# 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, 2011This 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 & Industr ial 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 ............................................................................................ 164Cape 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 e fficiency 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 envir onment and the economy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Collectively, th e Program Administrator (the “Cape Light Compact”), along with all the gas and electric distribution companies and munici pal 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 Or ders, while maintaini ng the balance between meeting the budget for their programs and comp lying with the direc tives of the Green Communities Act (“GCA”) in ensuring that they make available all cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities. Overa ll, the Cape Light Compact and ot her PAs worked diligently with the Department of Public Utilities (“Department”), the Department of Energy Resources (“DOER”), the Energy Efficiency Advisory Counc il (“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 Co mmercial 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 PA s 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 Genera l 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 redu ctions equivalent to the annual output of over 74,000 cars, and signi ficant progress towards greenhouse gas, NOx, and SO2 emission reductions. The ability to achiev e or exceed nearly all of the statewide goals and targets, despite a very difficult economic c limate in the Commonwealth, results in significant benefits for the environment, th e 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 crit ical 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 fo r 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 c ontinued to be engage d 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 succeede d, 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 d eeper savings from participating customers, and have worked to reach a broader range of cu stomers to capture all available efficiency opportunities that can be deliver ed in a cost-effective manner.

A. Purpose of Annual Report

The Cape Light Compact is pleas ed to provide its Energy Effi ciency 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 appli cable) 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 undertak en by the Cape Light Compact (both individually and jointly with other Program Administrato rs (“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 residentia l, low-income, and C&I sectors.

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

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 stat utory budget requirements.

● Section V addresses the performance in centives 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 summ ary 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 th an in the 2009 program year. The 2009 program year represented a 93% increase in funding ove r 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 dou bling of investments in energy efficiency represents the Towns and C ounties continued commitment to serving our customers.

The Cape Light Compact highlight s 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 Collaborativ e 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 & Indus trial Program implementa tion throughout Barnstable County by identifying and managing projects funded by both the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy-Efficiency Conservation Bl ock Grant and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Grant;

● Celebrated the Association of Energy Engi neers 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 consis tent demonstration of the effectiveness of regional collaboration in transformi ng the market for ENERGY STAR® qualified products.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 4 of 164

Tables 2 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 an d all subsequent tables that contain Planned Values in this Annual Report can be found in th e 08-50 tables in Appendix B.1.b of this filing. The Cape Light Compact’s 2010 plan was origin ally 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 Co mpact’s 2010 Annual Report, the Ca pe 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, significant 3 variances exist at the portfolio level for:

● All metrics between planned a nd preliminary values, and

● All metrics between planne d and evaluated values.

2 The Cape Light Compact is also providing the De partment of Public Utilities with working Microsoft® Excel spreadsheets for all of the tables included in this Annual Report. Such ta bles 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 portf olio level between preliminary values and evaluated values. This indicates that the EM&V impact studies di d not have a significant impact on portfolio level results.

Each sector contributed to these variances as follows:

● Residential (for Total Program Costs, Li fetime Energy, Lifetime Demand, Summer Demand, NEB (Lifetime), TRC Benefits, T RC Costs, and Net Benefits): Please reference section II.A.1 for a more detailed discussion of the cau se of the variances for this sector.

● Low-Income (for Lifetime Energy, Annual Energy, Lifetime Demand, Summer Demand, Winter Demand, TRC Benefits, and Ne t Benefits): Please reference section II.B.1 for a more detailed discussion of th e cause of the variances for this sector.

● C&I (for Total Program Costs, Lifeti me Energy, Annual Energy, Lifetime Demand, Summer Demand, Winter Dema nd, 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 Planne d 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 SummaryCape 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 le vel 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 Be nefits, TRC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR.

● Within the Residential sector, the Multi -Family Retrofit, MassSAVE and ENERGY STAR® Lighting programs are contributi ng to the variance be tween planned and evaluated values. Please refe rence section II.A.2 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the variances by pr ogram 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 refe rence section II.B.2 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the varian ces by program within this sector.

● Within the C&I sector, the C&I New C onstruction and Major Renovation, C&I Large Retrofit and C&I Small Retrofit programs ar e contributing to th e variance between planned and evaluated values. Please refe rence section II.C.2 for a more detailed discussion of the cause of the varian ces 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 deta iled information on program performance at the sector and program levels for the Resi dential, Low-Income, and C&I sectors.

A. Residential Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2010, the Cape Light Compact implemente d 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-Fa mily (4-8 story) Statewide Pilot4

● Residential New Construction - Li ghting Design Statewide Pilot

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

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

● Heat Pump Water Heati ng Pilot (Non-Statewide)

● Power Monitor Pilot (Cape Light Compact-Specific)

● Home Automation Pilot (Cap e Light Compact-Specific)

Tables II.A.1 through II.A.3 provide summary information on the pe rformance 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 supp orts 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 Preliminar y % 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 exis ting residential programs and significantly expanded initiatives to increase participation in a ll 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 rema ined slow, and opportunities to capture future energy savings were becoming increasi ngly difficult. To address these barriers the program engaged in code support activit ies and introduced se veral new marketing efforts including a lumberyard outreach se ries, 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 resu lted in the program receiving its fourth consecutive ENERGY STAR® award for Sustai ned 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 ke y customer facility data and eligibility, and forwarded to the appropriate vendor for customer contac t. In addition, monthly activity reports were developed and reviewed, to track pr ogram progress. Requests thru the MMI increased as customers utilized the new single telephone number. Energy efficient lighting retrofits were high in dema nd 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 comp leted 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 pr omotions 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 othe r 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 in cluding 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 progr ams 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 cau se 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 discussi on of the cause of th e 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 cau se 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 Ev aluated 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 th e discussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Yea r-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

R esults Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary to

E valuated 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 UsesCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 12 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d 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 SummaryCape 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 ResultsCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 14 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d 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 th e 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 Ener gy Rating System (“HERS”) raters, homebuyers, realtors, developers, low income and affordab le housing developers, code officials, and consumers in the market for new homes and/or major renovations.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 Ma nagement Committee (“JMC”). The JMC’s contractor was responsible for tracking and reporting program ac tivity. The contractor also conducted quality assurance/quality control of fiel d activities and advised the JMC on necessary program changes and enhancements. The JMC u tilized 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011).

Green Affordable Housing Initiative (Cape Light Compact-specific compone nt 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 renewa ble energy systems. The Green Affordable Housing Initiative was implemented from 2008 – 2010.

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

Value % Change from Planned Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 ValueCape 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 hi gher 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 anticipat ed, and 3) the fact that a greater proportion of electrically heated homes were built than anti cipated. As higher progr am costs were coupled with higher program savings, this program is cost-effective.

2010 was a unique year for the Cape Light Comp act’s Residential New Construction & Major Renovation program. The Cape Light Compact ’s 2010 plan assumed that the economic downturn would result in lower participation. Ho wever, 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 si gnificantly higher than planned participants, evaluated total program costs were significantly higher than planned.

Additionally, the homes were built to higher effici ency 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 fo r 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 signi ficantly higher evaluated annual energy savings as compared to planned. Furthermore, there we re 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 hom es in the new construction completions, the significant variances between ev aluated and planned lifetime energy savings, annual energy savings, average measure life, lifetime dema nd savings, summer demand savings, winter demand savings and non-electric benefits can also be explained by th e fact that certain building approaches are specific to affordable new cons truction. Affordable new construction practices place more emphasis on building shell measures as compared to lighting and appliance measures. Affordable units typically feature hard-wired fi xtures, which limit the savings opportunities from lighting. Since building shell measures have signif icantly higher savings and longer lifetimes as compared to lighting and appliances measures, the significant positive variances between evaluated and planned annual ener gy savings, lifetime energy savi ngs and average measure life can be explained by this shift in measure mix.

The significant negative variance between ev aluated and planned lif etime 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 perc ent change in lifetime demand savings is explained by lower summer demand savings. Th e 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 eval uated and planned non-electric benefits is attributable to the shift from pr opane 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. Howeve r, nearly half of the homes completed were electrically heated and around 10 percent heated by propane. Th is 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 th e 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 Retrof it and Residential High Efficiency Heating and Water Heating programs. However, the fi ndings 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 mo re detail in Section III. 2. The Massachusetts New Homes with EN ERGY 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 EN ERGY STAR® Program Estimated Maximum Potential Savings from Enhanced Complian ce with the IECC 2009 Re sidential Building Code in Massachusetts: This study estimated the poten tial savings for the years 2011,2012, and 2013 that might be achieved through promoting compliance with the newlyadopted IECC 2009 energy code for four meas ures—wall insulation, basement insulation, proper insulation of ducts in unconditioned space s, and fifty percent high efficacy lamp requirement—in order to provide needed gui dance 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 discu ssed in more detail in Section III. 4. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology St udy for Residential Programs – Suggested Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this st udy was to develop approaches forCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 18 of 164

consideration by the PAs for estimating net pr ogram impacts for the Massachusetts PA’s residential programs. The results of this st udy did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This study is discussed in mo re 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 valu e 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 be nefits and BCR is due to higher costs and lower benefits versus plan. The lower benefits are driven by the f act 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 Cooli ng & Heating Equipment program was to raise residential consumer awareness and market share of properly in stalled 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 im provements in operational systems in existing homes (new equipment/old systems). The pr ogram also targeted HVAC contractors and technicians; suppliers, manufactur ers, and distributors of HVAC equipment; new-home builders; and remodeling contractors.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 co mmon 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 circ uit 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 residentia l new construction and MassSAVE

programs:

● Participating residential new constr uction program builders and their HVAC contractors were referred to the COOL SMART Program for training and QIV. Whenever appropriate, these training we re 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 e quipment installation and performance.

● The program continued to use equipment di stributors 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 Ja nuary 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011).

Table II.A.5. provides information on the perf ormance of Residentia l 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 Preliminar y % 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 be nefits 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 dema nd savings, summer demand savings and winter demand savings were all significan tly higher than planned. The pr imary 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 savi ngs and winter demand savings as the demand savings for this measure are relatively high compar ed to other measures offered by the program.

Also, interest in ECM furnaces was significantly lo wer, 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 incr ease 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 dete rmine the following: program processes, implementation strengths, and areas for improvements; program tracking data sufficiency; contractor practices, perceptio ns, and participation barriers; customer behavior, motivations, awareness, and satis faction; program outre ach and recruitment efficacy; and participants’ potential changes in fa n 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 St udy for Residential Programs – Suggested Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this st udy was to develop approaches for consideration by the PAs for estimating net pr ogram 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 mo re detail in Section III.

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluati on 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 di scussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change fr om Planned section above applies.

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, Net Be nefits and BCR is due to significantly higher demand savings and higher non-elec tric 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 opportuniti es in facilities with five or mo re residential dwelling units in the non-low-income sector.

Targeted Customers: This program targeted residential f acilities with five or more dwelling units.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 WaterCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 22 of 164

Envelope End Use Behavior

Delivery Mechanism: The program was administered cooperat ively by the gas and electric PAs. The Multi-Family Market Integrator, implemente d in July 2010, was res ponsible for facilitating the delivery of program services as well as acting as the conduit th rough which participant questions and concerns were direct ed 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011).

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

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 ResultsCape 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 al l 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 ha ve many traditionally defi ned Residential MultiFamily customers in its territory (for exampl e, high rises and apartm ent complexes). The majority of the Cape Light Compact Reside ntial Multi-Family customers are condominium

owners.

While condominiums are defined as Resident ial 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 w ithin the MassSAVE program. Additionally, there are significant barriers for c ondominium owners to navigate as in many cases they need to involve the condominium associat ion in the decision making pro cess in order to implement a majority of the weatherization measures. In an effort to serve interested customers, the Cape Light Compact provided servic es through its MassSAVE Program. These participants, along with any costs and savings associated with th eir projects, are reporte d within the MassSAVE program. This explains much of the va riance in costs and benefits from plan.

Also, delays in vendor selection and finalizati on 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 se rved by the gas PA. All of these factors drove lower than anticipated participation, and as a re sult 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 be nefits that were planned for this program.

Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary

There are no impact evaluation studies that appl y to this program. As a result, there is no variance in the Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary.

The following are the process, market characteriza tion and baseline studie s that apply to this program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results.

1. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology St udy for Residential Programs – Suggested Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this st udy was to develop approaches for consideration by the PAs for estimating net pr ogram impacts for the Massachusetts PA’s residential programs. The results of this st udy did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This study is discussed in mo re 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 evaluati on studies that apply to this program, there is no difference between the Evaluated Results % Change from Pl anned and the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned. As a result, all of the di scussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change fr om Planned section above applies.

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, T RC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR is due to significantly lower partic ipation 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 en ergy efficiency upgrades.

Targeted Customers: The customers targeted by the program were all non-low-income residential customers living in single-family hous es or one- to four-un it multi-family buildings, regardless of heating fuel, who were committed to making their homes more energy efficient.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 Residentia l Management Committee (“RMC”). The RMC actively managed and steered the statewide Ma ssSAVE program. Program vendors, selected through a competitive bidding process, delivered this program.

In order to increase the number of energy effi ciency contractors, the program offered an incentive/rebate to contractors who installed retr ofit weatherization measures such as insulation and air sealing.

Customers were required to have a site visi t, conducted by the PA’s vendor, to identify and prioritize all cost effective energy efficiency upgra des 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 wasCape 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 st andards or similar standards set by the PAs.

In addition, and consistent with the Green Co mmunities Act, the HEAT Loan program provided qualified customers with zero percent interest lo ans up to $15,000 with terms up to seven years.

The RMC members worked together towards a “b est practices” approach to provide a more coordinated statewide training as a means to ensure correct installation techniques for the Residential Conservation Servi ces (“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 in tegral 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions 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 Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 pa rticipation stemming from unfavorable economic conditions. As a result, in October 2010, th e Cape Light Compact filed its 2010 Mid-Year Revisions (D.P.U. 10-106) notifying the Depa rtment that it was likely that the MassSAVE program would be 20% or more under budget and savings for the ye ar. 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, dur ing 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 Comp act’s attention to creating and implementing a market model. By this time, customer interest in this program had ra mped up significantly due to seasonal increases that are seen on a yearly ba sis. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the direction and outcome of program design ch anges, the Cape Light Compact was compelled to manage the risk involved in the program ch anges. 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 theCape 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 cons ideration 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 im pacted by any additional outreach efforts in 2010.

Additionally, as a part of the 2010 Mid-Year Re vision 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 2010 7 , revenues were also lower-than-planned. Due to the under-collection in the Residential sector 8 , the Cape Light Compact will not be carrying over any of the unexpe nded 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 signifi cant variances as thought at the time of the 2010 Mid-Year Revisions filing. Lower than anticipa ted program costs per pa rticipant drove lower than anticipated program costs. As mentioned above, customer interest ramped up in the latter half of 2010. However, the proj ects did not achieve the same dept h as anticipated, likely due to economic conditions. In the absence of signi ficant 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 pr ogram design changes requ ired that the Cape Light Compact act prudently and manage the pr ogram 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, th e Cape Light Compact did not spend its program budget, and therefore it did not ge nerate the savings and benefits that were planned for this program. The significant variance in lifetime ener gy savings and average m easure life is due to the shift to lighting, domestic hot water instant savings measures (s uch as low flow showerheads, faucet aerators and pipe and tank wraps) a nd programmable thermostat measures from refrigerators, weatherization measures and heatin g system replacements. In this way, the Cape Light Compact was able to meet its annualized energy savings goal wh ile not exhausting the total budget. Summer and lifetime demand savings were particularly imp acted 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-Ye ar Electric Energy Efficiency Plan Budg et 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-Ye ar Electric Energy Efficiency Plan Budg et 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 Apr il 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 coinciden ce factors such as refrigerators and toward measures with lower summer coincidence factors su ch as lighting. Non-electric benefits were particularly impacted by the shift away from me asures with non-electric benefits, such as weatherization measures and heating system repl acements 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 hi gher winter coincidence (such as programmable thermostats and domestic hot water instant saving s 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 fact ors for many measures, including:

o Free ridership rates for CFLs, refr igerators, 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 spillove r rate for insulation. The implementation of these study results drove a significant increa se in lifetime demand savings. This is due primarily to the in crease in non-particip ant spillover for the insulation measure. This study is disc ussed 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-elec tric impacts include the gas, oil, and propane savings claimed through the measures installed through the electric program. The memo recommends that PAs use vendor es timated data to calculate non-electric impacts. As the Cape Light Compact alr eady 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 par ticular focus on identifying similarities and differences in the perspectives and assumpti ons of program staff, implementation staff, and customers regarding program goals, desi gn and implementation across the PAs. The process evaluation has no impact on the evalua ted results. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 2. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology St udy for Residential Programs – Suggested Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this st udy was to develop approaches for consideration by the PAs for estimating net pr ogram 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 % Ch ange from Planned and Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned. This differenc e 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 Cost s, Net Benefits and BCR is due to the fact that projects were less comprehens ive 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 be nefits of purchasing ENERGY STAR® qualified lighting products, and expand the availability, consumer acceptance, and use of high-quality energy-efficient lighting t echnologies and controls.

Targeted Customers: This program targeted a ll residential customers.

Definition of Pr ogram Participant: Estimated number of uni que households served by the

program. 9

Targeted End-Uses: Lighting

Delivery Mechanism: A manufacturer/retailer outreach contra ctor recruited and trained retailers to participate in the program; placed point -of-purchase materials and rebate coupons in participating retail stores; overs aw the Negotiated Cooperative Prom otions (“NCP”) process; and acted as a liaison for PAs, ma nufacturers, and retailers.

A rebate fulfillment contractor collected data and payment requests from manufacturers, retailers, and consumers; processed rebate c oupons 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 pr ocessed 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 su mmed 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011).

Table II.A.8. provides information on the pe rformance of the EN ERGY STAR® Lighting

program.

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 spec ialty bulbs. As a resu lt, the quantities for specialty bulbs are significantly lower than planned. In summary, as a result of lower than anticipated participation, the Cape Light Co mpact could not spend its program budget, and therefore it did not generate th e 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 th at some of the variance in sa vings and benefits metrics was offset by a correction to planni ng assumptions that was made in the preliminary and evaluated results. The Cape Li ght Compact changed in-service rate s from 80% and 50% respectively for specialty and hard-to-reach bulbs after confirming that other PAs di d 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 ra tios for standard CFLs and sp ecialty CFLs. Due to the fact that the evaluation re sults for the hard to reac h lighting component were inconclusive, a net-to-gross ra tio for hard-to-reach CFLs wa s negotiated and agreed to by the EEAC Consultants and the PAs. The im plementation of these study results did not result in any significant change in the Ev aluated 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s that apply to this program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results.

1. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology St udy for Residential Programs – Suggested Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this st udy was to develop approaches for consideration by the PAs for estimating net pr ogram 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 Cost s 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 elect ronics, promote higher efficiency standards forCape 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 a ll residential customers.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 contra ctor recruited and trained retailers to participate in the program; placed point -of-purchase materials and rebate forms in participating retail stores; ove rsaw the Negotiated Cooperative Program (“NCP”) process for televisions; and acted as a liaison fo r PAs, manufacturers, and retailers.

A rebate fulfillment contractor collected rebate forms from consumers, data and payment requests from manufacturers a nd retailers; processed reba tes and NCPs, and provided documentation to the PAs for program tracking and evaluation purposes.

For advanced power strips, an Internet/mail- order sales channel cont ractor developed and distributed the catalog; purcha sed and stocked products offere d 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

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

program.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 33 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 signif icant positive variance from pla nned 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 wa s only one retailer in Cape Light Compact territory participating in the program and the meas ure launched in October 2010.

The program cost per participant was higher du e to a shift in measure mix from room air conditioners and smart strips to refrigerators. Refrigerators ha ve a higher incentive ($50) as compared to room air conditioners ($35) and sm art 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 pla nned costs, the program did not serve as many participants as planned due to the fact that th e total program costs were signif icantly higher per participant.

Annual and lifetime energy savings were significan tly higher than planned due to higher than anticipated interest in refriger ators and TVs. Summer demand savings were significantly lower than planned due to the shift from r oom 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 sign ificant change in Evaluated Results % Change from Prelimin ary. While the decrease in savings and benefits for refrigerator recycling and freezer recycling were significant at the measure level, these measures represented a relative ly small proportion of the total measures installed by this program in 2010. Conseque ntly, the impact of the reduction in the savings for refrigerator and fr eezer 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s that apply to this program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results.

1. Cross-Cutting Net-to-Gross Methodology St udy for Residential Programs – Suggested Approaches (Final): The primary objective of this study was to develop approaches for consideration by the PAs for estimating net pr ogram 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 Pl anned 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 Co sts and Net Benefits is due to greater-thananticipated interest in measures that genera lly 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 pe rformance 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 pe rcent of total on-site energy use through deep retrofits of existing residentia l buildings and to identify incremental savings and how to reduce the costs and challenges associat ed 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 th e initiative is cost-effective.

Targeted Customers: The pilot targeted home-owners, prop erty owners, and property managers considering renovations and willi ng to invest in extensive carbon reductions. In addition, the pilot targeted advanced building remodelers, ar chitects, designers, trad e allies, and others involved in renovation or restorat ion 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 assist ance to the Deep Energy Retrofit contractors performing the work was handled th rough technical specialis t contractor, program manager and organizations under contract a nd/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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.A.10. provides information on the perfor mance of the Deep En ergy Retrofit Pilot.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 36 of 164

Value % Change from Planned Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 progr am costs are significantly lower than planned due to lower participation than anticipated. The Cape Light Compact planne d for six participants in 2010. 10 Although, the Cape Light comp act did have a lot of intere st in this pilot in 2010, homeowners did not seem to fully understand that this was a major undert aking 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 cont ributed 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 pilo t, there are no evaluated savings or benefits to report.

The following are the process, market characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 actiona ble findings and recommendations aimed at increasing customer and contractor particip ation, as well as refi ning pilot program’s delivery. As the investigations progressed, e ffort 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 prescr iptive paths for deeper measures within homes. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III.

b. Residential New Constructi on & 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 e fficient 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 in itiative is cost-effectiv e. 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® Pr ogram. This pilot combines elements of the Residential New Construction Program (for th e 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 or der to better understand the existi ng structure. Recommendations were provided to the homeowner for the existi ng 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.A.11. provides information on the perfor mance of the Residential New Construction & Major Renovation – Major Renovation Statewide Pilot.

Value % Change from Planned Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 progr am costs are significantly lower than planned due to lower participation than anticipate d. The Cape Light Co mpact planned for 110 participants 11 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 di d not have enough interest and participation in 2010 to draw conclusions as to why participation was significan tly 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 grea tly impacting participation. There are several reasons for the recent reduction in renovation market opportunity. EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule 12 (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 proj ects include an addition of 500 sq. ft. or more is a barrier to participation. There are few renovation pr ojects 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 us e 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 p ilot has been extended in order to include enough projects at the statewide level to generate a statistica lly significant sample.

There is also no non-impact evaluation study that applie s to this pilot program.

c. Residential New Construction - Mul ti-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 encour ages 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. Therefor e, the Cape Light Compact has not developed a participant de finition 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.A.12. provides information on the perfor mance of the Residential New Construction – Multi-Family (4-8 story) Statewide Pilot.

Value % Change from Planned Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 ResultsCape 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 s upports this statewid e pilot, Cape Light Compact does not have enough Multi-Family (4- to 8-st ory) homes in its serv ice territory to be ab le 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 Cons truction Pilot Interim Findings: This report presents preliminary findings from interviews with the two Sponsors of the Pilot, and two individuals representing the th ree projects that completed in 2010. The objective of the interviews was to address several process eval uation issues such as the Pilot’s goals and objectives, the process of signing up and comp leting verification, outreach and the types of projects served, the measur es covered, the measures installed, barriers to energy efficient multi-family new construction, and sati sfaction. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III.

d. Residential New Construction - Li ghting Design Statewide Pilot

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study : The PAs worked with lighting designers and build/design teams to identify cr eative 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 th e 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.A.13. provides information on the perfor mance of the Residential New Construction - Lighting Design Statewide Pilot.

Value % Change from Planned Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 progr am costs are significantly lower than planned due to lower participation than anticipate d. The Cape Light Co mpact planned for 10 participants 13 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 di d not have enough interest and participation in 2010 to draw conclusions as to why participation was significan tly lower than planned. However, it seems that lighting design is already being addressed as a pa rt 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 a pplies to this pilot progr am. As this pilot is currently undergoing evaluation, there are no evaluated savings or benefits to report.

There are no process, market characterization an d baseline studies that apply to this program.

e. Residential New Constructi on - 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 Vers ion 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 th e 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 th e 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.A.14. provides information on the performa nce of the Residential New Construction V3 - ENERGY STAR® Homes Statewide Pilot.

Value % Change from Planned Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 s upported this statewide pilot, it did not actually need to allocate any budget to this pilot in 2010. The Cape Light Compact expe cted 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 fina lized 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 di fferent than to versionCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 45 of 164

2, the Cape Light Compact determined that versi on 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 proj ects are small, as one home was completed in 2010. As a result, the Cape Li ght 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 in2011 as shown in its 2011 MidTerm Modifications filed in October 2010. Fu rthermore, the Cape Light Compact does not anticipate allocating budget to this pilot in 2012 as shown in it s original Three-Year Plan filing.

There is no impact evaluation study that applies to this pilot program.

The following are the process, market characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 builder s in the program, as well as recruit new builders, as ENERGY STAR® Version 3 requirem ents 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 th e 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 Progr am 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.A.15. provides information on the performa nce of the Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot.

Value % Change from Planned Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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

Units Performance Category

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 partic ipants were planned 15 and two units were installed in 2010 in cu stomers’ homes. Due to the f act that the evaluated cost per participant was similar to planned costs, total pr ogram 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 an d 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 ga in insight to behavioral aspects of energy use. The Compact identified 91 participants on Cape C od and Martha’s Vineyard and installed an inhome energy monitoring system in each particip ant’s home. The monitoring system enables the participant to view thei r 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 al so part of a social networking system with other pilot members.

In March of 2010, an independent third party evaluation was co mpleted of Phase I that was included in the Cape Light Compact’s 2009 Annua l 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 savi ngs. On average, customers sa ved 9.3 percent, controlling for temperature differences and for ot her 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 suppleme nted its review of th e Pilot program with qualitative in-depth interviews of ten participants. The in terviews were conducted by an independent third party and disc ussed primarily participant’s t houghts and patterns of interaction with the monitoring system and their feedback re garding 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 particip ants are motivated to stay enga ged with the sy stem over longer periods of time and provide further ev idence to the evalua tion’s conclusions.

As a result of the findings in the report and fo llow up interviews, the Compact extended the pilot by offering Phase II in 2011. Phase II of the pi lot includes both residential and commercial participants. The purpose of Phas e II and its associated evaluati on 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 associ ated 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. On ce 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 re sidential and commercial end-uses through either motivating customers to change th eir behavior to save energy or to take energy saving actions.

Delivery Mechanism: The Cape Light Compact and its im plementation 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011).

Table II.A.16. provides information on the pe rformance of the Power Monitor Pilot.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 49 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 progr am costs are significantly lower than planned due to lower Phase II incentive costs in 2010 th an anticipated. Phase II did not launch until 2010 was nearly over as the Cape Light Compact decide d to leverage the study results from Phase I to inform Phase II. As a result, most of the cost s for Phase II will occur in 2011 rather than 2010, as originally planned.

Savings and benefits data for Phase II is not prov ided as the level and pe rsistence 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 resu lts in the summer of 2012. Based on the findings from the evaluation, the Cape Li ght Compact will decide whether or not to include Power Monitor as a part of its progr am offerings in its 2013 – 2015 Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan.

The following are the process, market characteriza tion and baseline studie s that apply to this program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results.

1. Findings from In-Depth Interviews with Sm art Energy Monitoring Pilot Participants: The purpose of the study was to supplement fi ndings from the first evaluation of the PilotCape 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 (Cap e Light Compact-specific)

Description of Pilot/Specific Activities Intended to Study: The Cape Light Compact’s Residential Home Automation Pilo t 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 in itiative 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 poten tial 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 disc overed that while the t echnologies did exist, they did not meet the basic requirements for the pilo t, 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011).

Table II.A.17. provides information on the perf ormance of the Home Automation Pilot.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 51 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 budge ted $10,800 for this pilot, this pilot was not launched during the program year due to unforeseen circumstances that occu rred over the course of the year. During the planning stage, the Ca pe Light Compact identif ied a potential partner with a low-cost home automation installation produc t 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 ba sic requirements for th e pilot, as it did not have the features that the Cape Light Compact was interested in tr ying out with customers. As a result, the Cape Light Compact di d 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 an d 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 r ecognized leader in the design and implementation of its energyCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 52 of 164

education programs. As a unique energy efficien cy administrator and municipal aggregator, the Compact strives to support the community in effo rts to encourage the development of deeper and broader knowledge of energy efficiency tec hnology 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 th e school population through its innovative programs (please see the table in Appendix E.5 for more detail). Highli ghts of these programs included:

● Over 100 education based presentations, fiel d 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 Seni or 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 “k ids as teachers” model where high school and middle school students were trai ned and studied to present in formation on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and related topics to younge r 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 collabor ation with the NEED of Manassas, VA, a 501 (C)3 non-profit educational organi zation affiliated with the Depart ment of Energy in Washington DC. Using a model for scienc e-based facts, the Cape Light Compact and NEED created curriculum materials to align wi th the MA state standards fo r science and technology, allowing teachers to introduce lesson plans discu ssing energy efficiency and conservation.

B. Low-Income Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2010 the Cape Light Compact implem ented the following low-income programs 16 :

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 pr ovide summary information on the performance of the lowincome programs at the sector, end us e, 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 Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 pr ograms 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 cau se 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 mo re 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 a pply to the Low-Income sector programs. As a result, there is no change in the Evalua ted Results % Change from Preliminary.

Evaluated Results % Change from Planned

Since there are no impact evaluati on studies that apply to the Lo w-Income sector programs, there is no difference between the Evaluated Results % Change from Planned and Preliminary YearEnd Results % Change from Planned. As a resu lt, all of the discussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned se ction 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 UsesCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 56 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d 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 dr ive 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 th e market for new homes and or major renovations.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions 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 gr ant from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust’s Green Afford able Housing Initiative, to be used for the development of affordable housing utilizing gree n design. With this grant money, the Compact assisted builders in the development of 12 Lo w-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 Affordab le Housing Initiative was implemented from 2008 – 2010.

Table II.B.4. provides information on the perf ormance of Low-Income Residential New Construction.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 58 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 Evaluated Results Preliminary Year-End 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 affo rdable home completions than anticipated and 2) the fact that the homes in the program we re built to higher perfor mance 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 pa rticipation. However, the continuation of federal and state support for affordable new cons truction enabled more affordable homes to be built than planned in 2010. Since evaluated partic ipants were significantly higher than planned participants, evaluated total program cost s were significantly higher than planned.

Additionally, the homes were built to higher e fficiency 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 assume d 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 Pla tinum standard, the highest level of LEED-H achievement. This contributed to significantl y higher evaluated lifetime energy savings, annualCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 59 of 164

energy savings, lifetime demand savings, summe r demand savings and winter demand savings and non-electric benefits, as compared to plan ned. 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 mo re detail in Section III. 2. The Massachusetts New Homes with EN ERGY 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 EN ERGY STAR® Program Estimated Maximum Potential Savings from Enhanced Complian ce with the IECC 2009 Re sidential 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 result s of this study did not impact the 2010 evaluated results. This st udy is discussed in mo re detail in Section III. 4. Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Process Evaluation of the Four to Eight Story Multi-Family New Cons truction Pilot Interim Findings: This report presents preliminary findings from interviews with the two Sponsors of the Pilot, and two individuals representing the th ree projects that completed in 2010. The objective of the interviews was to address several process eval uation issues such as the Pilot’s goals and objectives, the process of signing up and comp leting verification, outreach and the types of projects served, the measur es covered, the measures installed, barriers to energy efficient multi-family new construction, and sati sfaction. 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 presentsCape 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 pilo t and considered enrolling in the pilot, but decided not to enroll. The obj ective 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 particip ation 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 builder s in the program, as well as recruit new builders, as ENERGY STAR® Version 3 requirem ents 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 evaluati on 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 di scussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change fr om Planned section above applies.

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Co sts, Net Benefits and BCR is due to higher participation and the achievement of higher performance standard s 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 Fa mily 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 liv ing in one- to four-unit dwelli ngs who are at or below sixty percent (60%) of the state median income level.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 BehaviorCape 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 ve ndor 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.B.5. provides information on the performa nce of Low-Income 1 to 4 Family Retrofit.

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % 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 th an planned due to a shift to more comprehensive visits geared towards serv ing customers in one year instead of over theCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 62 of 164

course of multiple years. As a result, fewer pa rticipants were served with the program budget 17 as compared to plan.

The significant decline in lifetime energy sa vings, annual energy savings, lifetime demand savings, summer demand savings and winter demand sa vings relative to plan is due to the use of a deemed savings value for weatherization measur es 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 calculati ng gross savings. Therefore, the Cape Light Compact relies on the deemed savings values to pl an 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 unders tated, given that the program has changed over time to allow higher incentives in order to trea t each unit more comprehensively and generate greater savings per unit. Since most of the Ca pe 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 w eatherization leads the implementation vendor to focus on lighting and app liances 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 need s to be rectified. Th e 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 m easures in the 2012 TRM – Plan Version.

Despite the fact that similar pr ogram 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 be tween the perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, and cu stomers 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 ev aluated 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 evaluati on 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 di scussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change fr om Planned section above applies.

The significant variance in TRC Benefits and Ne t 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-F amily 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 per cent 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-pr ofit entity or a pub lic housing authority.

Targeted Customers: Residential customers on the low-inco me 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 Pr ogram 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 cooper atively 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions 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 perfor mance of Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit.

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 significan t negative variances for all cost , savings and benefits metrics relative to plan. Although ther e were higher variances for savings than costs, the program remains cost-effective.

In the three-year plan, the implementation vendo r had several challenges, including an influx of ARRA funding, a new focus on Multi-Family pr ograms (where Single-Family has been the primary focus), and increased program funding. Inorder to better affect the Low Income MultiFamily program, the implementation vendor hi red a Multi-Family assessor who has recently come up to speed. Additionally, th e Cape Light Compact anticipated more units in the effort to serve all fuels, but it could not serve gas custom ers 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 appl y 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s 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 be tween the perspectives and assumptions of program staff, implementation staff, and cu stomers 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 evaluati on 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 di scussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change fr om Planned section above applies.

The significant variance in TRC Benefits, TRC Cost s, 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 & Industr ial Sector Programs

1. Summary

During 2010 the Cape Light Compact implemented the following C&I programs 18 :

● 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 pe rformance 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 Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 hist ory of significant variances be tween 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 si gnificant 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, savi ngs 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 pr ogram particularly challenging.

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

Within the C&I sector, the following programs ar e 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 deta iled discussion of the cause of the variances for this program.

● C&I Large Retrofit (for TRC Benefits, T RC Costs, Net Benefits and BCR): Please reference section II.C.b for a more detailed discussion of the cau se 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 f act 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 th e discussion regarding significant variances from the Preliminary Yea r-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 UsesCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 69 of 164

Value % Change from Planne d 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, buildi ng design and systems in new construction and renovation of commercial, industr ial, institutional and government facilities. Focusing on offering a comprehensive set of electric and gas e fficiency 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 progr am was all time-dependent gas and electric energy efficiency opportun ities 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 Pr ogram 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 mark et and implement the program as a unitary statewide effort to maximize the acquisiti on of potential energy savi ngs (gas and electric) in the ongoing market for new facilities and replacement e quipment 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 Janua ry 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 Revi sions filing approved in D.P.U. 10-106 on January 10, 2011.

Table II.C.4. provides information on the perf ormance 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 Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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
Evaluated Results Preliminary Year-End Results Planned

Value Performance Category Units

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

Despite the fact that there were more participan ts 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, whic h is a component of the C&I New Construction and Major Renovation program , was well subscribed by customers. Cool Choice incentives per customer are s ubstantially lower as compared to other new construction projects.

Also, lifetime and annual energy savings were significantly lower th an 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 mi x from lighting measures to heating, ventilation and air conditioning and motors and drives measures. Lighting typicallyCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 72 of 164

has a lower cost per kWh saved whereas he ating, 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 hea ting, ventilation and ai r conditioning end use experienced a significant increa se in cost per kWh of energy saved relative to the plan yet were still cost-effective and achie ved deeper savings for customers.

Lifetime demand savings, summer demand savi ngs 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, ventilati on 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 c ontribute the majority of non-elec tric 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 Ne w Construction Market Characterization - Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs’ Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation: This study estimated the energy savings asso ciated with the changes to a high bay lighting market in Massachusetts and assesse d the attribution of these changes (i.e. market effects) to the PAs’ energy efficien cy programs. Specifi cally, the study supplied high bay lighting participant spillover rate s 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-p eak realization rates that we re 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 pr ogram. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 3. National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachuset ts 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 m easures 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 eff ect 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 ener gy realization rates and summer coincidence factors by region that th e Cape Light Compact used to calculate Cape Light Compact-specific energy realiz ation rates and summer coincidence factors that were applied to unitary HVAC measures. Th e 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-p eak kW and winter on-peak kW reductions for Custom projects in the Comprehensive en d-use category. As the Cape Light Compact did not have any Custom CDA in stallations in 2010, this stud y had no impact on results. This study is discussed in mo re detail in Section III.

The results from the 2010 Commercial and Indus trial Electric Programs Free-Ridership and Spillover Study drove the high nega tive Evaluated Results % Change from Preliminary for lifetime and annual energy savings. The primary reas on for this is that free ridership rates for all end uses increased significantly as a result of th is study, whereas the changes from other studies were not as significant. While participant spillo ver 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 eno ugh to offset the signific ant negative impacts of the free ridership rates in the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Elec tric 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 us es as a result of the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-ridership and Spillover Study.

● Energy realization rates increased for cu stom HVAC measures as a result of the Impact Evaluation of 2009 Cust om HVAC Installations Study.

● Energy realization rates increased for unita ry HVAC measures as a result of the C&I Unitary HVAC Load Shape Project Study.

The following are the process, market characteriza tion and baseline studie s that apply to this program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results.

1. FINAL Commercial New Construction Custom er Quantitative Profile Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a sp ecific market area in enough detail that the program planne rs and administrators can us e the information for improving program implementation.” The principa l objectives of the Commercial New Construction Customer Quantitative Profile are to: develop a comprehensive characterization of the large C&I new construc tion market in Massac husetts, in terms ofCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 74 of 164

building type, size, ownership, geographic loca tion, chain or franchise status, and energy use; assess how the trends for large C&I proj ects have changed over the past 15 years; and characterize the presence of the PAs new construction proj ects 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 mark et segments. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 2. Supply Chain Profile Project 1A New C onstruction Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Ch aracterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the information fo r improving program implementation.” The principal research objectives of the New Construction S upply Chain Profile are to: characterize the design, engineering, and cons truction management firms involved with recent large commercial construc tion projects in Massachusetts; characterize the design and specification practices with regard to en ergy efficiency; assess changes in design and specification practices as a re sult of contact with the pr ogram; and assess awareness and participation in new construction programs of fered by the PA’s. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 3. Final Report Project 1B Chain & Fr anchise 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 im plementation.” The principal research objectives of the Chain & Franchise (“C&F”) Market Characterization are: characterize the C&F market in Massachusetts, including es timates of size and key segments (big box, retail, restaurant, etc); identify the key d ecision-maker at C&F customers and the major barriers to the adoption of energy efficien cy measures; understand the decision-making process, in particular free -ridership, regarding energy effi ciency at C&F businesses in Massachusetts and in comparab le non-program states; assess the current level of program participation and methods to increase partic ipation; and identify the opportunities for increased energy efficiency through on-site inve ntories of building sh ell characteristics, end use technologies, and missed opportunities. This study is di scussed in more detail in Section III. 4. Final Report Project 1C Combined He at & Power Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Ch aracterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the information fo r 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 proc esses used by potential CHP customers including reasons customers elect to inst all 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 incl uding 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 ke y factors that dissuade potential customers from evaluating CHP technologies or ha ve led customers who evaluated CHPCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 75 of 164

technologies to decide not to install i t; estimate CHP opportunities by key market segments and provide PAs with a list of custom ers 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 de livery of Massachusetts C&I energy efficiency programs that would be applicable to multiple programs. Issues that the PAs and the EEAC were particularly intere sted in included how to increase program participation levels, how to obtain deeper en ergy savings from energy efficiency projects, how to improve the integrati on 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 met hods for estimating what would have happened absent C&I programs in Massachusetts. The ne t program effect is the observed effect, less the estimate of what w ould have happened absent the program. The objectives of this study were to develop a standardizedmethodology for situations where C&I endusers are able to report on program impact s 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 Desi gn Approach Process Evaluation: This process evaluation had two research objectives. The first was to examine whether the Comprehensive Design Approach (“CDA”) trac ks that are being delivered by National Grid, Western Massachusetts Electric Co mpany (“WMECo”) and NSTAR are meeting their primary goals. These primary goals are to: 1) maximize energy and demand reduction in new construction proj ects; 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 targ ets smaller buildings within the commercial new construction market and aims to simplify and expedite the participation process by using standardized incentive and savings assump tions. In order for customers to receive monetary incentives thr ough the AB track, they must incorpor ate 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 appl y 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 in crease in cost per energy saved as by impact evaluation study results. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Pre liminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned is similar to the Ev aluated 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 impact ed by shifts in measure mix. This is demonstrated by the fact that most of the Evalua ted Results % Change from Planned is from the Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned.

Overall, TRC Benefits, Net Benefits were signifi cantly 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 st ill significant due to scaled back project scopes. Variances in benefits were substa ntially higher than va riances in costs, but the program remained cost-effective due to th e fact that the planned BCR for th is program was relatively high.

b. C&I Large Retrofit

Purpose/Goal: The C&I Large Retrofit program focu sed on comprehensive gas and electric energy efficiency opportunities associated with mechanical, electrical, and thermal systems in existing commercial, industrial, governmental and institutional bui ldings. Through this program, technical assistance and incentives were provided to encourage retrofitting of equipment that continued to function, but was out dated and inefficient, and coul d be replaced with a premium efficient product. In addition, this program he lped participants identify specific peak load management opportunities and assisted occ upants in improving their ongoing operation and maintenance practices.

Targeted Customers: The target market for this program was all non-residential customers - commercial, industrial, gove rnmental, and institutional.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 implementa tion 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, a nd 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 Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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 typica l for multi-year projects that are common in this program, many of the low cost measures are implemen ted in the first year of the project as these generate quick customer payback. As a result, su bsequent years of the project have higher costs because the types of measures installed in subs equent 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 pa rticipant increased relative toCape 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 pe r kWh of energy saved across most government end uses, specifically in th e heating, ventilation and ai r 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 projec ts for these same customers addressed measures with a higher cost per kWh of saved energy.

● Second, there was a shift in measure mix fr om lighting to heati ng, ventilation and air conditioning, and motors and drives. Am ong the customers served this year, the measures with a low cost per kWh of en ergy saved such as lighting, have already been addressed. Additional projects for th ese same customers addressed measures with a higher cost per kWh of saved ener gy, such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning and motors and drives. As a result, the program generated significantly lower evaluated savings as compared to pl an using a budget that was not significantly different from planned.

In contrast, non-electric benefits we re 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 Ne w Construction Market Characterization - Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs’ Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation: This study estimated the energy savings asso ciated with the changes to a high bay lighting market in Massachusetts and assesse d the attribution of these changes (i.e. market effects) to the PAs’ energy efficien cy programs. Specifi cally, the study supplied high bay lighting participant spillover rate s 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-p eak realization rates that we re 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 pr ogram. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 3. National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachuset ts 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 thatCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 79 of 164

were applied to custom and prescriptive m easures 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 eff ect 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 Co mmercial and Industrial lighting load shapes and coincidence. The study supplied summer and wi nter 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 mo re detail in Section III. 5. Impact Evaluation of 2008 and 2009 Custom CDA Installations: The study supplied realization rates for annual kWh, summer on-p eak kW and winter on-peak kW reductions for Custom projects in the Comprehensive en d-use category. As the Cape Light Compact did not have any Custom CDA in stallations in 2010, this stud y had no impact on results. This study is discussed in mo re detail in Section III.

The combined impact of the studies listed a bove did not have a signi ficant impact on energy savings, demand savings or non-electric savings for this program. This is primarily due to the fact that the free ridership im pacts from the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-Ridership and Spillover St udy were not as pronounced as for the C&I New Construction and Major Renovation program.

The following are the process, market characteriza tion and baseline studie s that apply to this program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results.

1. FINAL Commercial New Construction Custom er Quantitative Profile Project 1A New Construction Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a sp ecific market area in enough detail that the program planne rs and administrators can us e the information for improving program implementation.” The principa l objectives of the Commercial New Construction Customer Quantitative Profile are to: develop a comprehensive characterization of the large C&I new construc tion market in Massac husetts, in terms of building type, size, ownership, geographic loca tion, chain or franchise status, and energy use; assess how the trends for large C&I proj ects have changed over the past 15 years; and characterize the presence of the PAs new construction proj ects 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 mark et segments. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 2. Supply Chain Profile Project 1A New C onstruction Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Ch aracterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the information fo r improving program implementation.” The principal research objectives of the New Construction S upply Chain Profile are to:Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 80 of 164

characterize the design, engineering, and cons truction management firms involved with recent large commercial construc tion projects in Massachusetts; characterize the design and specification practices with regard to en ergy efficiency; assess changes in design and specification practices as a re sult of contact with the pr ogram; and assess awareness and participation in new construction programs of fered by the PA’s. This study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 3. Final Report Project 1B Chain & Fr anchise 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 im plementation.” The principal research objectives of the Chain & Franchise (“C&F”) Market Characterization are: characterize the C&F market in Massachusetts, including es timates of size and key segments (big box, retail, restaurant, etc); identify the key d ecision-maker at C&F customers and the major barriers to the adoption of energy efficien cy measures; understand the decision-making process, in particular free -ridership, regarding energy effi ciency at C&F businesses in Massachusetts and in comparab le non-program states; assess the current level of program participation and methods to increase partic ipation; and identify the opportunities for increased energy efficiency through on-site inve ntories of building sh ell characteristics, end use technologies, and missed opportunities. This study is di scussed in more detail in Section III. 4. Final Report Project 1C Combined He at & Power Market Characterization: The overarching objective of all LCIEC Market Ch aracterization studies is: “To define the attributes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the information fo r 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 proc esses used by potential CHP customers including reasons customers elect to inst all 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 incl uding 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 ke y factors that dissuade potential customers from evaluating CHP technologies or ha ve led customers who evaluated CHP technologies to decide not to install i t; estimate CHP opportunities by key market segments and provide PAs with a list of custom ers 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 de livery of Massachusetts C&I energy efficiency programs that would be applicable to multiple programs. Issues that the PAs and the EEAC were particularly inte rested in included how to increase program participation levels, how to obtain deeper en ergy savings from energy efficiency projects, how to improve the integrati on 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 met hods for estimating what would have happened absent C&I programs in Massachusetts. The ne t program effect is the observed effect, less the estimate of what w ould have happened absent the program. The objectives of this study were to develop a standardizedmethodology for situations where C&I endusers are able to report on program impact s 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 Desi gn Approach Process Evaluation: This process evaluation had two research objectives. The first was to examine whether the Comprehensive Design Approach (“CDA”) trac ks that are being delivered by National Grid, Western Massachusetts Electric Co mpany (“WMECo”) and NSTAR are meeting their primary goals. These primary goals are to: 1) maximize energy and demand reduction in new construction proj ects; 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 targ ets smaller buildings within the commercial new construction market and aims to simplify and expedite the participation process by using standardized incentive and savings assump tions. In order for customers to receive monetary incentives thr ough the AB track, they must incorpor ate 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 de livery of Massachusetts C&I energy efficiency programs that would be applicable to multiple programs. Issues that the PAs and the EEAC were particularly inte rested in included how to increase program participation levels, how to obtain deeper en ergy savings from energy efficiency projects, how to improve the integrati on 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 info rm the policy debate for statewide programs in Massachusetts and to support fourth quart er 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 appl y 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 imp act 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 bene fits were impacted to a far greater extent by a higher cost of saved energy than planne d and different measure mix than by impact evaluation study results. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Pre liminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned is much higher than th e 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. Vari ances in TRC Costs relative to plan were not as high, but still significant. Even though significantly lower sa vings were generated from a budget that was not significantly different from the plan, the pr ogram 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 retr ofit services to busine ss customers on a turnkey basis using the same delivery m odel throughout the Commonwealth.

Targeted Customers: While 2010 stood as a transition year , all PAs moved to ward targeting direct install retrofit busin ess customers below 300kW.

Definition of Pr ogram 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 comp leting audit forms and questionnaires. In addition the same vendors purchased materials, inst alled measures, inputted data into a database, and prepared progress reports fo r 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 pilotsCape 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 sm all commercial and industrial retrofit program to include cost-effective thermal measures designed to save o il, propane and other unregulated fuels. These cost-effective measures mirrored those technologies identified as gas meas ures including, but not limited to: programmable thermostats, pre-rinse spray valves, pipe in sulation, insulation, air sealing, EMS, hood controls and other cust om measures, as deemed appropriate.

Table II.C.6. provides information on the performance of C&I Small Retrofit.

Value % Change from Planne d Value % Change from Preliminar y % Change from Planne d 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
Evaluated Results Preliminary Year-End Results Planned

Value Units Performance Category

Preliminary Year-End Results % Change from Planned

This program did not spend its budget because ther e 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 pa rticipation and planned participation.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 84 of 164

Energy savings were significantly lower than pl anned. As energy savings were significantly lower than planned, summer and winter demand sa vings 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 typicall y have a lower cost per kWh saved whereas heating, ventilation and air conditioni ng and motors and drives typi cally have a higher cost per kWh saved.

● Third, similar to C&I Large Retrofit, there wa s an increase in cost per kWh of energy saved across many measures. For example, for governme nt 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 en ergy 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 pl an. 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 Ne w Construction Market Characterization - Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Programs’ Large Commercial & Industrial Evaluation: This study estimated the energy savings asso ciated with the changes to a high bay lighting market in Massachusetts and assesse d the attribution of these changes (i.e. market effects) to the PAs’ energy efficien cy programs. Specifi cally, the study supplied high bay lighting participant spillover rate s that were weighted with all lighting participant spillover rates to calculate partic ipant 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. Th is study is discussed in more detail in Section III. 2. National Grid, NSTAR, Western Massachuset ts 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 m easures 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 eff ect 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 realizati on rates and winter coincidence factors for all non-control prescr iptive 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 Co mmercial and Industrial lighting load shapes and coincidence. The study supplied summer coincidence factors for custom and prescriptive, non-control lighting measures. Th e net effect of this study was to slightly decrease summer demand savings. This study is discussed in mo re detail in Section III.

The combined impact of the studies listed a bove did not have a signi ficant impact on energy savings, demand savings or non-electric benefits for this program. This is primarily due to the fact that the free ridership im pacts from the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Electric Programs Free-ridership and Spillover St udy were not as pronounced as fo r the C&I New Construction and Major Renovation program. Als o, energy realization rates incr eased for all prescriptive noncontrol lighting measures due to the Non-Controls Lighting Ev aluation 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 characteriza tion and baseline studie s that apply to this program, but do not impact 2010 evaluated results.

1. Massachusetts Non-Residential Smal l Business Direct Install Program: Multi-Tier Structure Assessment 2010 Process Evaluation: The main objective of the Multi-Tier Program Structure Assessment is to documen t progress towards stat ewide integration of the C&I Direct Install programs during 2010, and to gauge customer interest in different program design options such as varying incenti ve 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 de tail 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 met hods for estimating what would have happened absent C&I programs in Massachusetts. The ne t program effect is the observed effect, less the estimate of what w ould have happened absent the program. The objectives of this study were to develop a standardizedmethodology for situations where C&I endusers are able to report on program impact s 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 info rm the policy debate for statewide programsCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 86 of 164

in Massachusetts and to support fourth quart er 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 appl y 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 imp act evaluation studies is not significant.

Energy and demand savings and NEBS were impact ed 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 Evalua ted 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. Varian ces in TRC Costs relative to plan were also significant due to lower than anticipated participa tion and cost per particip ant. As both benefits and cost declined commensurately relative to th e 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 detail ed 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 L ocation of Complete Study in Annual
R e p

ort Docket & Exhibit Approving Planned
E valuation Studies Implemented as Approved?

( y

es/no) Residential Program Studies
Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR Estimated Maximum Potential Savings from Enhanced Code Compliance with the IECC 2009 Residential Buildin g

Code in Massachusetts App. C, Study 1

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR
M

y

ster y

Sho pp

in

g App. C, Study 2

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR Program 2011 Baseline Phase 1: Completion of Plannin g 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 Re p

ort App. C, Study 8

Massachusetts Appliance Turn-in Program Evaluation
Inte g

rated Re p

ort Findin g

s 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 Pro g

rams 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,
E xhibit 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 L ocation of Complete Study in Annual
R e p

ort Docket & Exhibit Approving Planned
E valuation Studies Implemented as Approved?

( y

es/no) Residential Pilot Studies
Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrofit and Low Income Evaluation – Dee p

Ener gy

Retrofit App. C, Study 13

Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STARProcess Evaluation of the Four to Eight Story MultiFamil y

New Construction Pilot Interim Findin g

s App. C, Study 14

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR Program Major Renovations Pilot Evaluation: Preliminar y

Re p

ort on Non-Partici p

ant Interviews App. C, Study 15

The Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY
STAR Pro g

ram 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,
E xhibit 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 A nnual Report (cont'd)

All Studies are pending approval of

the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit 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 L ocation of Complete Study in Annual
R e p

ort Docket & Exhibit Approving Planned
E valuation Studies Implemented as Approved?

( y

es/no) Commercial & Industrial Program Studies Non-Controls Lighting Evaluation for the Massachusetts Small Commercial Direct Install
Pro g

ram 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-ridershi p

and S p illover Final Re p

ort 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 Methodolo gy

Stud y

Final Re p

ort App. C, Study 34

Prescriptive Condensing Boiler Impact Evaluation
Pro j ect 5 Prescri p

tive 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 A nnual Report (cont'd)

All Studies are pending approval of

the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010); some studies were initiated prior to the MTM filingCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 90 of 164

Studies L ocation of Complete Study in Annual
R e p

ort Docket & Exhibit Approving Planned
E valuation Studies Implemented as Approved?

( y

es/no) Special & Cross-Sector Studies Industry Practices and Policies on Energy Efficient
Pro g

ram 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,
E xhibit 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

y

et una pp

roved Table III.A: Evaluation Studies in A nnual 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 th rough promoting compliance with the newlyadopted International Energy C onservation Code (“IECC”) 2009 en ergy code for four measures (wall insulation, basement insulation, proper in sulation 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, subc ontractors, and code o fficials as the potential savings presented in the report focus on homes that do not partic ipate in the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Program.

Programs to which the Resu lts of the Study Apply :

● Residential New Construction & Ma jor 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 traini ngs on these marketing strategies.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction & Ma jor 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 th e 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 sale s 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 e qual, 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 in spection stages of an ENERGY STAR home. This will ensure that agents have a be tter 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 attendi ng the various inspection stages, agents are likely to gain a better unders tanding of the tec hnical 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 wi ll 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 appl iances, heating and cooling equipment, lighting and electronic pr oducts 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 se ssion (these were the only attendees that had suitable homes fo r sale at the time of the visits ). All ten agents visited were ranked on a scale of zero to te n, where zero was “not at all w illing or knowledgeable” and ten was “extremely willing or knowle dgeable” in the following four areas: knowledge of energy efficiency, knowledge of ENERGY STAR® certifica tion, willingness to use energy efficiency as a selling point, and willingness to use ENER GY 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 adopt ed and are being inco rporated into the program through continuation and enhan cement 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 st udy will include on-site inspections of 100 nonENERGY STAR® homes built to meet the ne w IECC 2009 code, which became mandatory inCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 93 of 164

Massachusetts on July 1, 2010. The re sults of this study will be us ed to update the baseline or User Defined Reference Home used in calculati ng Program savings and to assess building code compliance at the beginning of a code cycle.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction & Ma jor 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 pl anning 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 Retr ofit 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: pr ogram processes, implementation strengths, and areas for improvements; program tracking data sufficiency; contra ctor practices, perceptions, and participation barriers; customer behavior, motiv ations, awareness, and satisfaction; program outreach and recruitment efficacy; and participants’ potential changes in fan use, from pre- to post-installation.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● Residential Cooling and Hea ting 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 woul d 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 participat ion 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 nonpart icipating (in the COOL SMART BFM program component) HVAC contractors; and surveys with particip ating 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 evalua tion 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 appropriat e data is colle cted. If the data is captured early on this could potentia lly minimize data requests and on-site visits to customer homes.

2 The PAs, together with the implementa tion vendor and other trade allies, including HVAC distributors, will explore market opportunities and implementation strategies to enhance co ntractor participation.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 4.

5. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retrof it 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 pr ogram data across PAs.Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 95 of 164

Programs to which the Result s 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 a nd in collaboration with PAs, vendors, and program contractors. Clear protocols for a nd 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 custom er’s home, uniform across all PA territories. These would include how jobs are presented to contractors, contractors’ responsib ilities, 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 el iminate barriers and im prove participation rates. The Cadmus team suggests expanding th e existing financing opt ions 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 hi storic 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 th at includes all field definitions, value definitions, and the sources of the data. The data dictionaries should be provided as part of all data requests, a llowing evaluators (or a ny other third-party) to decode field names and data values effi ciently. The data dict ionaries would also ensure internal knowledge of the database is not lost in the event of critical personnel

turnover.

• Develop and employ a standardized meas ure naming convention. The Technical Reference Manual (“TRM”) could be used as the basis for standard names. This convention would allow for improved evalua bility 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 strategi es. Although all vendors reported use of a rigorous follow-up procedure, and vendors ensu re customer support is readily availableCape 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 im prove participati on and satisfaction.
6 Consider offering incentives to auditors ba sed on implementation percentages or another participation goal designed to in crease 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 in terviews, a data review, and pa rticipant interviews. Based on information obtained from these stakeholders, th e Cadmus team used its professional judgment and experience evaluating energy efficiency pr ograms 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 sm all 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 a nd reporting guidelines are in place.

2 The PAs have developed consistent statewide material and installati on 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 progra m 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, pa rticipant 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 Result s 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 ParticipantFreeridership Participant Spillover Nonparticipant

Spillover NTG

CFL Direct Installs CFL 22% 19% 0% 97% Air Leak Sealing 7% 0% 0% 93% Direct Installs 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 Ri der (“FR”) and Participant Spillover (“SP”) through surveys of 2010 RCS (electric) and gas Weatherization participants. As shown in Table 1, this anal ysis considered all program measures. A survey of 1,200 electric and 400 gas pa rticipants informed the analysis. 2. Statistical Market Share Modeling. Discrete choice modeling of FR and Non Participant Spillover (“NPS”) used 400 gas Weatheri zation participant and 400 nonparticipant surveys. This analysis did not include th e 1,200 electric participants surveyed in fall 2010, as the questionnaire used was not de signed for these models. The 2010 NTG analysis also focused on insu lation and duct sealing/duct insu lation (collectively referred to as insulation), the most importantmeasures in terms of savings. 3. Trade Ally Research. Interviews with more than 30 insulation contractors focused on participant and nonpartic ipant insulation installations, a nd 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 empl oyed. The estimates were developed using a triangulation process, incorporat ing the Cadmus teams’ experien ce, 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’ re view 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 we re defined as program-driven effects on the consumption of energy other than electricity, su ch 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 av ailable PA program data and secondary sources to assess the reasonableness of the current values.

Programs to which the Result s 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 valu es 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 participan ts realizing NEIs. These are primarily from program homes for which the primary space heating fu el is neither electricity nor natural gas. An independent assessment of NEI estimat es 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® Li ghting 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 w ith assessing the PAs’ cu rrent working definition of HTR customers and understanding market se gmentation 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 Result s of the Study Apply:

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Li ghting Program (Electric)

Results of the Study and How the St udy 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 evaluato rs 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, a nd 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 Ma ssachusetts ENERGY STAR® lighting program and trends in NTG ratios for Massa chusetts 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 estimat es after reviewing the responses of their fellow panelist. The final NTGR estimates from the Delphi panel se rve as the evaluation-recommended NTGR. The methods did not provide conclu sive evidence to support a reco mmendation 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 update d 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 Prog ram 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 deri ved by applying participant-reported decision behavior about program influence and usage patt erns to gross savings estimates from studies conducted in other areas. These gross and net sa vings 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 progr am functions in the ov erall appliance market.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● Residential ENERGY STAR® Appliances (Electric)

Results of the Study and How the St udy 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 Associati on of Home Appliance Manufacturers. The second methodology applied Mass achusetts’ refrigerator characteristics to the DOE-based model utilized by Cadmus in th eir 2010 evaluation of th e California Appliance Recycling Program. Under each of the NMR met hodologies, UECs were adjusted to account for partial use, equipment replacement, and free ri dership, values that were derived from theCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 101 of 164

participant survey. While the pr ogram 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 primar y units. The study revealed that each type of recycled unit had a differe nt energy savings profile.

Process related conclusions are based on the part icipant survey, depth in terviews 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 removi ng 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 veri fication of eligibility) or alternatively, opening up the program to in clude primary fridges.

3 Consider partnering with major retaile rs to market and implement the program . Major retailers could promote the program in thei r 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 pic kup 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 addi tional 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 de cision making for initiating the removal and recycling of an appl iance through the program. 5 Adjust goals to reflect demographics of the residential customer base for each Sponsor— S

ervice areas in NSTAR and Western Massach usetts Electric have a large number of apartments and multi-family homes and resident s typically do not have areas where they can keep second refrigerators, such as baseme nts or garages. Adju sting 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 re frigerators and stand-alone freezers. The program helps customers get rid of the applia nces before they might do so on their own. Reductions in energy bills and the particip ation incentive are additional bonuses forCape 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 cons umers to keep their secondary appliances, and marketing the program to residents f aced with these barriers might allow the Sponsors to collect additional units that woul d not otherwise be removed from the grid. 8 Continue promoting the progr am through existing channels— The Sponsors’ communications network to customers th rough 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 app liance, 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 av erage listing price on Cr aigslist 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 th eir 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 envir onmental benefits they generated— It should also be emphasized that appliances will be recycl ed 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 Impa ct 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 re tailers in the past but have not had much success with retailers embraci ng this program as many/most retailers have pickup/recycling programs of their own in whic h they charge customers for picking up appliances and, therefore, make a profit. The PAs will continue to investigate whetherCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 103 of 164

other retailers are willing to pa rtner with us on this program.

4 JACO (the recycling vendo r) currently has a missed appoint ment 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 previ ous year’s results.

6 All of the print marketing materials (the pr imary 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 ha ul it away for FREE.” There is potential to highlight this benefit more prominen tly and the PAs will look into that, where possible.

8 The PAs will continue to promote the progr am through existing channels. Some PAs have supplemented their program with additi onal marketing to help lift participation (NSTAR purchased billboards, transit advert ising and sent out a direct mail piece to 50,000 customers. NSTAR & NGRID are al so purchasing radio advertising).

9 All of the PA’s advertising currently high lights 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 consid ered. It seems that the majority of listings on Craigslist are priced significantly higher than the progr am’s incentive and this may not be a good use of time and money.

11 Environmental benefits are cu rrently highlighted in most of the PAs marketing materials as the ads state, “Plus, recyc ling that fridge will keep 10 t ons 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 Methodol ogy 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’ residentia l programs by reviewing the revised methodology report for C&I programs (2010) and adapting the decision fram ework and methodology guidelines to programs targeted to residential customers. The study t eam 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 Result s of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction & Ma jor Renovation (Electric and Gas)

● Residential Cooling & Hea ting 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 a nd 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 program s, focusing on program elements most relevant to methodological decisions regard ing the estimation of net effect s. As part of the program review, the study team reviewed the three-year plans and inform ation collected from the PAs by the NMR team and interviewed PA staff about th eir 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 cont ext of the residential programs), the evaluation developed suggested approaches for considerati on 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 adopt s 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) Fact ors for the Massachusetts Program Administrators (PAs) 2010 Reside ntial New Construction Programs, Residential HEHE 19 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 Massac husetts PAs in identifying a reasonable estimated NTG fact or 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 Result s of the Study Apply:

● Residential New Construction and Ma jor Renovation (Electric & Gas)

● Residential Heating a nd 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 Spillove r: 0 .14 (Residential) Furnace/ECM furnace—HEHE Spillover: 0.19 (Residential) Insulation NTGR 0.8 (Multifamily) Programmable thermost ats NTGR 0.88 (Multifamily) 0.42 (Residential) Misc water heating equi pment 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 f ilings, and Market Effects studies to develop the

19 HEHE is an acronym for the Residential High Effi ciency 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 ea ch 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 Impa ct 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 progr am: (1) from program implementation and delivery perspectives including program staff, im plementation contractors, circuit riders, supply houses, rebate processors, and participati ng and nonparticipating heating and plumbing contractors; and (2) from end use customer pe rspectives including program participants and nonparticipants.

Programs to which the Resu lts of the Study Apply:

● Residential Heating a nd 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 repl acement of newer, less efficient boilers

4 Continue to nurture relationship with contra ctors because of the key role they play in customer education and energy-efficien t equipment purchase and installation. i. The program should evaluate the potentia l savings from offering an installation incentive to contractors for adhering to energy-efficient criteria for equipmentCape 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 a nd participants on correct usage of ECM furnace fans, and check settings during verification visits. iii. The HEHE program can further increase its value to cont ractors 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 nonpa rticipating contractors. Approaches to doing so could include:

o Facilitating program partic ipation by older contractors. Examples of approaches might be to have exhibi ts at trade shows that demonstrate installations of high-efficiency syst ems, 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 frequenc y of educational offerings. 5 Conduct a survey of distributors in HEHE st ates and elsewhere to get a better estimate of market-level sales by efficiency leve l, 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 c ontractors, circuit riders, and supply houses / big box stores; and telephone surveys of HEHE progr am participants from the 2007- 08 and 2009 program years, oilto-gas conversion customers including HEHE participants and nonparticipants, general population program nonparticipants, participa ting and nonparticipati ng contractors, and contractors attendi ng 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 st udy affect gas PAs only.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 12.

13. Massachusetts 2010 Residential Retr ofit 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/implementer s with actionable findings and recommendations aimed at increasing customer and contractor pa rticipation, as well as refining pilot program’s delivery. As the investigations progressed, effort focused on identifying information to aid inCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 108 of 164

formulating a consensus about the pilot’s missi on and goals, rather than fine-tuning delivery mechanisms.

Programs to which the Result s 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 a nd implementation team (both of which could include PA members) and refocusing the resear ch on activities that will lead to a scalable program. Resolving some inherent policy i ssues and establishing a pathway to lowering costs and overall cost-effectiven ess 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 d eep retrofits: Two po ssible solutions are:
Partial deep retrofits. Identify a DER track that meets the needs of customers who are prepared for a major project bu t are not willing or able to commit to all the requirements of a comprehensive DER project. This c ould be accomplished by providing incentives for deep retrofits of one building system at a time, possibly when nor mal 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 cu rrent 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 opport unities 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 pa rticipating customers (including in process, completed and drop-out participants), fifteen contr actors, and nine stakeholders. Pilot material was reviewed, including marketing material, websites, and project files. Based on the information obtained, the Cadmus team used ev aluation 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 viableCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 109 of 164

initiative as a stand-alone program or for its co mplex measures to be incorporated into existing programs going forward. The Cape Light Compact s upports the idea of furt her research in this area to better quantify incremental costs of thes e deeper savings measures and to focus on what can be done to reduce the costs associated with co mplex efforts such as th is. Future study should provide PAs with data on the true incremental cost s, as well as quantific ation of all the program benefits (energy, non-energy, and other resour ces) 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 EN ERGY STAR® Process Evaluation of the Four to Eight Story Multi-Fam ily New Construction Pilot Interim Findings (Study 14)

Type of Study: Process

Objective of the Study: This report presents preliminary fi ndings from interviews with the two Sponsors of the Pilot, NSTAR a nd National Grid, the Pilot’s ch ief project manager, and two individuals representing the th ree projects that completed in 2010. The objective of the interviews was to address several process eval uation issues such as the Pilot’s goals and objectives, the process of signing up and comple ting verification, outreach and the types of projects served, the measures covered, the meas ures 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 additio n of all applicable measures in their projects.

Programs to which the Result s 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: Pre liminary 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 Ho me Energy Assessment Program for existing homes and the Massachusetts New Homes with ENERGY STAR® Pr ogram. This report presents preliminary findings from interviews with seven homeowners and one builder who had projects eligible to participate in the pilot and cons idered 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 thei r suggestions for how to make participation in the pilot more user-friendly for homeowners.

Programs to which the Result s 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 th e 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, re gardless 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 Result s 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 Versi on 3 requirements separate, to the extent possible. Interviewed builders who attende d training covering both topics found it confusing. 2 Focus builder training on the new Therma l 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 e quivalent material. HERS raters say builders are trying out different approaches for meeti ng this requirement. It may require the sheetrock crew to come back a second time, which is costly and impacts the construction schedule. EnergyComplete TM 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 availabl e online to view at their convenience. For all training, interviewees stressed the importance of us ing trainers who have extensive hands-on experience. Also, encourage HVAC contractor s to take advantage of other available training options: Air Conditioning Contractors of America and supply houses offer several training options to help contractors in terested 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 ST AR® Quality Installations. 4 Include HERS raters in any program s ponsored HVAC contract or training: The interviewed HVAC contractors a nd 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 thei r 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 par ticipation 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 re quirements. Hitting builders with two cost increases at the same time may ne gatively affect participation.

How the Study Came to the Recommended Conclusions: Recommendations are based on findings from in-depth interviews conducte d with 17 builders, 11 HERS raters, 10 HVAC contractors and one HVAC distributo r. Interviewees included all six builders who participated inCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 112 of 164

the Pilot and the HERS raters they worked wit h, as well as two of th e 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 ve rsion of the EPA ENER GY STAR® Homes program. Version 3 is an option of the Massachusetts Resi dential New Construction program for interested

customers.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 16.

17. Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavi oral Process Evaluation (Study 17)

Type of Study: Process and Impact

Objective of the Study: This study is the first annual pr ocess evaluation of Massachusetts behavioral programs under the three-year Massac husetts 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 Gr id’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 port ion of the evaluation include:

● Assess program characteristics that may lead to greater savings

● Determine specific actions taken as a resu lt of the Home Energy Report (“HER”) – including conservation behaviors an d direct measure installations

● Identify other effects from behavioral progr am efforts (increased awareness of energy efficiency options, ch anges 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 thre e-year Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Program Evaluation plan. The study objective is to examin e the National Grid HER program’s ability to generate residential electric and gas savings among targeted Massachusetts’ customer households.

Programs to which the Resu lts of the Study Apply: This study applies to two National Grid program efforts:

● OPOWER Electric Program

● OPOWER Gas ProgramCape 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 reco mmendations in three areas: (1) planning and policy, (2) program implementation, and (3 ) monitoring and eval uations. Additional analysis supporting the recommendations can be found in “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Ev aluation 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 de sired, two-three m onths 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 mo re household-specific information.

• More actively promote the website and in crease 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 de veloped 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 anal ysis 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 numb er 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 particip ant and 501 control group households. The telephone survey was designed to understand differences in energy efficiency and conservation behaviors among participants, co mpared with control group members, based on participant exposure to the Home Ener gy Report for approximately one year. 3. In-home ethnographic research : In-home ethnographic resear ch was conducted with 11 participant households. Th e 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 in tentions in direct re sponse to the report, and suggestions for report content and delivery.

Detailed process evaluation research methods a nd sampling are described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavioral Program Evaluation Vo lume 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 th e Study Determined those Results:

OPOWER Electric Program: Electric pilot households aver aged 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 prog ram. 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 ot her programs. This e quates to a total of 248,257 therm savings across all house holds in the pilot cohort.

Net program savings were determined by conducti ng billing analysis to estimate annual electric and therm savings. Average annual net savings at tributable to the behavioral program were determined using a linear fixed effects regression analysis of customer billing data that included billing data from behavioral program participan ts (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 Progr am Evaluation Volume I.” For the National Grid gas pilot, a channeling anal ysis was conducted wher e net program savings determined by billing analysis we re adjusted by factoring out deem ed savings values counted in other National Grid programs. The savings values cited here reflect only those program savings directly obtained by th e OPower Program, factoring out savi ngs jointly attributable to the OPower program and other energy efficiency programs. This adjustment is described in SectionCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 115 of 164

4.5 of “Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Behavior al Program Evaluation Volume I.” Percent savings are determined by calculating average a nnual 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 Behavior al 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 contai ns 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 percen t per program participant

MMBtuBASE = Baseline consumption of MMBtu

The results of this study are used to update the energy savings per cent per participant ( %SAVE ) that are used to calcu late 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 Volu me II.” Note that th e ex post savings value ( ∆ MMbtu) used to calculate percent savings ( %SAVE ) factors out deemed savings values counted in other National Grid programs, as explained ab ove 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 appl y 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 

## ( ) ) (% SAVE kWh kWh BASE = ∆

) )(% ( SAVE MMBtu MMBtu 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 pr ogram data across PAs.

Programs to which the Result s 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 fundi ng and resource management, PAs and lead Community Action Program (“CAP”) agency could increase comm unication 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 st andardization and integration objectives for the program. Once the definition of standa rdization is communicated and agreed upon, strategies should be determ ined for meeting those objectives over a specified time period. This will ensure all stakehol ders work toward commonly agreed upon objectives, and enhance progress toward meeting objectives to be measured.

3 The PAs should strongly consider all opti ons for creating a streamlined, independent, third-party QA/QC process th at serves the needs of the PA-funded program, while minimizing participant intrusion. Such a pr ocess 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 progr am’s QA/QC process w ith that proposed for the Home Energy Assessment program. This does not necessaril y 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 da tasets that includes all field definitions, value definitions, and the sources of the data. The data dictionaries should be provided as part of all data request s thereby allowing evaluators (or any other third-party) to decode field names and data values efficiently. Th e data dictionaries would also ensure internal knowle dge of the database is not lo st in the event of critical personnel turnover. Once crea ted, 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 po ssible. If such data dictionaries do not exist, the Data Management Working Group es tablished as part of the 2011 Residential Retrofit and Low Income evaluation could assist with their creation.
5 The PAs should ensure the coll ection and availabili ty 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 standa rd set of critical audit data fields be entered into an electronic format and ma intained/archived for future internal and external use. The PAs should collaborate wi th the CAPs and the evaluators to identify valuable audit information not currently maintained electronically.

7 The PAs should also explore the potential of having fiel d technicians use electronic hardware (a PDA or laptop) to collect and en ter 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 databa se design best practices.

8 The PAs should work collaboratively on integr ation of a common Meas ure ID system to allow tracking of each installed measure from the participant tracking database to the BCR input sheet and to the TRM. In a ddition, PAs should develop and maintain standardized ID fields (standardized inte rnally, not across PAs) linking data across programs, customers, contra ctors, and billing data.

9 Through a collaborative process with the PA s 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 de velop standard names and codes. A naming convention would allow for faster and mo re 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 a nd 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. St arting 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 ini tiated 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 us e of handheld devices for auditors. Due to the high cost and since some of the audits requiri ng 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 In stall 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 Result s 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 a nd 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 syst em files to make documentation, technology and quantity adjustments, as well as incorporati ng 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 Impa ct of the Study on the PA’s Programs : The results of this study are used to update uncontroll ed 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 th e Energy Realization Rate and the Coincidence factors incorpor ate 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 sa mpled sites exhibited seasonal variation in operating hours. PAs el ected to not adopt the calculated summer coincidence factors at this time and are plan ning 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 integrati on of the C&I Direct In stall programs during 2010, and to gauge customer interest in differe nt program design options such as varying incentive levels, zero interest financing, and on-bill financing options. The assessment is also designed to gather information re lated 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 cu stomers and market actors view these changes?

● How is the integration of electric and ga s progressing? What are the challenges? What is being done to overcome them?

● How has the workload of PA program sta ff and vendors changed as integration and standardization of the Small Business Dire ct Install program has moved forward?

● What is the level of program awareness a nd customer satisfaction with the program? What are the barriers to participation and what are the most important factors in participant decision maki ng around participation?

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I Small Retrofit (Electric and Gas)

Recommendations Derived from the Study:
1 Use the Direct Install program facility aud it as a way to disseminate information about other PA C&I programs. In the process, id entify 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 teleph one surveys with participating customers, as well as a review of program materials and in-d epth interviews with PA program staff and vendors. In-depth interviews provided the ev aluation team with a comprehensive understanding of the audit process while a review of program materials further cont ributed to knowledge of what the program currently provides ons ite. The survey with 2009 and 2010 program participants allowed the team to assess the de gree 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 vend ors use to note the ex istence 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 pr ogram participants to undertake additional energy efficiency projects by channeling them to othe r C&I programs. This may be accomplished through a combination of additional process inte rviews 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 th e 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 Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Ma jor 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 followi ng table. For a more detailed discussion please refer to the full report.

1 Based on the modeled approach and the prepond erance of evidence presented in the market effects study, KEMA recommends the electr ic PAs claim untracked spillover energy savings associated with Massachusetts HBL m easures. 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 esti mate of 34 percent of program tracked savings estimated for Wisc onsin in the 2010 Wisconsin HBL study.

Several of the electric PAs are currently cl aiming low levels of pa rticipant 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 inst alled 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 untrack ed 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 track ing 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 Impa ct 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 wi th 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 orde r to determine the factor for a ll lighting measures, the following equation is used:

ALL OTH OTH HBL HBL ALL 

## kWh kWh SO kWh SO SO × + ×

=

Where:

 SO ALL is the final spillover rate for all lighting measures.

 SO HBL is the spillover rate of 39 perc ent resulting from this study for High Bay Lighting measures only.

 kWh HBL is the gross annual kWh savings resulting from High Bay Lighting measure installations.

 SO OTH is the spillover rate for all other Non-High Bay Lighting Measures and is specific to each PA.

 kWh OTH is the gross annual kWh savings resulting from all other NonHigh Bay Lighting measure installations.

 kWh ALL 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 admi nistrator. 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 installati ons and these savings were analyzed as part of this study. None of Unitil’s projects in 2010 included High Bay Lighting in stallations. This calc ulation is therefore unnecessary for Unitil.

The following table shows this calc ulation 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 Retrofi

t Small Business

kWh HBL

765,663 4,933,376 3,645,109 19,438,428 534,105 55,859 1,654,904 0 59,015 76,616 kWh OTH 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 kWh ALL 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 SO HBL

39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% SO OTH

2.40% 16.50% 16.00% 2.50% 4.70% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00% 6.40% SO ALL (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 Mark et Characterization (Study 22)

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Objective of the Study: The overarching objective of a ll LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attrib utes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the info rmation for improving program implementation.” The principal research objectives of the Comm ercial 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, si ze, ownership, geographi c location, chain or franchise status, and energy use. 2. Assess how the trends for larg e C&I projects have change d over the past 15 years. 3. Characterize the presence of the PAs new constr uction 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 Result s 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 Data base 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 cons truction projects that, acc ording to Dodge, have begun construction. A sample of new constructi on projects from the Dodge Database were matched with PA billing data and program track ing 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 a ll LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attrib utes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the info rmation for improving program implementation.” The principal research objectives of the New Construction Supply Chain Profile are:

● Characterize the design, engi neering, and construction management firms involved with recent large commercial cons truction projects in Massachusetts.

● Characterize the design and specification prac tices with regard to energy efficiency.

● Assess changes in design and specification pr actices as a result of contact with the

program.

● Assess awareness and participation in new construction programs offered by the PAs.

Programs to which the Result s 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 approach es such as tiered incentives for higher levels of efficiency. Consider expa nding 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 assi stance offerings by being consistently engaged with project design teams. The im pact 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 un derstanding appropriate high performance building envelope design strategies for th e 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 build ing envelope design, and 2) based on input from the working group, commi ssion a study of advanced building envelope designs beyond what is requi red by code and provide examples of appropriate, high performance designs for Massachusetts. 4 Continue to build upon educational se minars, similar to Advanced Building seminars, to provide education and pr ogrammatic support on integrated design and whole building performance. 5 Streamline the application process by re ducing 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 in cluded the follow re search 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 ar e 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 construc tion 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 & Fr anchise Market Characterization (Study 24)

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Objective of the Study: The overarching objective of a ll LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attrib utes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the info rmation for improving program implementation.” The principal research objectives of the Chai n & Franchise (“C&F”) Ma rket Characterization

are:

1. Characterize the C&F market in Massachus etts, including estimates of size and key segments (big box, reta il, restaurant, etc). 2. Identify the key decision-maker at C&F cust omers and the major barr iers to the adoption of energy efficiency measures. 3. Understand the decision-making process, in pa rticular free-ridersh ip, regarding energy efficiency at C&F businesses in Massachuset ts and in comparable non-program states. 4. Assess the current level of pr ogram participation and methods to increase participation. 5. Identify the opportunities for increased energy efficiency through on-site inventories of building shell characteristics, end us e technologies, and missed opportunities.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Majo r 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 progr am 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 savi ngs estimates for 29 Custom HVAC projects through site-specific inspection, m onitoring, and analysis. The resu lts of this study are the final realization rates for Custom HVAC energy efficiency measures.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Ma jor 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 calculat ed 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 indivi dually for National Grid and NSTAR, and at the statewide level. Site level RRs are determined through site inspection, data collection and engineering analysis. Anal ysis 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 ener gy (“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 H eat &Power Market Characterization (Study 26)

Type of Study: Market Assessment

Objective of the Study: The overarching objective of a ll LCIEC Market Characterization studies is: “To define the attrib utes of a specific market area in enough detail that the program planners and administrators can use the info rmation for improving program implementation.” The principal research objectives of th e Combined Heat & Power (“CHP”) Market Characterization are:

1. Characterize the CHP market includi ng key players and market segments. 2. Understand the decision making processes used by potential CHP customers including reasons customers elect to install CHP, selec tion of specific types or configurations of CHP, and the factors most influencin g 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 cust omers 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 segm ents and provide PAs with a list of customers likely suitable for CHP.

Programs to which the Result s 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 follo wing 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 comm ission CHP systems. The PAs can help insure the Program achieves these goals by taki ng into account the project development timeframes and establishing a “pipeline” approa ch 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”) team s from the different utilities.

3 Focused outreach for under 300 kW. For sites 60 – 300 kW, th e PAs should work with partners to promote the incentive program. Th e 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 understand s that planning for webinar training sessions is curren tly underway via the PA Impl ementers’ CHP Working Group. The evaluation team supports this endeavor and recommends traini ng 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-eff ective execution of both programs. Specific areas of consideration incl ude 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 custom er 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 te rms of number of customers, business types, and equipment size category in the servic e 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 A pproach Process Evaluation (Study 27)

Type of Study: Process

Objective of the Study: This process evaluation had two re search objectives. The first was to examine whether the Comprehensive Design Appro ach (“CDA”) tracks that are being delivered by National Grid, Western Massachusetts El ectric Company (“WMECo”) and NSTAR are meeting their primary goals. These primary goals are to: 1) maximize energy and demand reduction in new construction projec ts; and 2) influence energy effi ciency 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 Ne w 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 en ergy efficiency opportunities are incorporated such that energy use reduction of tw enty percent or more is achieved relative to the requirements of state building c ode. The CDA track also offers financial incentives that are usually larger than those offe red by prescriptive or the trad itional 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 track s 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 mark et and aims to simplify and expedite the participation process by using standardized in centive and savings assumptions. In order for customers to receive monetary incentives through th e AB track, they must incorporate a series of thirteen Core Performance requirem ents into their building designs.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Majo r 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 en ergy 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 deduc t the amount from the final incentive offer. This would relieve the custom er of the burden of facing an upfront cost to participating in CDA.

2 Use a variety of marketing methods to info rm 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 aw areness 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 abou t 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 th e use of the CDA track since they interactCape 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 in to 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 da tabases such as Reed Connect and Dodge, but a centralized repository of in formation does not exist. This type of database would assist AEs in the identif ication and monitori ng of potential CDA participants and would potentially in crease participation in this track.

5 By focusing on educating potential de sign 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 thei r 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, archit ects, and engineers so they ar e aware of the track prior to developing building plans.

7 Create a database, or annual report, of pa st program participan ts 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 data base is created, it can al so be used to track inquiries made by customers about new constr uction program approaches so that these customers can be actively marketed to as well.

8 Divide the rebate payment up into mile stone payments over the course of the project. This recommendation was based on feedb ack 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 w ould be especially useful given the current state of the economy. 9 Rather than assuming the CDA will provide th e largest incentives to customers, the PAs should evaluate the tota l 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 we re actually larger under the alternative program tracks (e.g., AB track and a combina tion of the prescriptiv e and custom tracks) than they were under CDA. 10 Target CDA marketing towards the market segm ents that have historically used and benefited from the CDA as a way to increa se participation in this track. Certain market sectors -- such as schools, unive rsities, hospitals, supermarkets, and biotech/pharmaceutical companies -- participat e in the CDA track more than others. Brochures describing projects specific to these sectors could be create d and distributed to potential participants as a way to show how customers in the same lines of business benefited from addressing energy effi ciency 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 ma ke 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 di d not participate because nece ssary approvals could not be obtained in time to m eet 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 ren ewable 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 da ta tracking systems including storing electronic copies of project documentati on, making CDA reporting more specific, allowing more accessible tracking of measur e-level information, expanding the scope of data tracking, addressing the need for data-e ntry support, and inco rporating the tracking of project leads.

Recommendation Summaries for AB Track

1 Foster personal relationships wi th design teams and customers: An effective implementation plan leverages the str ong awareness among the design community to expand awareness at the customer level. A vital component of this strategy is an established rapport between th e design community and spec ific individuals at the program office. The evaluation team r ecommends the intimate approach used by Efficiency Maine in which they assign 1-2 pe rsons to a given project. This allows the program staff to develop personal rela tionships with program participants and encourages more proactive communications. 2 Take advantage of green marketing opportunities: An effective implementation plan takes advantage of the favorable envi ronment of “green building.” Efficiency Vermont, for example, supports the construc tion of Advanced Buildings with press releases, letters of recognition and NBI cer tification plaques. These elements of green advertising are partic ularly attractive to institutional customers, such as universities, who place significant va lue 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 main taining 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 E fficiency 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 st atus are not linked to thei r respective tracking system, InDemand or eTrack. According to program managers, the progress and status of project leads is documented in a spreadsh eet, 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 regard ing the application process. Therefore an effective implementation strategy shoul d 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 E fficiency Maine staff said they made ease-of-use a selling point for potential customers.

7 Take advantage of American Institut e of Architects (“AIA”) continuing education requirements: An excellent method of engaging the design community is to take advantage of the AIA continui ng education requirements. In order to attract design firms, some implementers offer Advanced Buildings seminars paired with continuing education courses valid fo r credit towards the continuing education requirement. Under the current MassSAVE platform, attendees may earn four AIA Learning Units but are required to pa y $199 per session. PAs should consider waiving this fee in order to increase participation among harder-to-reach firms.

8 Anticipate advancements in co de and standard practice: The New Buildings Institute (“NBI”) – which develops rules fo r 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 learni ng 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 br ought by experienced program staff as a means of attracting design teams to working with the program. 10 Discuss ideas with design team befo re 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 enga ging the customer in significant decisionsCape 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 t ypes, regardless of whether or not the building exceeds stipulated si ze guidelines. The AB track is offered as an option even for those building great er 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 reta ilers with respect to code requirements to identify any bu ildings that are pe rforming below their potential efficiency. If ce rtain big box stores are not using an efficient building design, program staff should investigate the contribut ing factors and explore opportunities for program participation. Pr ogram implementers can exploit these inefficient building designs and possibl y 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 ev aluation team feels that this objective is worth restating in the speci fic 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 progr am managers and staff;

● PA AEs;

● PA technical staff;

● Technical assistance consultants; and

● AB program managers and staff in Massac husetts, Maine, and Ve rmont 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 data bases, program marketi ng 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 fo r adoption at this time. The PAs have not formally adopted or rejected any recommenda tions 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 Cu stom CDA Installations (Study 28)

Type of Study: Impact

Objective of the Study: The objectiv e 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, m onitoring, and analysis. The resu lts of this study are the final realization rates for Custom Comprehe nsive energy efficiency measures.

Programs to which the Result s 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 fi ve 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 insp ection, data collection an d 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 Impa ct of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The results of this study are used to update the real ization 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 Eval uation Final Report (Study 29)

Type of Study: ProcessCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 136 of 164

Objective of the Study: The objective of this process ev aluation 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 th e PAs and the EEAC were particularly interested in included how to increase program participa tion levels, how to obtai n deeper energy savings from energy efficiency projects, how to impr ove the integration of electric and gas energy efficiency programs, and how to increase the ge neral uniformity of pr ogram delivery across the

state.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Majo r 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 f ace-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 interv iewees) 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 encour age customers to install longer-payback measures which are critical to achievi ng the expanded program savings goals. 3 Offer turnkey financing: Nearly all program staff and AE s cited the lack of capital as the primary barrier preventing customers from moving forward with projects. A turnkey financing program to provide financing for e ligible efficiency projects would help C&I customers overcome the important lack-of-capit al barrier. In 2011 th e 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 se ctor (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 th e projects completed by their customers. Although some PAs currently do consider energy efficiency programs in AE performance assessments, it is not tied to a sp ecific energy savings goal. Only one thirdCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 137 of 164

of the AEs reported that the current perf ormance structure clearly motivates them.

7 Systematize the process for making requests for technical assistance: A common complaint among AEs was that te chnical staff members did not reply promptly to their requests for technical assistance. AEs sugge sted establishing a central email inbox that technical staff can access and respond to questi ons. 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 customer s 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 fr om 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 recommendati on three, the PAs are now offering financing mechanisms to help address our customer’s capit al constraints. All ot her recommendations are being considered for adopti on 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 Electr ic Programs Free-Ridership and Spillover Study (Study 30)

Type of Study: Impact

Objective of the Study: The primary objectiv e 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-riders hip, early participant “like” and “unlike” spillover, and non-participant “like” spillover.

Programs to which the Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Ma jor 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-particip ant spillover rates for each PA by end use. The methodology used for this year’s study follo ws the standardized methodology developed in 2010 and 2011 for the Massachusetts PAs for use in s ituations where end-user s 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 PA s’ C&I electric programs and with design professionals and equipment vendors i nvolved 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 Impa ct of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The results of this study are used to calculate the ne t 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 Result s 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 th e survival analysis were also compared with research of secondary sources. Measure lives for each category were al so estimated for two other strata of interest, self-re ported operating hours and building type. All results are presented with a two-tailed error range at th e 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 Impa ct of the Study on the PA’s Programs: The results of this study were compared with existin g 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 en ergy efficiency PAs and stat e regulators. Measure lives developed from these two studies were based on s econdary research of ma nufacturer 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 meas ures in each category that will be affected, differences between new construction versus re trofit 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 th e Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership’s EM&V Forum building upon a 2007 study done for the New England State Program Working Group to develop Commerci al and Industrial light ing 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 variou s 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 Indus trial 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-contro lled 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 Weat her (representing New Hampshire and Maine),Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 140 of 164

and NE-South Coastal (represen ting Rhode Island and Connectic ut). 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 fo r the C&I Small Retrofit program. Results from that study, where metering was conducted during the on-peak wi nter 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 Pr oject 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 Result s of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Ma jor 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 weat her regions in the northeast. These profiles are then used to calculate the Equiva lent 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 m onths of direct on-site energy metering at 511 individual units from May thr ough 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 unde rstand the impacts are described in the TRM. Gross energy and demand savi ngs 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

EE BASE EFLH SEER SEER h kBtu kWh ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− = ∆ 1 1 /



## ( ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− = ∆

EE BASE SEER SEER h kBtu kW 1 1 /

For units with cooling capacities equal to or greater than 65 kBtu/h (all PA’s): 

## ( ) ( )
Cool

EE BASE EFLH EER EER h kBtu kWh ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− = ∆ 1 1 /



## ( ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− = ∆

EE BASE EER EER h kBtu kW 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 territo ry 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 wi ll apply to results for the 2010 and 2011 program years. For program years starting in 2012, the eq uivalent full load hours and coincidence factors determined through this study will be used to calc ulate 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 equi valent 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 Freeri dership and Spillover adjustment, is therefore calculated as. 

## ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) % 08

. 150 777 / kW

h kBtu kWh ∆ = ∆


## ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) % 63

. 54 820

. 0 / kW

h kBtu Summer kW ∆ = ∆

See the TRM for further discussion of this measure and details on the equations used.

National Grid - This study represents the best availabl e information regarding installations in National Grid’s territory for this end use. Na tional 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 fact ors determined through this study will be used to calculate gross savings for installati ons in National Grid’s service territory.

To calculate gross energy savings in 2010, Nationa l 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 c onsolidate the three zones into one National Grid specific value. This calculat ion 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 Freeri dership and Spillover adjustment, is therefore calculated as. 

## ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) % 23

. 125 777 / kW

h kBtu kWh ∆ = ∆


## ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) .% 89 441

. 0 / kW

h kBtu Summer kW ∆ = ∆

See the TRM for further discussion of this measure and details on the equations used.

NSTAR - This study represents the best availabl e 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 measur es studied. These real ization rates will be applied to results for the 2010 program year. For program y ear 2011 and beyond, the equivalent full load hours and coincidence f actors 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 us ed several equivalent full load hour values, depending on the type of installation. The resu lts of this study are eq uivalent full load hour estimations encompassing all installations in the three load zones within Massachusetts. NSTAR’s service territory is contained with in 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 me asures 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 in formation regarding inst allations in Unitil’s territory for this end use. Unitil has used the re sults 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 st udy 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 st udy are equivalent full load hour estimations encompassing all installations in the three load z ones within Massachusetts. Unitil exists entirely within the WCMA load zone and therefore used onl y the results from this zone to calculate all realization rates. This calcula tion 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 Freeri dership and Spillover adjustment, is therefore calculated as. 

## ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) % / yyyy xxxx kW h kBtu kWh ∆ = ∆


## ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) .% 6

. 54 82

. 0 / kW

h kBtu Summer kW ∆ = ∆

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 eval uation study completed in May 2011. That study provides one realization rate for all WMECo H VAC 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 calcu lations instead of a blanket calculation. In addition, WMECo lacks a separate category fo r 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, th e equivalent full load hours and coincidence factors determined through the NEEP study will be us ed 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 Ma ssachusetts. The net program effect is the observed effect, less the estimate of what w ould have happened absent the program. The objectives of this study were to develop a st andardized methodology for situations where C&I end-users are able to report on program imp acts 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 Resu lts of the Study Apply:

● C&I New Construction and Majo r 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 fo r Commercial & Industrial programs.

A copy of the complete study can be found in Appendix C, Study 34.

17. Prescriptive Condensing Boiler Impact Evaluation Projec t 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 si ze categories of prescr iptive condensing boilers installed through the C&I gas programs.

Programs to which the Result s 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 boile rs 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 tele phone and on-site sample interview results to update estimates of site-level savings. The upda ted results were combined in a ratio estimator framework to produce estimates of realiz ation 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 Effi ciency Annual Reports for each of the programs listed above.

Formulas Necessary to Understand the Impa ct 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 th is 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 four th quarter 2010 programmatic planning.

Programs to which the Resu lts of the Study Apply:

● ENERGY STAR® Lighting (Electric)

● Residential Cooling and H eating Program (Electric)Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 148 of 164

● Residential Heating a nd 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 fi ndings without specific recommendations. The key findings indicated that residential incentives and rebates in Massachusetts were not consisten tly 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 Mass achusetts are among the higher incentives offered and are currently under review. Mass achusetts 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 examin ed for lighting were on the low end of lighting rebates offered in other states.

● The Massachusetts small business incentive at 70 percent of instal led cost of existing building projects is higher than two othe r state programs and higher than the cap on custom incentives for large commercial projects.

● Massachusetts rebates appear to be at the hi gh 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 Inte rim Process Evaluation (Study 37)

Type of Study: Process

Objective of the Study: The overall objectives of the evalua tion are to assess the effectiveness of each community-based partnership that falls w ithin 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 struct ure 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 im provement early on. The report also presentsCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 149 of 164

comparative analysis of community-based effo rts under evaluation with the goal of developing best practices for design and impl ementation of such efforts.

Programs to which the Resu lts 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 existi ng resources and ensure that the community group efforts align with partnership goals – while there is no ri ght or wrong model for structuring a community engagement network, it is important to consider the existing infrastructure and the amount of resources re quired 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 e nd and revisiting the existing program designs to ensure that they are anti cipating unique characteri stics 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 implementa tion 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 impr ove 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 co mmunity-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-depthCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 150 of 164

interviews with the PA staff, and in-depth inte rviews 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 overa rching 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 su pplement 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 m onitoring system was brief, and possibly insufficient for some of th e less tech-savvy participants . We suggest an optional follow-up training, possibly a webinar, after pa rticipants have had a little time to become familiar with the website, to help th em 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 partic ipants interviewed expressed interest in using a more detailed sub-circ uit 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 technologi es; 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 (includi ng 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 recommendCape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report, D.P.U. 11-xxx Page 151 of 164

that any future program include feedback m echanisms similar to that of the pilot. Some participants suggested that since th e weekly e-mail from Cape Light Compact is especially salient to them, it could be used to provide supplemental energy saving information and resour ces to participants.

● Solar PV systems. Two participants disc ussed 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 resi dential 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 opport unities when participating in the pilot program. Parents view the program as a teaching opportunity, however, attempts to get children involved were usually shor t-lived and not successful in changing behaviors. Several participants commen ted 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 th e 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 scie nce 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 comple ted 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 P ilot to provide more robust training to participants in Phase II. Also, the da shboard and monitoring system provide the participant direct email acce ss 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 attempte d to include in Phase II of the Pilot, but no respondents to th e RFP offer monitoring systems that areCape 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 expl ore this option and future capability.

● Regarding Recommendation 5: The recommended child friendly mechanisms are not offered in the current version of the da shboard 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 studi es 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?

( y

es/no) Residential Studies Residential Products - Market assessment on CFL use, saturation and re p

orted p urchase behaviors Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes

Residential Products - Shelf stocking survey of MA retailers Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes

Residential Products - Lighting Exploratory Evaluation Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes

Residential Retrofit & Low Income -Impact evaluation of Mass Save program Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Residential New Construction - Major Renovation Pilot Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Residential New Construction - Homebuyer Survey Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Residential New Construction - Assessment of New Technolo g

ies Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes

Residential New Construction - Builder Focus Groups Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes Table III.B: Evaluation Studies in Next Annual ReportCape 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?

( y

es/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,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Small C&I - Lighting Fixture Summer Metering Impact Evaluatio n Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes

Small C&I - Lighting Controls Impact Evaluation Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l 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,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit 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,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Large C&I - CHP Impact Evaluation Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Large C&I - Impact of Gas Training Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l 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?

( y

es/no) Special & Cross-Cutting Studies Phase II: Behavioral Pilots Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Phase II: Community Based Pilots Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Phase II: Umbrella Marketing Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

C&I Net-to-Gross Study Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit C (filed Oct. 2010) Yes

Non-Energy Impacts 2011 - Residential & Low
Income Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes

Non-Energy Impacts 2011 - Deep Energy Retrofit Study is planned but not yet submitted for a pp

rova l Yes

Non-Energy Impacts 2011 - C&I: non-Custom Study is pending approval of the 2011 MTM, D.P.U. 10-147,
E xhibit 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 processe s, 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 su mmarize and compare planned and actual PP&A costs, outsourced activities, a nd budget allocatio n, respectively.

B. Minimization of Administrative Costs

The most significant factor in th e Cape Light Compact’s approach to controlling administrative costs is its active participation in the statewide planning proce ss. While this participation requires a significant dedication of resources, the benefits of co llaborative 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 El ectric/Gas Plans which created the over-arching framework for the Cape Light Co mpact’s individual Three-Year Plan filing. This included a significant commitment to competitive procuremen t and program integration, as well as other design features described in deta il in both the Statewide and Cape Light Compact-specific Plans.

A second factor in the Cape Light Compact’s e fforts 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 Co mpact Board Members bring their expertise to community civic and business ou treach events, through their role on the energy efficiency committee provide guidance to staff on policies and new innovative initia tives, and support the multiple Town Energy Committees so as to in form and encourage participation in energy efficiency program – all through volunteer service at no cost to ratepayers.

The Cape Light Compact continues to be commit ted to managing its energy efficiency programs in the most cost-effective manner possible. T his includes careful atte ntion to controlling administrative costs. All of the PAs recognize th at 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 percen t 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 ActualCape 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 po rtfolio 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 va riance 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 cate gory) 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 ex act cost of EM&V when it filed its plan, it assumed that 4% of its total budget would be sp ent 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 stat ewide 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 pr ovide services more cost effectiv ely than they had estimated at the time the plan was developed.

Conversely, in-house Marketing and Sales, Tech nical Assistance and Training costs were significantly higher than planned as internal resources were leve raged more than planned. The Cape Light Compact did not know the exact in-house costs Mark eting and Sales, Technical Assistance and Training costs that would be need ed when it filed its plan, and the assumptions made did not reflect th e actual requirements.

In terms of the shift from non- competitive to competitive procur ement, 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 f unds shall be allocated to customer classes, including the low-income resident ial subclass, in proportion to thei r contributions to those funds; provided, however, that at least 10 per cent of the amount expended fo r 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 resi dential 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/SessionLaw s/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 pe rformance incentives that each PA proposes to collect. As a public entity and municipal aggr egator, 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 audi ts 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). Ther efore, no audit summaries are provided in this section, and no audi ts 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 pr ovide 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 Activ ities\2010 Annual Report\Cape Light Compact 2010 Annual Report - 8 15 11 Updated FINAL.bcy.docx