entirely 

within the WCMA load zone and therefore used only the results from this zone to calculate all 

realization rates. This calculation is shown in the following table.
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 145 of 164

Load Zone 

Unitil Load Zone 

Weight 

NEEP Result 

EFLH 

NEEP Result 

ISO-NE On-Peak Summer 

Coincidence Factor 

(1-5PM, WDNH, Jun-Aug) 

SEMA 0.0000 1,172 0.448 

NEMA 0.0000 1,172 0.448 

WCMA 1.0000 719 0.332 

Unitil Results 719 0.332 

Gross Estimate 777 0.820 

Realization Rate 92.53% 40.49% 

Net Savings for each installation, before Freeridership and Spillover adjustment, is therefore 

calculated as. 

∆kWh = ( ) kBtu/ h (∆kW)(xxxx)(yyyy%)

∆kW Summer= (kBtu/ h)(∆kW)(0.82)(54.6.%)

See the TRM for further discussion of this measure and details on the equations used. 

WMECO - The best available information for WMECo is the realization rates from the 

WMECo-specific Large C&I evaluation study completed in May 2011. That study provides one 

realization rate for all WMECo HVAC in its Large C&I programs. 

Since WMECo uses site-specific operating hours in most cases, and default operating hours in 

just a few, the retrospective use of the NEEP Unitary HVAC study is problematic, since its use 

would require a substantial number of site-specific calculations instead of a blanket calculation. 

In addition, WMECo lacks a separate category for unitary HVAC; we lump it in with all HVAC. 

Since unitary HVAC is only a few percent of all HVAC, reverse calculating a (residual) 

realization rate for all other WMECo HVAC, from the WMECo-specific study, would not be 

worth the cost of doing so. 

However, for program years starting in 2012, the equivalent full load hours and coincidence 

factors determined through the NEEP study will be used as defaults to calculate gross savings for 

installations in the WMECo’s service territory. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 33. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 146 of 164

16. Cross Cutting C&I Free-Ridership and Spillover Methodology Study Final 

Report (Study 34)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The focus of this study was on the general methods for estimating what 

would have happened absent C&I programs in Massachusetts. The net program effect is the 

observed effect, less the estimate of what would have happened absent the program. The 

objectives of this study were to develop a standardized methodology for situations where C&I 

end-users are able to report on program impacts via self-report methods, and to provide a 

decision framework and guidelines for when the standardized self-report methodology is 

appropriate and when other methods need to be used (e.g., upstream programs). 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Electric & Gas) 

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric) 

● C&I Retrofit (Gas) 

● C&I Direct Install (Gas) 

Recommendations derived from the study: There were no recommendations derived from this 

study, rather, the study suggested methodologies for PAs to consider in future NTG evaluations. 

Explain Why Or Why Not The Program Administrator Decided To Adopt 

Recommendations From The Study: In general, the Cape Light Compact adopts results from 

an evaluation study which are supported by the data generated from the study. The Cape Light 

Compact will incorporate the findings of this study into the planning process for future 

evaluations of Net-to-Gross ratios for Commercial & Industrial programs. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 34. 

17. Prescriptive Condensing Boiler Impact Evaluation Project 5 Prescriptive 

Gas (Study 35)

Type of Study: Impact 

Objective of the Study: The objective of this impact evaluation was to develop annual gas 

savings impacts for all five size categories of prescriptive condensing boilers installed through 

the C&I gas programs. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● C&I New Construction and Major Renovation (Gas) 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 147 of 164

● C&I Large Retrofit (Gas) 

Results of the Study and How the Study Determined those Results: The study produced 

impact estimates for condensing boilers in all size categories. The results were also presented as 

realization rates to apply to prescribed savings provided in the 2011 Program Year TRM. The 

results were developed using telephone and on-site sample interview results to update estimates 

of site-level savings. The updated results were combined in a ratio estimator framework to 

produce estimates of realization rates and impacts. 

How the Results of the Study Impact each Identified Program’s Savings: Please refer to the 

tables in Section II.C.2 of the Gas Energy Efficiency Annual Reports for each of the programs 

listed above. 

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impact of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The 

report provides realization rates and updated unit level savings estimates for: 

● Condensing boiler <= 300 mbh 

● Condensing boiler 301-499 mbh 

● Condensing boiler 500-999 mbh 

● Condensing boiler 1000-1700 mbh 

● Condensing boiler 1701+ mbh 

The formulas necessary to understand the impacts are described in the TRM. 

If the Results of the Study are Not Adopted, Fully Explain Why: Not applicable to the 

Compact as the results of this study affect gas PAs only. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 35. 

E. Special and Cross Sector Studies

1. Industry Practices and Policies on Energy Efficiency Program 

Rebate/Incentives (Study 36)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: Tetra Tech and the Energy Center of Wisconsin (“ECW”) (“the 

research team”) conducted a high-level scoping study of statewide energy efficiency program 

incentive and rebate levels to help inform the policy debate for statewide programs in 

Massachusetts and to support fourth quarter 2010 programmatic planning. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric) 

● Residential Cooling and Heating Program (Electric) 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 148 of 164

● Residential Heating and Water Heating (Gas) 

● Residential Weatherization (Gas) 

● C&I Large Retrofit (Electric) 

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric) 

● C&I Retrofit (Gas) 

● C&I Direct Install (Gas) 

Recommendations derived from the study: The study presented key findings without specific 

recommendations. The key findings indicated that residential incentives and rebates in 

Massachusetts were not consistently higher or lower than those in the other states programs. 

Those incentives that were not in the mid-range when compared to other industry programs 

included: 

● Residential gas furnace incentives in Massachusetts are among the higher incentives 

offered and are currently under review. Massachusetts also ranked the highest for hot 

water boiler rebates. 

● Massachusetts weatherization incentives fall in the upper half of offerings, but these 

are complex programs and difficult to compare. 

● Massachusetts commercial rebates examined for lighting were on the low end of 

lighting rebates offered in other states. 

● The Massachusetts small business incentive at 70 percent of installed cost of existing 

building projects is higher than two other state programs and higher than the cap on 

custom incentives for large commercial projects. 

● Massachusetts rebates appear to be at the high end of offerings in other states for hotair furnaces. 

Explain Why Or Why Not The Program Administrator Decided To Adopt 

Recommendations From The Study: Not Applicable

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 36. 

2. Community Based Partnership Interim Process Evaluation (Study 37)

Type of Study: Process 

Objective of the Study: The overall objectives of the evaluation are to assess the effectiveness 

of each community-based partnership that falls within the scope of the evaluation and determine 

their potential for replication and/or full-scale implementation. 

As the evaluation of community-based partnerships is still ongoing, the Interim Process 

Evaluation provides an overview of each effort’s structure and performance against the goals and 

presents findings from the research activities already conducted with a goal of providing early 

feedback and identifying areas for program improvement early on. The report also presents 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 149 of 164

comparative analysis of community-based efforts under evaluation with the goal of developing 

best practices for design and implementation of such efforts. 

Programs to which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Renew Boston (Electric and Gas) 

● Western Mass Saves Challenge (Electric) 

● New Bedford Community Mobilization Initiative (Electric and Gas) 

Recommendations Derived from the Study: 

Overarching Findings 

Articulate program design to reflect the target market – when planning and designing a 

community outreach effort, it is important to lay out what each partnership is intending to 

accomplish, why such an effort is needed for a specific population, and how they fit into 

existing programs. This will help ensure that the target audience and barriers are clearly 

documented, and the most effective interventions are selected. 

Draw on the strengths of local and existing resources and ensure that the community 

group efforts align with partnership goals – while there is no right or wrong model for 

structuring a community engagement network, it is important to consider the existing 

infrastructure and the amount of resources required to engage the network when planning 

and designing a community-based effort. A full analysis of the financial and local 

resources may also enhance these efforts. In addition, program leaders or organizers should 

focus local organizations on their strengths and, where relevant, consider the sustainability 

of the effort if this is a desired outcome. 

Understand the unique nature of the target market – community-based efforts could 

benefit from bringing together local knowledge on the front end and revisiting the existing 

program designs to ensure that they are anticipating unique characteristics in the population 

to the extent that they can prior to fielding the effort. This would include looking beyond 

the assumed cultural barriers to understand what other logistical or technical barriers may 

present a challenge to program implementation in the specific market (and finding 

resources to overcome these challenges). Pre-screening communities and their barriers will 

be useful to this effort. 

Tracking information to help improve efforts and demonstrate success – tracking core 

performance metrics is integral to the success of any effort. Effective tracking is essential 

to measuring milestones and progress, as well as energy impacts of community-based 

efforts. When designing and implementing community-based efforts, stakeholders should 

carefully consider which performance metrics to track, and develop mechanisms to track 

them, while balancing this effort with resource constraints. 

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 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 150 of 164

interviews with the PA staff, and in-depth interviews with program stakeholders and community 

groups. 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. Additional primary research will be conducted in 2011. 

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

Why: These initial findings are targeted at future efforts, and will be considered by the PAs and 

interested stakeholders as additional efforts are launched. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 37. 

F. Cape Light Compact-Specific Studies

1. Findings from In-depth Interviews with Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot 

Participants (Study 38)

Objective of the Study: The purpose of the study was to supplement findings from the first 

evaluation of the Pilot that was completed in Spring 2010, and inform the Pilot’s future 

expansion. 

Programs to Which the Results of the Study Apply: 

● Power Monitor Pilot (also referred to as the Smart Home Energy Monitoring Pilot) 

Recommendations Derived From The Study: 

● Additional training opportunity. General sentiment from participants was that initial 

training on the Internet Dashboard and monitoring system was brief, and possibly 

insufficient for some of the less tech-savvy participants. We suggest an optional 

follow-up training, possibly a webinar, after participants have had a little time to 

become familiar with the website, to help them learn more about what is available, 

how to take advantage of it, and how to interpret the energy use feedback. 

● Energy use disaggregation. At least one-half of participants interviewed expressed 

interest in using a more detailed sub-circuit monitoring system that would allow the 

viewing of detailed electricity demand by end use. We are not aware of Grounded 

Power’s “next step” monitoring technologies; however, end-use monitoring appears 

to be an option in some systems, since one participant mentioned Powerhouse 

Dynamics (http://www.powerhousedynamics.com/) as a monitoring system option 

that allows for sub-circuit electricity use feedback. 

● Maintain consistent feedback (including additional energy saving resources). Indepth interview findings corroborate our 2010 evaluation findings that consistent 

interaction either with the monitor or e-mail updates keeps their energy saving habits 

“top of mind,” and increases the likelihood of actual energy savings. We recommend 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 151 of 164

that any future program include feedback mechanisms similar to that of the pilot. 

Some participants suggested that since the weekly e-mail from Cape Light Compact 

is especially salient to them, it could be used to provide supplemental energy saving 

information and resources to participants. 

● Solar PV systems. Two participants discussed their interest in investing in solar PV 

systems. Another participant dropped out of the pilot because of an incompatibility 

between the pilot monitoring system and the solar PV system. This may not be an 

important issue currently, however, as residential solar PV systems increase in 

popularity, the compatibility of monitoring systems and solar PV systems should be 

considered in long-term program strategies. 

● Inclusion of “child friendly” mechanisms. Households with small children or 

teenagers faced unique challenges and opportunities when participating in the pilot 

program. Parents view the program as a teaching opportunity, however, attempts to 

get children involved were usually short-lived and not successful in changing 

behaviors. Several participants commented that the proposed indicator light may 

increase children’s interest, and there are additional mechanisms (e.g., simplified 

visual indicators of energy use, energy games, and child-friendly challenges) possible 

within future iterations of the Internet Dashboard and monitoring system as a whole. 

● Additional opportunity for social interaction. Most participants exhibited a sense of 

pride in being part of the pilot group. Identification with the group and the online 

discussion forum creates a set of shared social norms regarding energy use and 

behaviors among the participants. Social science research suggests that direct social 

contact, such as informal meetings or workshops, will strengthen social norms and 

increase commitment among participants to change energy use behaviors. These 

occasions would also provide an additional forum for information on the “next steps” 

and strategies for participants, a topic that was frequently requested in the interviews. 

How The Study Came To The Recommended Conclusions: The conclusions are based on the 

10 in depth interviews completed as part of the study. 

Explain Why Or Why Not The Program Administrator Decided To Adopt 

Recommendations From The Study: 

● Regarding Recommendation 1: Cape Light Compact is working with the vendor 

selected to implement Phase II of the Pilot to provide more robust training to 

participants in Phase II. Also, the dashboard and monitoring system provide the 

participant direct email access to the implementation vendor so that questions and/or 

problems can be addressed. 

● Regarding Recommendation 2: Cape Light Compact will consider implementing this 

recommendation if the Pilot is transitioned to a Program. 

● Regarding Recommendation 3: Cape Light Compact agrees with and will continue to 

implement this recommendation. 

● Regarding Recommendation 4: Cape Light Compact attempted to include in Phase II 

of the Pilot, but no respondents to the RFP offer monitoring systems that are 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 152 of 164

compatible with the solar PV system. Cape Light Compact is working with the 

selected implementation vendor to explore this option and future capability. 

● Regarding Recommendation 5: The recommended child friendly mechanisms are not 

offered in the current version of the dashboard and monitoring system provided by 

the selected implementation vendor. 

● Regarding Recommendation 6: Cape Light Compact is considering this 

recommendation for Phase II of the Pilot. 

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 38. 

G. Future Studies

Table III.B summarizes the studies expected to be included in next year’s Annual Report. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 153 of 164

Studies Docket & Exhibit Approving 

Planned Evaluation Studies

Expected to be 

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Residential Studies

Residential Products - Market assessment on CFL use, 

saturation and reported purchase behaviors

Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Residential Products - Shelf stocking survey of MA 

retailers

Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Residential Products - Lighting Exploratory Evaluation Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Residential Retrofit & Low Income -Impact evaluation 

of Mass Save program

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Residential Retrofit & Low Income -Potential Study of 

the Multifamily Program

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010). Study 

was initiated prior to the filing of 

the MTM.

Yes

Residential Retrofit & Low Income -Process and 

Impact evaluation of Multifamily Program

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Residential Retrofit & Low Income -Net-to-Gross 

study on Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment 

(Cool Smart)

Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Residential New Construction - Phase II: Baseline 

Study/Code Compliance Assessment

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Residential New Construction - Major Renovation Pilot Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Residential New Construction - Homebuyer Survey Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Residential New Construction - Assessment of New 

Technologies

Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Residential New Construction - Builder Focus Groups Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Table III.B: Evaluation Studies in Next Annual Report
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 154 of 164

Studies Docket & Exhibit Approving 

Planned Evaluation Studies

Expected to be 

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Low-Income Studies

Residential Retrofit & Low Income -Process and 

Impact evaluation of Low Income program

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Commercial & Industrial Studies

Small C&I - Integrated Program Process Evaluation Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Small C&I - Lighting Billing Analysis Evaluation Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Small C&I - Lighting Fixture Summer Metering Impact 

Evaluation

Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Small C&I - Lighting Controls Impact Evaluation Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Large C&I - Process Evaluation of the Large 

Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Large C&I - Phase II: Non-Residential New 

Construction Market Assessment Study

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Large C&I - Custom Electric Measures Impact 

Evaluations (Lighting, Process, Compressed Air)

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Large C&I - Prescriptive Gas Measures Impact 

Evaluation

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Large C&I - Custom Gas Measures Impact Evaluation Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Large C&I - Prescriptive Measure Impact Evaluation 

(Lighting, VSDs)

Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Large C&I - CHP Impact Evaluation Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Large C&I - Impact of Gas Training Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Table III.B: Evaluation Studies in Next Annual Report (cont'd)
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 155 of 164

Studies Docket & Exhibit Approving 

Planned Evaluation Studies

Expected to be 

Implemented as 

Approved? 

(yes/no)

Special & Cross-Cutting Studies

Phase II: Behavioral Pilots Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Phase II: Community Based Pilots Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Phase II: Umbrella Marketing Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

C&I Net-to-Gross Study Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Non-Energy Impacts 2011 - Residential & Low 

Income

Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Non-Energy Impacts 2011 - Deep Energy Retrofit Study is planned but not yet 

submitted for approval Yes

Non-Energy Impacts 2011 - C&I: non-Custom Study is pending approval of the 

2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147, 

Exhibit C (filed Oct. 2010)

Yes

Table III.B: Evaluation Studies in Next Annual Report (cont'd)
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 156 of 164

IV. STATUTORY BUDGET REQUIREMENTS

A. Introduction

The Green Communities Act requires that energy efficiency programs minimize administrative 

costs, utilize competitive procurement processes, and spend a certain amount on low-income 

programs. G.L. c. 25, §§ 19(a)-(c). The purpose of this section is to address these statutory 

budget requirements. 

For each sector, Tables IV.A through IV.C summarize and compare planned and actual PP&A 

costs, outsourced activities, and budget allocation, respectively. 

B. Minimization of Administrative Costs

The most significant factor in the Cape Light Compact’s approach to controlling administrative 

costs is its active participation in the statewide planning process. While this participation 

requires a significant dedication of resources, the benefits of collaborative planning, the adoption 

of consistent programs and processes and the coordination of program design, EM&V studies, 

and regulatory proceedings outweigh the cost of participation and bring immense benefits to the 

Cape Light Compact’s customers. The extent and benefits of the statewide planning process 

were reflected in the Statewide Three-Year Electric/Gas Plans which created the over-arching 

framework for the Cape Light Compact’s individual Three-Year Plan filing. This included a 

significant commitment to competitive procurement and program integration, as well as other 

design features described in detail in both the Statewide and Cape Light Compact-specific Plans. 

 

A second factor in the Cape Light Compact’s efforts to control administrative costs is its 

grassroots service to the community through its volunteer and Town or County appointed 

Governing Board Members. The Cape Light Compact Board Members bring their expertise to 

community civic and business outreach events, through their role on the energy efficiency 

committee provide guidance to staff on policies and new innovative initiatives, and support the 

multiple Town Energy Committees so as to inform and encourage participation in energy 

efficiency program – all through volunteer service at no cost to ratepayers. 

The Cape Light Compact continues to be committed to managing its energy efficiency programs 

in the most cost-effective manner possible. T his includes careful attention to controlling 

administrative costs. All of the PAs recognize that high quality and effective administration at 

the lowest possible cost is essential to the delivery of quality programs and achievement of 

maximum benefits and savings to customers. 

Table IV.A provides a summary of the percent change in actual Program Planning and 

Administration Costs relative to plan, at the program, sector, and portfolio level. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 157 of 164

Value ($) % of Total 

Program Costs Value ($) % of Total Program Costs Value ($)

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Residential

Residential New Construction & Major 

Renovation 12,301 3% 20,457 4% 8,156 1%

Residential Cooling & Heating Equipment 20,731 3% 22,955 4% 2,224 1%

Multi-Family Retrofit 12,722 3% 483 1% -12,238 -2%

MassSAVE 238,857 4% 246,357 7% 7,499 2%

O Power n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ENERGY STAR Lighting 36,570 3% 71,091 9% 34,520 6%

ENERGY STAR Appliances 8,059 3% 23,727 6% 15,668 3%

Residential Education Program 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Workforce Development 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Heat Loan Program 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Deep Energy Retrofit 0 0% 813 3% 813 3%

Power Monitor Pilot 0 0% 1,618 2% 1,618 2%

Residential New Construction & Major 

Renovation - Major Renovation statewide 

pilot 0 0% 352 1% 352 1%

Residential New Construction Multi Family 

(4-8 story) statewide pilot n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a

Residential New Construction Lighting 

Design statewide pilot 0 0% 417 4% 417 4%

Residential New Construction V3 Energy 

Star Homes statewide pilot 0 0% 0 - 0 0%

Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot 0 0% 99 1% 99 1%

Residential Technical Development 0 0% 467 4% 467 4%

Hot Roofs 0 0% 0 - 0 0%

Home Automation 0 0% 0 - 0 0%

Community Based Pilot n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Statewide Marketing & Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

EEAC Consultants 93,555 100% 0 - -93,555 0%

DOER Assessment 28,456 100% 46,639 100% 18,183 0%

Sponsorships & Subscriptions 11,967 100% 24,010 100% 12,043 0%

Residential Total 463,219 5% 459,486 7% -3,733 2%

Table IV.A: Program Planning and Administration Costs

Customer Sector / Program

Planned Actual Change from Planned 

to Actual
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 158 of 164

Value ($) % of Total 

Program Costs Value ($) % of Total Program Costs Value ($)

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Low-Income

Low-Income Residential New Construction 705 2% 3,554 4% 2,849 1%

Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit 56,462 3% 89,401 6% 32,939 2%

Low-Income MuiltiFamily Retrofit 15,497 4% 7,850 4% -7,647 0%

Statewide Marketing & Education n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Low-Income Energy Affordability Network 

Funding 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

DOER Assessment 4,774 100% 10,309 100% 5,535 0%

Low-Income Total 77,438 4% 111,114 6% 33,676 2%

Commercial & Industrial

C&I New Construction and Major 

Renovation 33,008 4% 60,518 8% 27,510 5%

C&I New Construction and Major 

Renovation - Government

C&I Large Retrofit 23,505 1% 58,777 4% 35,272 2%

Large C&I Retrofit - Government

C&I Small Retrofit 177,582 4% 148,723 5% -28,859 1%

C&I Small Retrofit - Government

Community Based Pilot n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Statewide Marketing & Education n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EEAC Consultants 70,295 100% 0 - -70,295 0%

DOER Assessment 15,380 100% 35,036 100% 19,656 0%

Sponsorships & Subscriptions 10,033 100% 3,945 100% -6,088 0%

C&I Total 329,803 5% 306,999 6% -22,804 1%

GRAND TOTAL 870,460 5% 877,598 6% 7,138 2%

Table IV.A: Program Planning and Administration Costs (cont'd)

Customer Sector / Program

Planned Actual Change from Planned 

to Actual

None of the sectors experienced variances of 10% or greater as compared to planned Program 

Planning and Administration costs. 

C. Competitive Procurement

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

Outsourced Activities (including Competitively Procured and Non-Competitively Procured 

Activities) relative to plan, at the sector and portfolio level. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 159 of 164

$ % of Total 

Activities $ % of Total 

Outsourced $ % of Total 

Outsourced $ % of Total 

Activities $

Residential

Planned $238,475 9% $1,848,178 77% $552,725 23% $2,400,903 91% $2,639,379

Actual $467,822 27% $1,088,289 86% $176,150 14% $1,264,439 73% $1,732,261

% Difference 

from Planned 

to Actual 18% 9% -9% -18%

Low-Income

Planned $46,599 7% $181,889 30% $422,351 70% $604,240 93% $650,838

Actual $112,270 27% $270,637 89% $32,753 11% $303,390 73% $415,659

% Difference 

from Planned 

to Actual 20% 59% -59% -20%

Commercial & Industrial

Planned $282,576 21% $769,617 71% $318,176 29% $1,087,793 79% $1,370,369

Actual $367,888 36% $368,984 57% $272,942 43% $641,926 64% $1,009,814

% Difference 

from Planned 

to Actual 16% -13% 13% -16%

TOTAL

Planned $567,650 12% $2,799,684 68% $1,293,252 32% $4,092,936 88% $4,660,586

Actual $947,980 30% $1,727,910 78% $481,844 22% $2,209,754 70% $3,157,734

% Difference 

from Planned 

to Actual 18% 10% -10% -18%

Table IV.B: Outsourced & Competitively Procured Services

Customer 

Sector

In-House Activities Total Outsourced 

Activities

Non-Competitively 

Procured

TOTAL 

Activities

Outsourced Activities

Competitively Procured

Only Low Income experienced a significant variance between planned to actual by outsource 

category. 

There was a shift from Outsourced Activities to In-House Activities across all sectors. In 

general, outsourced EM&V costs and vendor implementation costs (which are captured in the 

Sales, Technical Assistance and Training budget category) were significantly lower than planned 

for all sectors. Also, in-house Marketing and Sales, Technical Assistance and Training costs 

were significantly higher than planned. 

As the Cape Light Compact did not know the exact cost of EM&V when it filed its plan, it 

assumed that 4% of its total budget would be spent on EM&V activities in its plan. However, 

the Cape Light Compact did not need to leverage all of the money set aside for EM&V due to the 

fact that most studies were conducted and cost-shared on a statewide basis among PAs and as a 

result were less costly for each PA. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 160 of 164

When formulating its plan, the Cape Light Compact inquired about implementation costs with its 

vendors and used these inputs to develop its plan. However, as implementation occurred, 

vendors realized that they could provide services more cost effectively than they had estimated at 

the time the plan was developed. 

Conversely, in-house Marketing and Sales, Technical Assistance and Training costs were 

significantly higher than planned as internal resources were leveraged more than planned. The 

Cape Light Compact did not know the exact in-house costs Marketing and Sales, Technical 

Assistance and Training costs that would be needed when it filed its plan, and the assumptions 

made did not reflect the actual requirements. 

In terms of the shift from non-competitive to competitive procurement, Low-Income experienced 

an increase in competitive procurement due to the fact that more outsourced costs were leveraged 

by implementation vendors that were competitively procured. 

D. Low-Income Spending

Table IV.C provides a summary of the percent change in actual costs at the sector and portfolio 

levels, relative to plan. 

Total 

Program 

Costs

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Total 

Program 

Costs

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Total 

Program 

Costs

% of Total 

Program 

Costs

Residential $9,449,462 51% $6,388,566 47% -$3,060,896 -3%

Low-Income $2,088,750 11% $1,826,691 13% -$262,058 2%

Commercial & Industrial $7,098,577 38% $5,315,961 39% -$1,782,616 1%

TOTAL $18,636,789 100% $13,531,218 100% -$5,105,571 0%

Table IV.C: Customer Sector Budget Allocation

Customer Sector

Planned Actual

Change from Planned 

to Actual

The statutory requirement regarding the Low-Income budget is as follows: 

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

including the low-income residential subclass, in proportion to their contributions to those funds; 

provided, however, that at least 10 per cent of the amount expended for electric energy efficiency 

programs and at least 20 per cent of the amount expended for gas energy efficiency programs 

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

programs.”20

 

20 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 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 161 of 164

The Low-Income budget represents greater than 10% of the amount expended for electric energy 

efficiency programs by the Cape Light Compact. Therefore, the Cape Light Compact met the 

Low-Income budget statutory requirement in 2010. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 162 of 164

V. PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES

The purpose of this section is to address the performance incentives that each PA proposes to 

collect. As a public entity and municipal aggregator, the Cape Light Compact does not collect 

performance incentives. As such, this section is not applicable to the Cape Light Compact. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 163 of 164

VI. AUDITS

The purpose of this section is to address audits conducted during the past 5 program years. 

The Cape Light Compact has not had an internal or external audit that related to its energy 

efficiency activities during the last five years (2006-2010). Therefore, no audit summaries are 

provided in this section, and no audits are provided in Appendix E.2. 
Cape Light Compact 

2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx 

Page 164 of 164

VII. APPENDICES

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

Appendix Appendix Contents 

A Glossary 

 A.1.a Types of Costs in Each Budget Category 

 A.1.b Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

B Cost-Effectiveness Supporting Tables and Documentation 

 B.1.a D.P.U. 08-50 Tables: 2010 Annual Report Filing 

 B.1.b D.P.U. 08-50 Tables: 2010 Mid-Year Revisions Filing (Docket 10-106) 

 B.2.a Screening Tool: Preliminary 

 B.2.b Screening Tool: Evaluated 

 B.3 TRM 

C Program and Pilot Program EM&V Studies 

D Performance Incentives Supporting Documentation 

E Other Supporting Documentation 

 E.1.a Statewide RFPs 

 E.1.b Cape Light Compact-Specific RFPs 

 E.2 Audit Documentation 

 E.3 Cape Light Compact-Specific Sample Contracts 

 E.4 Cape Light Compact Town Activity Reports 

 E.5 2010 Energy Education Program Activity 

F Lost Base Revenue Information 

T:\Clients\BCY\EEP\EEP Implementation\Annual Reports on EE Activities\2010 Annual Report\Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report - 8 

15 11 Updated FINAL.bcy.docx